Pace v. . Robertson

65 N.C. 550
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 65 N.C. 550 (Pace v. . Robertson) 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
Pace v. . Robertson, 65 N.C. 550 (N.C. 1871).

Opinion

Reade, J.

The single question necessary to be decided, is, whether Lutterloh was entitled to recover of the defendants,, more than the value of what he paid, as endorser, for them? We are of the opinion that he was not.

It was the privilege of the defendants, under an act of the Assembly to that effect, to pay off the note in bank, with the bills-of the bank; and Lutterloh deprived them of that privilege, by officiously paying off the note, in the depreciated bills of the bank, worth some five or six cents in the dollar.

To allow Lutterloh, or his assignee, the plaintiff, to recover' the full amount of the note in par funds, would be to allow a" surety to speculate upon the principal; for which, we know no-authority.

There is error.

Per Curiam. Venire de novo.

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

Related

Laber v. Gall ex rel. Mercury Indemnity Co.
110 F.2d 697 (D.C. Circuit, 1940)
First & Citizens National Bank v. Hinton
4 S.E.2d 332 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Merchants Discount Co. v. Federal Street Corp.
14 N.E.2d 155 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 N.C. 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pace-v-robertson-nc-1871.