Denton v. Shenandoah Milling Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBeogdeN, J.
Was there sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury as to whether the intervening bank was a purchaser and owner of the drafts in controversy?
The general rule recognized and adopted by the majority of the American courts, and which prevails in this jurisdiction is “that if a bank discounts a paper and places the amount less the discount to the credit of the endorser with the right to check on it and reserves the right to charge back the amount if the paper is not paid, by express agreement or one implied from the course of dealing, and not by reason of liability on the endorsement, the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Worth Co. v. International Sugar Feed No. 2 Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Marshall v. . Telephone Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Temple v. . LabergeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- American Trust Co. v. United Cash Store Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Sterling Mills, Inc. v. Saginaw Milling Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ballard v. BallardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Potts v. Life Insurance Co. of VirginiaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Fraser-Smith Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1950
- State Planters Bank v. Courtesy Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
- Textile Corp. v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.