Legal Opinion
Fidelity Trust Co. v. Whitehead
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided March 4, 1914PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Appeal by plaintiff from Peebles, J., at August Term, 1913, of Halifax.
1Opinion of the Court
Clark; C. J.
This is another action, of which we have had several, upon a note to McLaughlin Brothers as part of the purchase price of a French coach horse. See Trust Co. v. Ellen, 163 N. C., 45. The defendants pleaded fraud in procuring the note, as a defense, and that issue is so found, and there is no exception on the part of the plaintiff. The burden as to the second issue, whether the note was “purchased in good faith and without notice of any infirmity or defect add before maturity and for value,” was on the plaintiff, Revisal, 2208; Bank v. Exum, 163 N. C., 203.
The note was dated 2…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- National Bank of North America v. KirbyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Hood v. . HaywardNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Third National Bank of St. Louis v. ExumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Newell v. GreggNew York Supreme Court · 1868
- Merchants National Bank v. BrischMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- City of New Port Richey v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of MarylandCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1939
- Maryland Finance Corp. v. Peoples Bank of KeyserWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1925
- Barbour v. FinkeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924
- Taylor & Co. v. Nehi Bottling Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1930
- Taylor & Co. v. Nehi Bottling Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1930