Smith v. . Smith
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Johnston. The bill charged that the Plaintiff’s intestate in March 1825, signed a note with one Robert II. Helme, payable to the Defendant for S8,9S1. That after signing the note, it, was delivered to Helme, who procured the Defendant to endorse it — that the signature of the Plaintiff’s intestate, and the endorsement of the Defendant, were both voluntary and for the accommodation of Helme. who procured the note to be discounted at the Slate Bank, solely for his own…
Read the full summary
From Johnston. The bill charged that the Plaintiff’s intestate in March 1825, signed a note with one Robert II. Helme, payable to the Defendant for S8,9S1. That after signing the note, it, was delivered to Helme, who procured the Defendant to endorse it — that the signature of the Plaintiff’s intestate, and the endorsement of the Defendant, were both voluntary and for the accommodation of Helme. who procured the note to be discounted at the Slate Bank, solely for his own benefit — that Helme became insolvent, and the Plaintiff’s intestate had paid the whoj^amount of the debt. It was insisted…
1Opinion of the Court
Henderson, Judge.
— The cases of Love & Wall and of Craythorn & Swinburn, decide not only that the order of liability arising upon the face of the transaction is the rule of this Court, as well as at law, in fixing the relation of principal and surety, and that of co-surety and supplemental surety; but that this relation may be varied by contract, whatever may be the form of the security ; for that is made diversa intuito, and that the prayer of the note may be the surety of the maker, the endorsee of the endorser, drawer or acceptor. But until this relationship is varied by evidence of such…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Edwards v. Jefferson Standard Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Citizens National Bank of Durham v. BurchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- Bank v. . BurchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907