Jackson v. Love

Citation82 N.C. 405,33 Am.Rep. 685
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decision Date31 January 1880
PartiesA. J. JACKSON v. S. L. LOVE and another.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

CIVIL ACTION tried at December Special Term, 1879, of HAYWOOD Superior Court, before Graves, J.

The plaintiff alleging himself to be the owner brings this action to recover the amount due on a note, as follows:

One day after date we promise to pay W. W. Stringfield one thousand dollars, for value received. Witness our hands and seals this 29th Oct., 1872.

+-------------------------------+
                ¦(Signed)¦J. L. LOVE, [seal.]   ¦
                +--------+----------------------¦
                ¦        ¦R. G. A. LOVE, [seal.]¦
                +-------------------------------+
                

The defendants, admitting the execution, deny the plaintiff's title to the note and the moneys due thereunder. On the trial of the issue made by the pleadings, the plaintiff being in possession produced the note and read it as evidence to the jury. No other evidence was offered. The plaintiff's counsel asked the court to charge that the possession and production of the note was presumptive evidence of his ownership, and there being no rebutting testimony he was entitled to a verdict responding in the affirmative. The court declined to give the instruction, and charged that the defendants having in their answer denied the plaintiff's ownership, it devolved on the plaintiff to prove that he was the real party in interest, and no such presumption would arise. Upon this intimation the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit and appealed.

Messrs. Marcus Erwin and W. H. Malone, for plaintiff .

Messrs. J. L. Henry and A. W. Haywood, for defendants .

SMITH, C. J.

The only question presented in the record is this: Does the possession of an unendorsed negotiable note or bond raise a presumption that the person producing it is the real and rightful owner, and entitled to the moneys due from the defendants, the promisors?

It is settled upon ample authority that the possession of a note endorsed in blank or payable to bearer is presumptive evidence of title in the holder, and the rule extends to a case where there are subsequent endorsements which he may strike out. Picruet v. Curtis, 1 Sumner, 478; Warren v. Gilmore, 15 Maine, 70; 1 Danl. Neg. Inst., § 812; Pom. on Rem. and Rem. Rights, § 140.

In Pettie v. Prout, 3 Gray, (Mass.) 542, an action was brought on a note payable to the Chester Iron Works, of which plaintiff was the general agent, ““or bearer,” and, with a view to use a set-off, the defendant contended that the note belonged to the company. The note was exhibited on the trial by the plaintiff, without further evidence. SHAW, C. J., thus declared the doctrine: “When the plaintiff brings the note declared upon in his hand and offers it in evidence, this is not only evidence that he is the bearer, but also raises a presumption of fact that he is the owner, and this will stand as proof of title until other evidence is produced to control it.”

This and the other decisions referred to are based upon the principles of commercial law, that govern and regulate the transfer of negotiable securities, in the interests of trade and to facilitate and render safe, dealings in such paper. Will the same inference be drawn from possession in favor of a person, not the payee, holding an unendorsed note, under the statute which requires that “every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest,” with an exception inapplicable to the present case? C. C. P., § 55.

In Andrews v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Darden v. Boyette
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 30 Octubre 1957
    ...speaks of the Bass note and the Stevens note. Clyde Darden was the same person as J. C. Darden. It is true that we have held in Jackson v. Love, 82 N.C. 405, that the possession of an unendorsed negotiable note or bond, not payable to bearer, raises a presumption that the person producing i......
  • Liberty Central Trust Co. v. Union Trust Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 12 Noviembre 1925
    ...... certificate be negotiable or nonnegotiable, and in our. opinion the judgment should not be disturbed. Norton on Bills. and Notes, 14; Jackson v. Love, 82 N.C. 405, 33 Am. Rep. 685; Bank v. Bynum, 84 N.C. 24, 37 Am. Rep. 604; Havens v. Potts, 86 N.C. 31; Kiff v. Weaver, ......
  • Plummer v. Park
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 16 Octubre 1901
    ...estate. Possession of the note and mortgage was evidence of ownership (Collins v. Gilbert, 94 U. S. 753, 24 L. Ed. 170;Jackson v. Love, 82 N. C. 405, 33 Am. Rep. 685;Perot v. Cooper, 17 Colo. 80, 28 Pac. 391, 31 Am. St. Rep. 258;Rubey v. Culbertson, 35 Iowa, 264;Bank v. Burgwyn, 108 N. C. 6......
  • Liberty Cent. Trust Co v. Union Trust Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 12 Noviembre 1925
    ...be negotiable or non-negotiable, and in our opinion the judgment should not be disturbed. Norton on Bills and Notes, 14; Jackson v. Love, 82 N. C. 405, 33 Am. Rep. 685; Bank v. Bynum, 84 N. C. 24, 37 Am. Rep. 604; Havens v. Potts, 86 N. O. 31; Kiff v. Weaver, 94 N. C. 274, 55 Am. Rep. 601; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT