Dyer v. . Bray

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Dyer v. . Bray

180 S.E. 83, 208 N.C. 248, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 380

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 22, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 180 S.E. 83 (Dyer v. . Bray) 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

Dyer v. . Bray, 180 S.E. 83, 208 N.C. 248, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 380 (N.C. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Where a note is given merely in renewal of another note and not in payment thereof, tbe effect is to extend tbe time for tbe payment of tbe debt without extinguishing or changing tbe character of tbe obligation, and, in case of default, tbe bolder may sue upon tbe original instrument. Bank v. Rosenstein, 207 N. C., 529.

*249 Speaking to tbe subject in Grace v. Strickland, 188 N. C., 369, 124 S. E., 856, Adams, J., delivering tbe opinion of tbe Court, observed: “As applied to negotiable instruments, tbe word ‘renewal,’ or ‘renewed,’ signifies more tban tbe substitution of one obligation for another. It means tbe substitution in place of one engagement of a new obligation on tbe same terms and conditions — that is, tbe reestablishment of a particular contract for another period of time. Kedy v. Petty, 54 N. E. (Ind.), 798; National Bank v. Fickett, 50 S. E. (Ga.), 396; Griffin v. Long, 131 S. W. (Ark.), 672; Hyman v. Devereux, 63 N. C., 624; Kidder v. McIlhenny, 81 N. C., 123; Bank v. Hall, 174 N. C., 477. In 8 C. J., 443 (656), it is said: ‘Where a note is given merely in renewal of another note, and not in payment, tbe renewal does not extinguish tbe original debt nor in any way change tbe debt, except by postponing tbe time of payment.’ Bank v. Bridgers, 98 N. C., 67. If tbe second note be given and accepted in payment of tbe debt, and not in renewal of tbe obligation, a different principle will apply. Wilkes v. Miller, 156 N. C., 428; Collins v. Davis, 132 N. C., 106; Smith v. Bynum, 92 N. C., 108.”

Tbe plaintiff made out a prima facie case. C. S., 3033 and 3040; Bank v. Rochamora, 193 N. C., 1, 136 S. E., 259; Mayers v. McRimmon, 140 N. C., 640, 53 S. E., 447; Tyson v. Joyner, 139 N. C., 69, 51 S. E., 803.

It would seem, therefore, upon tbe record as presented, tbe question of liability was one for tbe jury. Hunt v. Eure, 189 N. C., 482, 127 S. E., 593.

There was error in dismissing tbe action as in case of nonsuit.

Reversed.

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

Stacy, C. J.

Where a note is given merely in renewal of another note and not in payment thereof, tbe effect is to extend tbe time for tbe payment of tbe debt without extinguishing or changing tbe character of tbe obligation, and, in case of default, tbe bolder may sue upon tbe original instrument. Bank v. Rosenstein, 207 N. C., 529.

*249 Speaking to tbe subject in Grace v. Strickland, 188 N. C., 369, 124 S. E., 856, Adams, J., delivering tbe opinion of tbe Court, observed: “As applied to negotiable instruments, tbe word ‘renewal,’ or ‘renewed,’ signifies more tban tbe substitution of one obligation for another. It means tbe substitution in place of one engagement of a new obligation on tbe same terms and conditions — that is, tbe reestablishment of a particular contract for another period of time. Kedy v. Petty, 54 N. E. (Ind.), 798; National Bank v. Fickett, 50 S. E. (Ga.), 396; Griffin v. Long, 131 S. W. (Ark.), 672; Hyman v. Devereux, 63 N. C., 624; Kidder v. McIlhenny, 81 N. C., 123; Bank v. Hall, 174 N. C., 477. In 8 C. J., 443 (656), it is said: ‘Where a note is given merely in renewal of another note, and not in payment, tbe renewal does not extinguish tbe original debt nor in any way change tbe debt, except by postponing tbe time of payment.’ Bank v. Bridgers, 98 N. C., 67. If tbe second note be given and accepted in payment of tbe debt, and not in renewal of tbe obligation, a different principle will apply. Wilkes v. Miller, 156 N. C., 428; Collins v. Davis, 132 N. C., 106; Smith v. Bynum, 92 N. C., 108.”

Tbe plaintiff made out a prima facie case. C. S., 3033 and 3040; Bank v. Rochamora, 193 N. C., 1, 136 S. E., 259; Mayers v. McRimmon, 140 N. C., 640, 53 S. E., 447; Tyson v. Joyner, 139 N. C., 69, 51 S. E., 803.

It would seem, therefore, upon tbe record as presented, tbe question of liability was one for tbe jury. Hunt v. Eure, 189 N. C., 482, 127 S. E., 593.

There was error in dismissing tbe action as in case of nonsuit.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.E. 83, 208 N.C. 248, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dyer-v-bray-nc-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack