Bulluck Auto Sales Co. v. Meyer

172 S.E. 877, 206 N.C. 198, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 138
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 28, 1934·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Affirmed on authority of Barco v. Forbes, 194 N. C., 204, 139 S. E., 227, and Bank v. Howard, 188 N. C., 543, 125 S. E., 126.

In the latter case, the following- was quoted from 8 C. J., 444, with approval: “One who gives a note in renewal of another note, with knowledge at the time of a partial failure of consideration for the original note, or of false representations by the payee, waives such defense and cannot set it up to defeat or reduce the recovery on the renewal note.”

No error having been made to appear of which defendant can complain, the judgment will not be disturbed.

Affirmed.

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

Bulluck Auto Sales Co. v. Meyer, 172 S.E. 877, 206 N.C. 198, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 138 (N.C. 1934).

172 S.E. 877 (Bulluck Auto Sales Co. v. Meyer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ward v. . Nurney
178 S.E. 860 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Holt v. Maddox
207 N.C. 147 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)