Lee v. . Chamblee

29 S.E.2d 680, 224 N.C. 858, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 329
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 19, 1944
StatusPublished

This text of 29 S.E.2d 680 (Lee v. . Chamblee) 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
Lee v. . Chamblee, 29 S.E.2d 680, 224 N.C. 858, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 329 (N.C. 1944).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff asked for recovery upon a negotiable note bearing the signature of defendant and others, and apparently under seal. The defendant pleaded suretyship and also denied that he had adopted as his own the seal appearing after his signature, and pleaded the three-year statute of limitations. Upon the evidence adduced, and after appropriate instructions by the court, the jury answered the issues favorably to defendant’s contentions and judgment was rendered accordingly. Plaintiff appealed.

The trial was in all respects well within the standards of correct procedure. We hesitate to burden the Reports with a formal opinion, especially since over-writing the subject could only result in needless repetition, and variant expressions might lead to confusion. This case is controlled by Flippen v. Lindsey, 221 N. C., 30, 18 S. E. (2d), 824, and authorities there cited. We find

No error.

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

Related

Flippen v. . Lindsey
18 S.E.2d 824 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 S.E.2d 680, 224 N.C. 858, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-chamblee-nc-1944.