Thompson v. . Johnson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Thompson v. . Johnson

164 S.E. 357, 202 N.C. 817, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 235

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 15, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 164 S.E. 357 (Thompson v. . Johnson) 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

Thompson v. . Johnson, 164 S.E. 357, 202 N.C. 817, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 235 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff alleged that on 1 January, 1930, the defendant, K. B. Johnson, and J. Beal Johnson executed and delivered a promissory note for $5,000, payable to Jacob Thompson, and that as collateral to said note there was pledged and "delivered to the plaintiff" certain shares of stock, and that no part of the note had been paid. The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground that there was no allegation as to whom the note was delivered or that the plaintiff was the owner or holder of said note. The demurrer was overruled and the defendant excepted and appealed. It is true that the complaint is little more than a skeleton, but the judgment overruling the demurrer is sustained upon the authority ofDeloatch v. Vinson, 108 N.C. 148, 12 S.E. 895. The Court said: "The payee or endorser of a note is the prima facie owner and holder. The allegation that he is so is unnecessary, and if the defendant defends upon the ground that the plaintiff is not such owner, he should set up the facts showing title in someone else."

Affirmed. *Page 818

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

Plaintiff alleged that on 1 January, 1930, the defendant, K. B. Johnson, and J. Beal Johnson executed and delivered a promissory note for $5,000, payable to Jacob Thompson, and that as collateral to said note there was pledged and "delivered to the plaintiff" certain shares of stock, and that no part of the note had been paid. The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground that there was no allegation as to whom the note was delivered or that the plaintiff was the owner or holder of said note. The demurrer was overruled and the defendant excepted and appealed. It is true that the complaint is little more than a skeleton, but the judgment overruling the demurrer is sustained upon the authority ofDeloatch v. Vinson, 108 N.C. 148, 12 S.E. 895. The Court said: "The payee or endorser of a note is the prima facie owner and holder. The allegation that he is so is unnecessary, and if the defendant defends upon the ground that the plaintiff is not such owner, he should set up the facts showing title in someone else."

Affirmed. *Page 818

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E. 357, 202 N.C. 817, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-johnson-nc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack