Bank of Charlotte v. Hart
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Eral® upon plaintiff, to show cause why it should not accept its hills in satisfaction of a judgment, heard before Logan, J.» at Spring Term, 1872, of Mecklenburg Superior Court. The plaintiff hadi obtained judgment against one Taylor and! defendant Hart tor $3,400, and execution was in the hands of the Sheriff.
Read the full summary
Eral® upon plaintiff, to show cause why it should not accept its hills in satisfaction of a judgment, heard before Logan, J.» at Spring Term, 1872, of Mecklenburg Superior Court. The plaintiff hadi obtained judgment against one Taylor and! defendant Hart tor $3,400, and execution was in the hands of the Sheriff. Defendant was the owner of a large number of the bills of tbe plaintiff (Bank of Charlotte), payment of which had been demanded and the bills-protested for non-payment. Tbe rule was to, show cause why these bills should not be received in satisfaction of the Judgment, allowing…
1Opinion of the Court
Pearson, €'. 5.
The objection, that the Act of 18'6'9-y70f, trader which the defendant makes his motion, to be allowed to apply the bills, of the Bank in satisfaction of the judgment against him, is. unconstitutional, in that it makes bank bills a legal tender in the payment of debts, cannot be maintained.. The same objection might be made to the statute which allows the plea of set-off; for the statute under consideration is merely an extension of the application of the principle on which the statute of set-off is based, that is to say, the reasonable and equitable principle, that a court…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hackney v. . Hood, Commissioner of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Blount v. . WindleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1873