Greensboro National Bank v. Trulove Engineering, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Greensboro National Bank v. Trulove Engineering, Inc.

325 S.E.2d 44, 72 N.C. App. 519, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3135

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1985

DocketNo. 8418DC312

StatusPublished

This text of 325 S.E.2d 44 (Greensboro National Bank v. Trulove Engineering, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greensboro National Bank v. Trulove Engineering, Inc., 325 S.E.2d 44, 72 N.C. App. 519, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3135 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Judge.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the court erred in receiving into evidence the testimony concerning the oral agreement allegedly made between the parties and Roberts to collect the note from Roberts, rather than the defendant. Plaintiff contends that this evidence contradicted the terms of the written note and thus its receipt violated the parol evidence rule. We disagree. The testimony objected to was properly admitted under rules discussed in Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. v. Morehead, 209 N.C. 174, 183 S.E. 606 (1936) and Borden v. Brower, 284 N.C. 54, 199 S.E. 2d 414 (1973) to show a mode of payment contemplated by the parties other than that specified in the written instrument. North Carolina National Bank v. Gillespie, 291 N.C. 303, 230 S.E. 2d 375 (1976). The evidence was also admissible to show the bank’s breach of its agreement to transfer the loan to Roberts. Mozingo v. North Carolina National Bank, 31 N.C. App. 157, 229 S.E. 2d 57 (1976), disc. rev. denied, 291 N.C. 711, 232 S.E. 2d 204 (1977).

No error.

Judges WHICHARD and JOHNSON concur.

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

PHILLIPS, Judge.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the court erred in receiving into evidence the testimony concerning the oral agreement allegedly made between the parties and Roberts to collect the note from Roberts, rather than the defendant. Plaintiff contends that this evidence contradicted the terms of the written note and thus its receipt violated the parol evidence rule. We disagree. The testimony objected to was properly admitted under rules discussed in Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. v. Morehead, 209 N.C. 174, 183 S.E. 606 (1936) and Borden v. Brower, 284 N.C. 54, 199 S.E. 2d 414 (1973) to show a mode of payment contemplated by the parties other than that specified in the written instrument. North Carolina National Bank v. Gillespie, 291 N.C. 303, 230 S.E. 2d 375 (1976). The evidence was also admissible to show the bank’s breach of its agreement to transfer the loan to Roberts. Mozingo v. North Carolina National Bank, 31 N.C. App. 157, 229 S.E. 2d 57 (1976), disc. rev. denied, 291 N.C. 711, 232 S.E. 2d 204 (1977).

No error.

Judges WHICHARD and JOHNSON concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 S.E.2d 44, 72 N.C. App. 519, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greensboro-national-bank-v-trulove-engineering-inc-ncctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack