Legal Opinion

Dry v. . Reynolds

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 10, 1934PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

The note was signed by Reynolds as principal and by Parker as surety. Judgment was recovered against both parties and the surety only appealed. The appellant excepted to the court’s refusal to dismiss the action and to instructions given the jury, but he bases his appeal principally on sections embraced in Art. 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. C. S., 3051, et seq. Section 3069, provides that where the instrument is made payable at a bank it is equivalent to an order to the bank to pay the same for the account of the principal debtor thereon. Reynolds had on deposit in the Stanly Bank and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rouse v. Wooten.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  2. Moore v. . American Loan and Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1889
  3. Peaslee-Gaulbert Co. v. DixonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. CreasySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  2. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. CreasySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Bell v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1943
  4. ARCADY FARMS MILLING COMPANY v. WallaceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  5. Pickett v. RigsbeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

2 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