North Carolina Nat. Bank v. Corbett, 192
| Decision Date | 27 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 192,192 |
| Citation | 271 N.C. 444,156 S.E.2d 835 |
| Parties | NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL BANK, v. Alva V. CORBETT, Administratrix of the Estate of J. N. Corbett, and Alva V.Corbett, Individually. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Robert Calder, Wilmington, for defendant appellant.
Marshall & Williams, by Lonnie B. Williams, Wilmington, for plaintiff appellee.
The sole question discussed in appellant's brief and on the oral argument is this: Does the failure to insert in the guaranty a limitation on the guarantor's liability render the instrument void? In this instance the borrower was the husband of the guarantor. He was in the business of building houses. From time to time he needed advancements from his bank. Mr. and Mrs. Corbett held some, if not all, of their real estate as tenants by the entireties. Such real estate may not be held liable for the individual debts of either husband or wife. However, it is liable for the obligations of both. General Air Conditioning Co. v. Douglass, 241 N.C. 170, 84 S.E.2d 828. A contract may be understood and interpreted in the light of the relationship of the parties, and the purpose they sought to accomplish. 'A contract may be explained by reference to the circumstances under which it was made and the matter to which it relates.' Chew v. Leonard, 228 N.C. 181, 44 S.E.2d 869.
The guarantor in this action instructed the bank: The blank space and the antecedent wording provided the guarantor opportunity to limit her liability for her husband's debts. She executed the agreement without inserting any limitation. She cannot, thereafter, ex parte, alter the terms of the agreement. The guaranty is to pay the notes, etc. and in this particular instance only the one note of $2,000 appears to have been involved. The Court found on competent evidence the individual defendant had signed the guaranty. Its terms are clear, free of ambiguity. Consequently, there is nothing for the Court to construe. The meaning becomes a question of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foreclosure of Deed of Trust Recorded in Book 911, at Page 512, Catawba County Registry, In re
...compel husband and wife to execute obligations as co-makers. Martin v. Lewis, 187 N.C. 473, 122 S.E. 180 (1924); see: Bank v. Corbett, 271 N.C. 444, 156 S.E.2d 835 (1967); Edwards v. Arnold, 250 N.C. 500, 109 S.E.2d 205 (1959); J. Webster, Real Estate Law in North Carolina § 115 North Carol......
-
In re Gifford
...273 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1983) ); Banks, 22 B.R. at 892 ; In re Woolard, 13 B.R. 105, 107 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1981) ; N.C. Nat'l Bank v. Corbett, 271 N.C. 444, 156 S.E.2d 835 (1967) ; Winchester–Simmons Co. v. Cutler, 199 N.C. 709, 155 S.E. 611 (1930) ; Johnson v. Leavitt, 188 N.C. 682, 125 S.E. 4......
-
Kidd v. Early
...of payment were left open for further negotiation. (Only the words in italics are not a part of the printed form.) Bank v. Corbett, 271 N.C. 444, 156 S.E.2d 835 (1967). In Bank v. Corbett, the defendant, wife of C, as an inducement to the plaintiff bank to extend credit to her husband, sign......
-
O'Grady v. First Union Nat. Bank
...Richards v. Day, 137 N.Y. 183, 33 N.E. 146; Campbell v. WABC Towing Corp., 78 Misc.2d 671, 356 N.Y.S.2d 455. Cf. Bank v. Corbett, 271 N.C. 444, 156 S.E.2d 835 (1967). Furthermore, when there has been a delegation of authority to complete essential terms of an instrument pursuant to an under......