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

DecidedMarch 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 168 S.E. 926 (Hood, Comr. v. . Boney) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 S.E. 926, 204 N.C. 364, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-comr-v-boney-nc-1933.