Bethlehem Steel & Iron Co. v. Jerry Liner-Junaluska Supply Co.

164 S.E. 339, 203 N.C. 10, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 298
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 15, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 S.E. 339 (Bethlehem Steel & Iron Co. v. Jerry Liner-Junaluska Supply Co.) 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
Bethlehem Steel & Iron Co. v. Jerry Liner-Junaluska Supply Co., 164 S.E. 339, 203 N.C. 10, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 298 (N.C. 1932).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The only question presented by the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to establish plaintiff’s ownership of the note in suit, which was admittedly executed by the defendant and delivered to Chandlee Steel and Iron Company, the payee named therein. The evidence shows that the note is negotiable, duly endorsed by the payee, and held by the plaintiff. This made out a prima facie case. Bank v. Rochamora, 193 N. C., 1, 136 S. E., 259; Clark v. Laurel Park Estates, 196 N. C., 624, 146 S. E., 584.

Moreover, if it be conceded that plaintiff took the note in question after maturity, no equities are pleaded, hence the only question is one of fact, the plaintiff’s alleged ownership of the note. The demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Brown v. Corteva, Inc.
E.D. North Carolina, 2024

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 S.E. 339, 203 N.C. 10, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bethlehem-steel-iron-co-v-jerry-liner-junaluska-supply-co-nc-1932.