Cowan, McClung & Co. v. Baird

77 N.C. 201
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 77 N.C. 201 (Cowan, McClung & Co. v. Baird) 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
Cowan, McClung & Co. v. Baird, 77 N.C. 201 (N.C. 1877).

Opinion

EaieCLOth, J.

The complaint alleges that defendants-made their promissory note payable to plaintiffs, and that no part thereof has been paid. The defendants admit these allegations.

All the defendants, except Baird, demur to the complaint on the ground that it does not state affirmatively that the plaintiffs constitute a firm, nor who compose the firm of Cowan, McClung & Co. On reading the complaint it i& *202 plain that the demurrer is frivolous, and the plaintiffs were •entitled to judgment against these defendants.

The defendant, Baird, filed an answer and for his defence ■says : That he signed the note in the presence of plaintiffs’ agent, as security, with the understanding on his (Baird’s) part that he would not be bound, unless one Weaver should also sign the note as security, and that he signed it with the express understanding that Weaver would sign it; that the note was then handed to said agent, and that it was never signed by Weaver.

The plaintiffs say the agent did not accept the note with ¡such understanding. This presents a question of fact to be determined by a jury, and we cau express no opinion about it, except to say, that if said understanding was mutual, the defendant, Baird, is not liable because the condition precedent has not been performed, bat if it was not mutual, he is liable. The bond was signed and delivered, and the intention of one party not participated in by the other, cannot .avoid it.

- Let judgment be entered here against all the defendants, •except Baird, and the case be remanded for further proceedings.

Pbb Curiam. Judgment accordingly.

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

Related

Mitchell v. Altus State Bank
1912 OK 203 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Benson v. . Jones
61 S.E. 193 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Bank of Benson v. Jones
147 N.C. 419 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Bank v. . Burch
59 S.E. 71 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Citizens National Bank of Durham v. Burch
59 S.E. 71 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Heath, Morrow & Co. v. Morgan
23 S.E. 489 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 N.C. 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowan-mcclung-co-v-baird-nc-1877.