Warren v. . McLawhorn

171 S.E. 355, 205 N.C. 360, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 559
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 1, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 S.E. 355 (Warren v. . McLawhorn) 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
Warren v. . McLawhorn, 171 S.E. 355, 205 N.C. 360, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 559 (N.C. 1933).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The demurrers were properly overruled on authority of Buggy Co. v. Dukes, 140 N. C., 393, 52 S. E., 931, and Supply Co. v. Davis, 202 N. C., 56, 161 S. E., 734.

Plaintiff had his election to sue on the note, taken as security for the open accounts, or to return the collateral, when not paid at maturity, and sue on the original causes of action. Indeed, the exact liability of ~W. B. McLawhorn to plaintiff was not known at the time of the execution of the note, and plaintiff would not be able to recover from him more than the value of the merchandise sold and delivered, whether suit were brought on the note or resort had to actions on the open accounts.

The fear expressed by the defendant as to what his liability might have been had his note been negotiated to an innocent holder for value and before maturity is not before us for adjudication. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error. •

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

Related

Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Copley
192 S.E.2d 735 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
171 S.E. 355, 205 N.C. 360, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-mclawhorn-nc-1933.