Town of Franklin v. Franks
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBbogdeN, J.
Payments made by the principal Franks did not deprive the endorser of the benefit of the defense of the bar of the statute of limitations. Hauser v. Fayssoux, 168 N. C., 1, 83 S. E., 692; Barber v. Absher Co., 175 N. C., 602, 96 S. E., 43; McIntosh North Carolina Practice and Procedure, p. 127.
The theory of the plaintiff is that the defense of the bar of the statute of limitations was not available to the defendant for two reasons: First, that the defendant was a member of the board of aldermen or town commissioners at the time the note was executed and endorsed by him, and consequently it…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Houser v. . FayssouxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Whitehurst v. . DaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- Haymore v. Commissioners of YadkinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- Daniel v. . Commissioners of EdgecombeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
- Barber v. William Absher Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Nowell v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
- Humble Oil & Refining Company v. LaneWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1969
- Shelton v. FairleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- Wilson v. E. H. Clement Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
- Fidelity Bank v. HesseeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.