McArthur v. McLeod
| Decision Date | 30 June 1859 |
| Citation | 6 Jones 475,51 N.C. 475 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHN A. McARTHUR v. JOHN R. McLEOD et al. |
Although notes and endorsements, as simple contracts require a consideration, it has long been held that they import a consideration prima facie, so as to throw the onus on ther side to shew the want of a consideration.
Where one signs a note in blank and delivers it to another to be filled up and used by him, the party is bound to others, to whom it has come in the course of business, by the note as filled up, just as he would have been, if it had been in full before his signature.
Where a note is given for a real business transaction, although it may be expressed to be payable at a bank, it is nevertheless negotiable in the market generally. It is only restricted when it appears on the paper to be negotiable at a bank, and no where else.
( Ray and Pearce v. Banks and others, 6 Jones' Rep. 118, cited and approved.)
ASSUMPSIT, tried before HEATH, J., at the last Spring Term of Cumberland Superior Court.
The declaration was upon a promissory note for $500, against the maker, and the four other defendants as endorsers, negotiable and payable at the bank of Fayetteville, or at the branch bank of Cape Fear, payable to the defendant McKay. Plea, non-assumpsit. The defendants gave in evidence, that McLeod applied to McKay to endorse a note in blank for him, and that the latter did so on the condition, that it was to be for $500, and was not to be absolute, unless McLeod procured three other endorsers, and had the note discounted at one of the banks mentioned in it. McLeod agreed that he would use the note only in that way, and would procure the three endorsers, and also pay the note at maturity; and McKay then delivered the note in blank to McLeod. The note was afterwards filled up in the hand-writing of the last endorser, Johnson, and the endorsements were filled up by the plaintiff's attorney at the bar. The note was not offered for discount at either of the banks, and soon after maturity it was sued on by the plaintiff, as the endorsee of Johnson. The counsel for the defendants contended, that they were not liable, because it was apparent on the note, that it was to be used only at one of the banks to borrow money, and it had not been so used; and because, according to the agreement between McLeod and McKay, the note was to be so used only, and had not been, whereby McKay was not liable, and the defense enured to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Creasman v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Hendersonville
...upon the one who first reposed the confidence and made it possible for the loss to occur.' Id. at 25, 94 S.E. at 674. Accord, McArthur v. McLeod, 51 N.C. 475; Humphreys v. Finch, 97 N.C. 303, 1 S.E. 870; Furst & Thomas v. Merritt, 190 N.C. 397, 130 S.E. Plaintiff argues that the foregoing d......
-
Piner v. Brittain
...settled that they import a consideration prima facie, so as to throw on the maker the burden to show a want of consideration. Mc-Arthur v. McLeod, 51 N. C. 475; Campbell v. McCormac, 90 N. C. 492. In the latter case Mr. Justice Ashe, quoting from Story and Daniel, says that: "It is wholly u......
-
D.C.N Conservatory Of Music v. Dickenson
...settled that they import a consideration prima facie, so as to throw on the maker the burden to show a want of consideration. McArthur v. McLeod, 51 N. C. 475; Campbell v. McCormac, 90 N. C. 492. In the latter case, Mr. Justice Ashe, quoting from Story & Daniel, says: "That it is wholly unn......
- State v. Christmas