Legal Opinion

Munday v. Bank of Franklin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 24, 1937PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, O. J.

It will be observed that the plaintiff was not only an endorser of the Ingram note, but also a guarantor. As such, the relation of debtor and creditor existed between him and the defendant, and under the decision in Trust Co. v. Trust Co., 188 N. C., 766, 125 S. E., 536, the charge or credit was properly entered in respect of the checking account, if not the certificate of deposit, which would repel the bar of the statute of limitations, the only point in dispute, and ultimately end in the same result as the judgment entered below. Hence, the trial will not be disturbed. It is not…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. State v. . BealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  2. Rankin v. OatesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  3. Brewer v. RingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  4. Davis v. Industrial Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  5. Rankin v. . OatesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Abdalla v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. James v. Atlantic & East Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  3. Biby v. Union National Bank of MinotNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Barrett v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API