Davis v. . Morgan

64 N.C. 570

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: June 5, 1870
• Status: Published

Opinion

Eea'de, J.

It was submitted to the jury, as a question of fact, whether the plaintiff paid off the note as the agent of the maker, and for him, or whether he purchased it for himself, and took the endorsement of the defendant as a transfer for value; and the jury found for the defendant. The question for our consideration is, whether that was a question for the jury, or, whether the legal effect of the endorsement was not to transfer the note, with the defendant’s liability, to the plaintiff.

. Unexplained, the legal effect of the endorsement was to transfer the note, with the defendant’s liability, to the plaintiff, but the endorsement was subject to explanation, and parol evidence was competent to explain it. If the note had been paid off by the maker, the endorsement would have amounted only to a receipt for the money, and the note would liave been without vitality for any purpose. It is tbe same if paid off by the agent of the maker, and parol evidence was competent to prove the agency: Runyon v. Clark, 4 Jon. 52.

There is no error.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.