Bank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Cranfill

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Cranfill

253 S.E.2d 1, 297 N.C. 43, 1979 N.C. LEXIS 1123

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 16, 1979

Docket89

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 253 S.E.2d 1 (Bank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Cranfill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Cranfill, 253 S.E.2d 1, 297 N.C. 43, 1979 N.C. LEXIS 1123 (N.C. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

EXUM, Justice.

The case presents the same question as Oil Corporation v. Wolfe, 297 N.C. 36, 252 S.E. 2d 809 (1979), decided this day, and we reach the same result.

On 11 August 1976 plaintiff here brought suit against defendants on a promissory note executed by them and dated 4 February 1972. Defendants admitted signing the note. Immediately above the signature blanks on the note were the words “witness my/our hand(s) and seal(s).” Beside each signature was the printed term “(SEAL).”

*44 Defendants contend that they did not intend to adopt the printed seals as their own. It follows, according to their argument, that the instruments were not under seal; that the 10-year statute of limitations of G.S. 1-47(2) is not applicable; and that the 3-year statute of limitations of G.S. 1-52 had run.

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants adopted the printed seal. In so doing, it relied primarily on Bank v. Insurance Co., 265 N.C. 86, 143 S.E. 2d 270 (1965). For the reasons stated in Oil Corporation v. Wolfe, supra, this reliance was misplaced. The ruling of the trial court was correct under Bell v. Chadwick, 226 N.C. 598, 39 S.E. 2d 743 (1946), and it should have been affirmed.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EXUM, Justice.

The case presents the same question as Oil Corporation v. Wolfe, 297 N.C. 36, 252 S.E. 2d 809 (1979), decided this day, and we reach the same result.

On 11 August 1976 plaintiff here brought suit against defendants on a promissory note executed by them and dated 4 February 1972. Defendants admitted signing the note. Immediately above the signature blanks on the note were the words “witness my/our hand(s) and seal(s).” Beside each signature was the printed term “(SEAL).”

*44 Defendants contend that they did not intend to adopt the printed seals as their own. It follows, according to their argument, that the instruments were not under seal; that the 10-year statute of limitations of G.S. 1-47(2) is not applicable; and that the 3-year statute of limitations of G.S. 1-52 had run.

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants adopted the printed seal. In so doing, it relied primarily on Bank v. Insurance Co., 265 N.C. 86, 143 S.E. 2d 270 (1965). For the reasons stated in Oil Corporation v. Wolfe, supra, this reliance was misplaced. The ruling of the trial court was correct under Bell v. Chadwick, 226 N.C. 598, 39 S.E. 2d 743 (1946), and it should have been affirmed.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 S.E.2d 1, 297 N.C. 43, 1979 N.C. LEXIS 1123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-north-carolina-na-v-cranfill-nc-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack