Pittman v. . Bell
This text of 144 S.E. 522 (Pittman v. . Bell) 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.
Opinion
On 1 November, 1923, Frank Bell and Lula Bell executed and delivered to M. S. Everett a promissory note for $600 payable on or before 1 November, 1925. The note before its maturity was *806 endorsed by M. S. Everett to tbe plaintiff without recourse. S. J. Everett also endorsed it without recourse, but afterwards at the suggestion of Mrs. Pittman or her attorney, and without the consent of M. S. Everett, he struck out the words “without recourse.” He contended that he was only an accommodation endorser, that he had received nothing of value by reason of his endorsement, and that no notice of nonpayment had ever been given him. We find no error in the charge of the court, and we are of opinion that upon the verdict as returned the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment against the appellants.
No error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
144 S.E. 522, 196 N.C. 805, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittman-v-bell-nc-1928.