Hanover Nat. Bank v. Norris

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Hanover Nat. Bank v. Norris

148 S.E. 718, 151 S.C. 135, 1929 S.C. LEXIS 180

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 1, 1929

Docket12692

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 148 S.E. 718 (Hanover Nat. Bank v. Norris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanover Nat. Bank v. Norris, 148 S.E. 718, 151 S.C. 135, 1929 S.C. LEXIS 180 (S.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the- Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice StabeEr.

The facts of this case may be briefly stated as follows: On February 2, 1926, the defendant gave to the Beaufort Bank her promissory note for $250, payable at that bank on July 1, 1926. For value and before maturity, the note was delivered to the plaintiff, Hanover National Bank, which became a holder in due course. On its due date the defendant had on deposit in the Beaufort Bank sufficient funds to pay the note, but • presentment for payment was not made. On July 2, the maker gave the cashier of the Beaufort Bank a check on her deposit for the amount due and asked for the note. The cashier then told her that the nóte was in New York and promised to secure it for her, but this he never did, nor was any remittance of her payment ever made-to the plaintiff. On July 12, the Beaufort Bank closed its doors *137 and did not thereafter reopen for business. Later the holder of the note brought this action for its collection. The case was submitted to the Circuit Judge on an agreed statement of fact, and judgment was given for the plaintiff for the principal sum of $250.

A discussion of the questions presented by the appeal is unnecessary. The case is controlled by the decision in Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. Epstin et al., 151 S. C., —, 148 S. E., 713, opinion filed June 12, 1929, and for the reasons stated by the Court in that case the order herein appealed from is affirmed.

Mr. ChiEE Justice Watts, and Messrs. Justices Cothran, Brease, and Carter concur.

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

The opinion of the- Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice StabeEr.

The facts of this case may be briefly stated as follows: On February 2, 1926, the defendant gave to the Beaufort Bank her promissory note for $250, payable at that bank on July 1, 1926. For value and before maturity, the note was delivered to the plaintiff, Hanover National Bank, which became a holder in due course. On its due date the defendant had on deposit in the Beaufort Bank sufficient funds to pay the note, but • presentment for payment was not made. On July 2, the maker gave the cashier of the Beaufort Bank a check on her deposit for the amount due and asked for the note. The cashier then told her that the nóte was in New York and promised to secure it for her, but this he never did, nor was any remittance of her payment ever made-to the plaintiff. On July 12, the Beaufort Bank closed its doors *137 and did not thereafter reopen for business. Later the holder of the note brought this action for its collection. The case was submitted to the Circuit Judge on an agreed statement of fact, and judgment was given for the plaintiff for the principal sum of $250.

A discussion of the questions presented by the appeal is unnecessary. The case is controlled by the decision in Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. Epstin et al., 151 S. C., —, 148 S. E., 713, opinion filed June 12, 1929, and for the reasons stated by the Court in that case the order herein appealed from is affirmed.

Mr. ChiEE Justice Watts, and Messrs. Justices Cothran, Brease, and Carter concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 718, 151 S.C. 135, 1929 S.C. LEXIS 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanover-nat-bank-v-norris-sc-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack