May v. Hancock

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

May v. Hancock

17 S.C.L. 299

DecidedDecember 15, 1829

StatusPublished

This text of 17 S.C.L. 299 (May v. Hancock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

May v. Hancock, 17 S.C.L. 299 (N.C. Ct. App. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

Huger, J.

sitting for Colcock, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

As the note was under seal, this action ought to have been brought by the plaintiff as assignee; and had a special demurrer been filed, it must have been sustained. But this is no ground for a nonsuit.

Tile action was debt on a sealed instrument. The plea general issue, and the evidence sufficient for the issue, unless the words “I guarantee the payment of the within note to Peter May,” be not an assignment to Peter May.

These words imply a right, if not an obligation, on the part of Peter May, to demand payment of the. drawer, as well as a promise on the part of the payee, to pay the note if the drawer did not. It is to all intents, an assignment. The motion must, therefore, be dismissed.

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

Huger, J.

sitting for Colcock, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

As the note was under seal, this action ought to have been brought by the plaintiff as assignee; and had a special demurrer been filed, it must have been sustained. But this is no ground for a nonsuit.

Tile action was debt on a sealed instrument. The plea general issue, and the evidence sufficient for the issue, unless the words “I guarantee the payment of the within note to Peter May,” be not an assignment to Peter May.

These words imply a right, if not an obligation, on the part of Peter May, to demand payment of the. drawer, as well as a promise on the part of the payee, to pay the note if the drawer did not. It is to all intents, an assignment. The motion must, therefore, be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.C.L. 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-hancock-ncctapp-1829.