Eason v. . Dixon

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Eason v. . Dixon

19 N.C. 78

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 5, 1836

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 N.C. 78 (Eason v. . Dixon) 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

Eason v. . Dixon, 19 N.C. 78 (N.C. 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

Daniel, Judge,

having stated the case as above, proceeded : — We are of the opinion, that the indorsement on this unnegotiable receipt did not amount to more than a guaranty; and if so, that the guarantee, was bound to use such diligence to collect the debt of French or the constable, as a prudent and discreet man would under like circumstances, to collect his own debt: and, unless after using such diligence, he failed to obtain satisfaction of the principal, he could not resort to the guarantor. *79 Towns v. Farrar, 2 Hawks, 163. The guaranty made by an endorser is a conditional one. Williams v. Collins, 2 Murph. 47; 2 Car. Law Repos. 580. The plaintiff did not show that he had used diligence to collect the debt mentioned in the receipt. The judge thought that he could recover without any evidence showing an effort on his part to get the money. In this we think he erred; and there must be a new trial.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

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

Daniel, Judge,

having stated the case as above, proceeded : — We are of the opinion, that the indorsement on this unnegotiable receipt did not amount to more than a guaranty; and if so, that the guarantee, was bound to use such diligence to collect the debt of French or the constable, as a prudent and discreet man would under like circumstances, to collect his own debt: and, unless after using such diligence, he failed to obtain satisfaction of the principal, he could not resort to the guarantor. *79 Towns v. Farrar, 2 Hawks, 163. The guaranty made by an endorser is a conditional one. Williams v. Collins, 2 Murph. 47; 2 Car. Law Repos. 580. The plaintiff did not show that he had used diligence to collect the debt mentioned in the receipt. The judge thought that he could recover without any evidence showing an effort on his part to get the money. In this we think he erred; and there must be a new trial.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 N.C. 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eason-v-dixon-nc-1836.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack