Havens v. . Potts

86 N.C. 31

Opinion

Ruffin, J.

We think the judgment clearly right. The bond sued on, not being for money only, is unnegotiable. Knight v. Railroad Company, 1 Jones, 357.

One who takes by assignment an unnegotiable instrument succeeds only to the rights of his assignor, and is affected by all the defences against him, which subsisted at the date of the assignment, or may have accrued before notice thereof to the maker. Moody v. Sitton, 2 Ired. Eq., 382; Bank v. Bynum, 84 N. C., 24, and C. C. P., §55.

The language of this section of the Code is so broad, says Chief Justice Pearson — evidently in great dissatisfaction with its provisions — that a note several times assigned after it is due (and an unnegotiable one stands on the same foot ing exactly) will be subject to any set off, or other defence, that the maker had against any one or all of the assignees, at the date of the assignment, or before notice thereof. Harris v. Burwell, 65 N. C., 584.

No error. Affirmed.