Munday v. Bank of Franklin

189 S.E. 779, 211 N.C. 276, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 60

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: February 24, 1937
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, O. J.

It will be observed that the plaintiff was not only an endorser of the Ingram note, but also a guarantor. As such, the relation of debtor and creditor existed between him and the defendant, and under the decision in Trust Co. v. Trust Co., 188 N. C., 766, 125 S. E., 536, the charge or credit was properly entered in respect of the checking account, if not the certificate of deposit, which would repel the bar of the statute of limitations, the only point in dispute, and ultimately end in the same result as the judgment entered below. Hence, the trial will not be disturbed. It is not after the manner of appellate courts to upset judgments wben the action of the trial court, even if partly erroneous, could by no possibility injure the appellant. Bechtel v. Weaver, 202 N. C., 856, 164 S. E., 338; Bank v. McCullers, 201 N. C., 440, 160 S. E., 494; Daniel v. Power Co., ibid., 680, 161 S. E., 210; Rankin v. Oates, 183 N. C., 517, 112 S. E., 32; Butts v. Screws, 95 N. C., 215. Litigants are interested in practical errors which result in barm, not in theoretical ones which produce no injury. White v. McCabe, 208 N. C., 301, 180 S. E., 704; S. v. Beal, 199 N. C., 278, 154 S. E., 604; Brewer v. Ring and Valk, 177 N. C., 476, 99 S. E., 358.

The pertinent decisions are to the effect that “a bank has the right to apply the debt due by it for deposits to any indebtedness by the de positor, in the same right, to the bank, provided such indebtedness to the bank has matured.” Hodgin v. Bank, 124 N. C., 540, 32 S. E., 887, and cases there cited. See, also, In re Bank of Sampson, 205 N. C., 333, 171 S. E., 436; Lumberton v. Hood, Comr., 204 N. C., 171, 167 S. E., 641; Coburn v. Carstarphen, 194 N. C., 368, 139 S. E., 596; Moore v. Bank, 173 N. C., 180, 91 S. E., 793; Davis v. Mfg. Co., 114 N. C., 321, 19 S. E., 371; Adams v. Bank, 113 N. C., 332, 18 S. E., 513.

Had the plaintiff been simply an endorser, and not a guarantor of the Ingram note, a different question might have arisen. Harrison v. Harrison, 118 Ind., 179, 20 N. E., 746, 4 L. R. A., 111; 3 R. C. L., 591. However, we make no present ruling on this question as it is unnecessary to do so.

The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.