Bank of Spruce Pine v. Vance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bank of Spruce Pine v. Vance

170 S.E. 119, 205 N.C. 103, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 470

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 12, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 170 S.E. 119 (Bank of Spruce Pine v. Vance) 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 Spruce Pine v. Vance, 170 S.E. 119, 205 N.C. 103, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 470 (N.C. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

CoNNon, J.

It does not appear from tbe pleadings in tbis action that T. B. Vance was indebted to tbe plaintiff, at bis death, or that bis estate received any consideration for tbe note sued on by tbe plaintiff. It is *105 alleged in the answer that the defendants, S. C. Yance and Ira Yance, as administrators of the estate of T. B. Yance, endorsed the note solely for the accommodation of the makers. It is clear, therefore, that the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings for the amount of the note against the defendants as administrators of T. B. Yance, deceased. Banking Co. v. Morehead, 122 N. C., 318, 30 S. E., 331.

There is nothing on the face of the note which shows that the defendant, Ira Yance, did not intend to become personally liable on the note by reason of his endorsement as administrator. It is alleged, however, in his answer that it was not the intention of the parties that he should become personally liable. In view of this allegation, which for the purpose of this appeal is admitted, it was error to allow plaintiff’s motiou for judgment on the pleadings. See Banking Co. v. Morehead, 116 N. C., 413, 21 S. E., 191.

If it shall be found at the trial of the action that it was understood by the parties to the note, at the time it was endorsed by the defendants, S. C. Yance and Ira Yance, as administrators, that they did not thereby become personally liable, the plaintiff will not be entitled to judgment against Ira Yance, personally, for the amount of the note. O. S., 3001. The judgment is

Reversed.

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

CoNNon, J.

It does not appear from tbe pleadings in tbis action that T. B. Vance was indebted to tbe plaintiff, at bis death, or that bis estate received any consideration for tbe note sued on by tbe plaintiff. It is *105 alleged in the answer that the defendants, S. C. Yance and Ira Yance, as administrators of the estate of T. B. Yance, endorsed the note solely for the accommodation of the makers. It is clear, therefore, that the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings for the amount of the note against the defendants as administrators of T. B. Yance, deceased. Banking Co. v. Morehead, 122 N. C., 318, 30 S. E., 331.

There is nothing on the face of the note which shows that the defendant, Ira Yance, did not intend to become personally liable on the note by reason of his endorsement as administrator. It is alleged, however, in his answer that it was not the intention of the parties that he should become personally liable. In view of this allegation, which for the purpose of this appeal is admitted, it was error to allow plaintiff’s motiou for judgment on the pleadings. See Banking Co. v. Morehead, 116 N. C., 413, 21 S. E., 191.

If it shall be found at the trial of the action that it was understood by the parties to the note, at the time it was endorsed by the defendants, S. C. Yance and Ira Yance, as administrators, that they did not thereby become personally liable, the plaintiff will not be entitled to judgment against Ira Yance, personally, for the amount of the note. O. S., 3001. The judgment is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 S.E. 119, 205 N.C. 103, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-spruce-pine-v-vance-nc-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack