Raleigh Banking & Trust Co v. Clark

Decision Date18 October 1916
Docket Number(No. 252.)
Citation90 S.E. 200
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesRALEIGH BANKING & TRUST CO. v. CLARK.

Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Connor, Judge.

Action by the Raleigh Banking & Trust Company against W. D. Clark. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. New trial.

Civil action, upon these issues:

Is the plaintiff a corporation, duly authorized to conduct a banking business in the state of North Carolina, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

Is the plaintiff purchaser for value, without notice, and before maturity, of the note set out in the complaint? Answer: No.

In what sum, if any, is defendant indebted to plaintiff on note set out in complaint? Answer:

Upon the findings the court adjudged that plaintiff was entitled to recover nothing. Plaintiff appealed.

Willis Smith, of Raleigh, for appellant.

S. Brown Shepherd, of Raleigh, for appellee.

BROWN, J. [1] This action is brought to recover on a note for $596.80, alleged to have been executed by defendant to John M. Hammer, dated December 22, 1913, due six months after date and indorsed by Hammer to plaintiff March 20, 1914. In his answer, defendant alleges that the note sued on was given to said Hammer as premium upon a policy of life insurance to be issued by the New York Life Insurance Company, of which said Hammer was agent; that the note was executed upon condition that said Hammer would arrange to make defendant a loan of money through said insurance company, based upon said policy, otherwise, the note was not to be paid; that the insurance company failed to make said loan, and required a medical examination, and thereupon defendant wrote at once and canceled the application for insurance; that the loan was never made, and the policy of insurance was never accepted by defendant. Upon these pleadings the court submitted the three issues above set out, the third of which was never answered. Upon those findings the court erred in rendering judgment for defendant, as the issues submitted and answered are not determinative of the case. Bryant v. Ins. Co., 147 N. C. 181, 60 S. E. 983.

The law bearing upon negotiable instruments, as to when a holder of a note is one in "due course, " has been well settled by the leading case of Bank v. Fountain, 148 N. C. 590, 62 S. E. 738, in a well-considered opinion by Mr. Justice Hoke, which has been frequently cited and approved. In that case it is held that:

"When it is shown that a negotiable instrument sued on has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Commercial Sec. Co v. Main St. Pharmacy
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 28, 1917
    ...be an indorsement, and when such fact is denied, as it is in this instance, the same must be established by proper proof. Bank v. Clark, 172 N. C. 268, 90 S. E. 200; Park v. Exum, 156 N. C. 228-230, 72 S. E. 309; Myers v. Petty, 153 N. C. 462, 69 S. E. 417; Mayers v. McRimmon, 140 N. C. 640......
  • Collins v. Vandiford
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1928
    ...is ordinarily so. Guano Co. v. Marks, 135 N. C. 59, 47 S. E. 127; Swan v. Carawan, 168 N. C. 472, 84 S. E. 699; Raleigh Banking & Trust Co. v. Clark, 172 N. C. 268, 90 S. E. 200. From the pleadings the $100 was a part of the alleged purchase price of the Ford truck for $450 (including extra......
  • Raleigh Banking & Trust Co. v. Clark
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 18, 1916

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