Bank v. . Clark

8 N.C. 36
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 5, 1820·Published

Opinion

The acceptance and payment of a check is prima facie evidence that the plaintiffs had in deposit money of the defendants wherewith to pay it; and if the fact were not so it is incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove by the (37) state of the accounts that the defendants have overdrawn. But that cannot be shown by the books of the bank, which is only a private corporation, and they are inadmissible in favor of the plaintiffs. The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cited: Fox v. Horah, 36 N.C. 360; Bland v. Warren, 65 N.C. 374;Durham v. R. R., 108 N.C. 402; Dyeing v. Hosiery Co., 126 N.C. 294.

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

Bank v. . Clark, 8 N.C. 36 (N.C. 1820).

8 N.C. 36 (Bank v. . Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Durham Dyeing Co. v. Golden Belt Hosiery Co.
35 S.E. 586 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)
Fox v. . Horah
36 N.C. 358 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1841)
Roseman v. . Pless
65 N.C. 374 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1871)