Chalk v. Trader's National Bank
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from an order made at Spring Term, 1881, of Mecklenbubg Superior Court, by Eure, J. ■ The plaintiff alleges that the partnership firm of G. W. Chalk & Co., constituted of himself and defendant J. L. Hardin, in conducting their business as such, and the plaintiff in prosecuting it in his individual capacity after he became sole owner of its effects by an assignment from his associate, became indebted to the defendant hank in the two notes of $2,000, and $550, to secure…
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order made at Spring Term, 1881, of Mecklenbubg Superior Court, by Eure, J. ■ The plaintiff alleges that the partnership firm of G. W. Chalk & Co., constituted of himself and defendant J. L. Hardin, in conducting their business as such, and the plaintiff in prosecuting it in his individual capacity after he became sole owner of its effects by an assignment from his associate, became indebted to the defendant hank in the two notes of $2,000, and $550, to secure which, drafts, notes and acceptances of more than $8,000 in amount were deposited with the bank. That the smaller note…
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, C. J.,
after stating the above. While there are discrepancies in the statement of facts in the complaint and answer, accepting those set out in the answer as correct, the plaintiff is entitled to an account and to a reference. The plaintiff remains liable upon the note held by the bank as well as to any other outstanding liabilities of the firm, and has a clear right to enforce the execution of the admitted trust upon which the collaterals in possession of the bank are held, and to compel their appropriation to the partnership debts as a means of exonerating the plaintiff. This equity…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barrett v. . HenrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
3Cited by1 opinion
- Marshville Cotton Mills, Inc. v. MaslinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931