Newland v. . Moore

92 S.E. 367, 173 N.C. 728, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 398
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 16, 1917·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

If the ownership of the note had been put in issue it may be that the defendant would have ground of complaint as to the peremptory instruction given to the jury, but no- issue of this character is raised by the pleadings, and the defendant relies on the failure to give him notice, as indorser, of the dishonor of the note.

The note is nonnegotiable, because not payable to order or bearer, and being nonnegotiable, the defendant was not entitled to notice. Johnson v. Lassiter, 155 N. C., 50; 8 C. J., 635; 3 R. C. L., 1220.

No error.

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

Newland v. . Moore, 92 S.E. 367, 173 N.C. 728, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 398 (N.C. 1917).

92 S.E. 367 (Newland v. . Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gray v. American Express Co.
239 S.E.2d 621 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)
Hunt v. . Eure
125 S.E. 484 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)