Legal Opinion

Currin v. . Currin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 14, 1941PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

Two questions were stressed, by tbe defendant in tbe argument of tbis case: Should not tbe court have submitted to tbe jury an issue relating to tbe bar of tbe statute of limitation? Was tbe defendant entitled to bave admitted in evidence bis testimony as to tbe declarations of D. F. Currin, wbicb be claims tended to show that tbe plaintiff purchased tbe note, if at all, after its maturity and subject to tbe equities wbicb existed in favor of tbe defendant?

1. If tbe note was without seal, then tbe three-year statute of limitation, C. S., 441, applies and action is barred. If under seal, tbe…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Butts v. . ScrewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
  2. Cherry v. Canal Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  3. Ewbank v. . LymanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  4. Moody v. . WikeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. Williams v. . TurnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Brooks v. Ervin Construction CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. City of Reidsville v. BurtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. Mobley v. BroomeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  4. Scott Poultry Company v. Bryan Oil CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  5. Rowland Ex Rel. Messer v. BeauchampSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API