Legal Opinion

Raleigh Banking & Trust Co. v. York

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 22, 1930PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtConnor, J.

On the face of the note sued on in this action, the defendants, C. Y. York and H. A. Underwood, each having admitted in his *627answer that be signed bis name as appears tbereon, are makers or principals, and are liable as sucb, both to tbe plaintiff, as bolder of tbe note, and to tbeir eodefendant, Willis Smith, as endorser. In tbe language of tbe statute, botb said defendants are “absolutely required to pay tbe note.” C. S., 2977. Nothing else appearing, they are liable primarily to tbe plaintiff for the amount due on tbe note at tbe commencement of this action. Tbeir liability is that of…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Speas v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. Hunt v. EureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  3. Rouse v. Wooten.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  4. Houser v. . FayssouxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  5. Hunt v. . EureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sykes v. . EverettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  2. Grimes v. GrimesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  3. The Law Off. of Robert Forquer v. ArcuriCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API