Copeland v. . Howard

90 S.E. 123, 172 N.C. 842
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 1, 1916
StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.E. 123 (Copeland v. . Howard) 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
Copeland v. . Howard, 90 S.E. 123, 172 N.C. 842 (N.C. 1916).

Opinion

This is an action upon a note executed by the defendant and payable on 1 January, 1915.

The defendant offered to prove that at the time of the execution of the note an agreement was entered into between him and the plaintiff that the note should not be paid until two years from its date. This evidence was excluded, and the defendant excepted.

There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted and appealed. The evidence was properly excluded, because in direct contradiction of the terms of the writing. Walker v. Venters, 148 N.C. 388; Basnight v.Jobbing Co., 148 N.C. 350.

No error. *Page 899 Cited: Harvester Co. v. Parham, 172 N.C. 390 (c).

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

Related

Basnight v. Southern Jobbing Co.
62 S.E. 420 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Walker v. . Venters
62 S.E. 510 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
International Harvester Co. v. Parham
172 N.C. 389 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 S.E. 123, 172 N.C. 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/copeland-v-howard-nc-1916.