Legal Opinion

Holland v. . Dulin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 21, 1934PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

It is tbe contention of H. L. Dulin that be stands in tbe shoes of Anderson-Dulin-Yarnell Company with respect to tbe Holland notes and deeds of trust, because tbe money loaned by him to Fisber on 29 December, 1925, was advanced to take up tbe note beld by tbe corporation; that tbe collateral transferred to bim was a continuing-security for tbe original indebtedness; and that tbe note executed to bim was but an evidence of tbe original debt.

But tbe note beld by Anderson-Dulin-Yarnell Company was not transferred or assigned to Dulin. Tbis obligation was canceled, and Fisher executed a new note…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Shipp Ex Rel. Shipp v. United Stage Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  2. Cole v. Industrial Fibre Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  3. Liles v. . RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
  4. Walker v. . BurtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  5. Sykes v. EverettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Pue v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  2. Dobias v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. American Trust Co. v. Catawba Sales & Processing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  4. Gorham v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  5. Pue v. HoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

12 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