Griffin v. . Peyton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Griffin v. . Peyton

143 S.E. 528, 195 N.C. 689, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 184

DecidedJune 6, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 143 S.E. 528 (Griffin v. . Peyton) 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

Griffin v. . Peyton, 143 S.E. 528, 195 N.C. 689, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 184 (N.C. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Bhogden, J.

This is a companion case to Peyton v. Griffin, ante, 685. It appears from the record in Peyton v. Griffin that a stipulation was entered into by counsel providing among other things “that the issue of fraud raised by the defendants in their answer and further defense shall be determinative of the issue of fraud set up and alleged as to all the outstanding notes of said series executed by the said William Ray Griffin and M. A. Griffin in whomsoever hands they may be and in whatsoever court said action is pending; but it is distinctly understood and agreed that the issue of innocent holder for value without notice is not to be determined by the answer to the issue of fraud in this case.”

It appearing, therefore, that the parties have agreed to abide the determination as to the issue of fraud in the case of Peyton v. Griffin, supra, with respect to all notes issued by Griffin in payment of commissions and profits in purchasing the land in controversy, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the questions involved in this case.

Affirmed.

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

Bhogden, J.

This is a companion case to Peyton v. Griffin, ante, 685. It appears from the record in Peyton v. Griffin that a stipulation was entered into by counsel providing among other things “that the issue of fraud raised by the defendants in their answer and further defense shall be determinative of the issue of fraud set up and alleged as to all the outstanding notes of said series executed by the said William Ray Griffin and M. A. Griffin in whomsoever hands they may be and in whatsoever court said action is pending; but it is distinctly understood and agreed that the issue of innocent holder for value without notice is not to be determined by the answer to the issue of fraud in this case.”

It appearing, therefore, that the parties have agreed to abide the determination as to the issue of fraud in the case of Peyton v. Griffin, supra, with respect to all notes issued by Griffin in payment of commissions and profits in purchasing the land in controversy, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the questions involved in this case.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E. 528, 195 N.C. 689, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-peyton-nc-1928.