Hood, Comr. v. . Boney

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hood, Comr. v. . Boney

168 S.E. 926, 204 N.C. 364, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 409

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 15, 1933·Published

Opinion

Adams, J.

This is an action to recover judgment on two notes executed by the defendants to the Bank of Rose Hill. The execution of the notes *365 and the amounts due are admitted, but the defendant Inez C. Boney alleges that she is a surety and pleads the three-year statute of limitations in bar. The notes are under seal. Action was brought within ten years. The defendants offered no evidence and excepted to an instruction that upon the evidence the issues should be answered in favor of the plaintiff. We find no error entitling the defendants to a new trial.

No error.

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

Adams, J.

This is an action to recover judgment on two notes executed by the defendants to the Bank of Rose Hill. The execution of the notes *365 and the amounts due are admitted, but the defendant Inez C. Boney alleges that she is a surety and pleads the three-year statute of limitations in bar. The notes are under seal. Action was brought within ten years. The defendants offered no evidence and excepted to an instruction that upon the evidence the issues should be answered in favor of the plaintiff. We find no error entitling the defendants to a new trial.

No error.

Hood, Comr. v. . Boney, 168 S.E. 926, 204 N.C. 364, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 409 (N.C. 1933).

Pincite

168 S.E. 926 (Hood, Comr. v. . Boney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.