From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trust Co. v. Brown

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Sep 1, 1925
129 S.E. 926 (N.C. 1925)

Opinion

(Filed 16 September, 1925.)

APPEAL by plaintiffs from Cranmer, J., at December Term, 1924, of PASQUOTANK.

Aydlett Simpson for plaintiff.

W. L. Small and Ehringhaus Hall for defendant.


Plaintiffs brought suit to recover judgment on a promissory note for $1,739.00 executed by Catherine W. Brown and endorsed by her codefendants. Pleadings were duly filed, and at the trial the following verdict was returned:

1. Is the plaintiff the owner and holder of the note in due course? Answer: Yes, owner, but not holder in due course.

2. Was the execution and delivery of the note by maker and endorsers obtained by fraudulent misrepresentations of the agent of the payee as alleged in the answer? Answer: Yes.

3. In what sum, if any, are the defendants indebted to the plaintiff? Answer: ____________.


This case has been tried in substantial compliance with the law which is applicable, and the record presents no satisfactory reason for disturbing the verdict.

No error.


Summaries of

Trust Co. v. Brown

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Sep 1, 1925
129 S.E. 926 (N.C. 1925)
Case details for

Trust Co. v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:TIDEWATER BANK TRUST COMPANY AND METROPOLITAN BANK TRUST COMPANY v…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Sep 1, 1925

Citations

129 S.E. 926 (N.C. 1925)
129 S.E. 926