Norfolk National Bank v. Griffin

11 S.E. 1049, 107 N.C. 173
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 5, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 S.E. 1049 (Norfolk National Bank v. Griffin) 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
Norfolk National Bank v. Griffin, 11 S.E. 1049, 107 N.C. 173 (N.C. 1890).

Opinion

Clark, J.:

A bond made payable to the obligor is Amid. Pearson v. Nesbit, 1 Dev., 315; Justices v. Shannonhouse, 2 Dev., 6; Justices v. Armstrong, 3 Dev., 285. A bond is a deed, and no man can execute and deliver a deed to himself.

“According to common law principles, a promissory note made payable by a person to himself creates of itself no liability upon him to pay it. This is so, not for the reason that it is contraiy to public policy, immoral or illegal, but because a person cannot contract with himself.” Jenkins v. Bass (Ky.), 11 S. W. Rep., 293. Indeed, there is no contract till such paper has been endorsed over to another, when there springs up by the law merchant a valid contract between the maker and endorsee. 1 Daniel Neg. Instruments, §130; Wood v. Maytton, 10 Adolphus & Ellis, 809 (59 E. C. L.); Smith v. Lusher, 5 Cowen, 688; Plets v. Johnson, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 112; Jenkins v. Bass, supra.

*175 In this case, the note, upon its face, was executed for the purpose of being negotiated. It is found, as a'fact, that the defendants signed it as accommodation paper to enable those of the makers who are named as payees therein to raise money on the paper. Doubtless they were so named as payees because it was not yet known who would lend money on the note, and it was desired not to leave the names of payees in blank. Such practice is not unusual, and is well recognized by the law merchant.

The note was negotiated, as defendants intended should be done, and value received thereon. To protect them, upon the technical grounds set up, against the consequences of their own act, would be against good morals, and would enable them to perpetrate a fraud on the plaintiff. By the endorsement to plaintiff, the contract, till then imperfect, became perfect and completed.

No error.

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

Related

Pettyjohn v. National Exchange Bank
43 S.E. 203 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 S.E. 1049, 107 N.C. 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norfolk-national-bank-v-griffin-nc-1890.