Bank of Vance v. Crowder

139 S.E. 604, 194 N.C. 331, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 89

Opinion

Adame, J.

It was alleged by tbe plaintiff, and all tbe evidence tended to show, that R. B. Crowder, cashier of the Farmers and Merchants Bank, while heavily indebted to tbe bank, discounted a promissory note for $600, which was then its property, without consideration therefor, and deposited tbe amount of*tbe note to bis personal credit; that with this money be purchased from^J. A. Pilley and bis wife a lot containing three acres and a half; and that be bad tbe title thereto conveyed to bis wife, Ethel D. Crowder. In her answer Mrs. Crowder admits tbe purchase was not made with her money, and there is no evidence that she has repaid her husband or the bank. The defendants neither testified nor introduced any witness; and there was no evidence tending to rebut the presumption of a gift from tbe husband to tbe wife.

Tbe jury were instructed to answer tbe issues as they appear of record if they found tbe facts to be as testified to by all the witnesses. In this instruction we find no error. Admission of tbe testimony of the expert witness as to the entries found in the books kept by the cashier and their meaning was not improper. S. v. Hightower, 187 N. C., 307; Loan Asso. v. Davis, 192 N. C., 108. We have given attention to the other exceptions to the admission of evidence and to the judge’s charge and find in them no sufficient grounds for a new trial. The equitable doctrine upon which tbe relief afforded by tbe judgment is founded is set forth in Bank v. Ethel D. Crowder et al., ante, 312, and need not be repeated here. The record presents no adequate reason for disturbing tbe judgment.

No error.