Legal Opinion

Mills v. Bonin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 24, 1954No. 737PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.

This is an action between the payee and the maker of the five notes. No rights of third parties are involved. Tbe defendant has pleaded total failure of consideration as a defense. The rulé prohibiting the introduction of parol evidence to vary, modify or contradict the terms of a written instrument was not violated by the introduction of evidence by the defendant tending to show a total failure of consideration. Swift & Co. v. Aydlett, 192 N.C. 330, 135 S.E. 141; Chemical Co. v. Griffin, 202 N.C. 812, 164 S.E. 577; Galloway v. Thrash, 207 N.C. 165, 176 S.E. 303; Royster v. Hancock, 235 N.C.…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Exum v. LynchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. Swift Co. v. . AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  3. Swift & Co. v. AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. Cherokee County v. . MeroneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  5. Exum v. . LynchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Gore v. George J. Ball, IncorporatedSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Diemar & Kirk Company v. Smart Styles, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  3. Wolfe v. EakerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Loman-Garrett Supply Co., Inc. v. DudneyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  5. Wells v. BarefootCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982

8 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