Legal Opinion

Richmond Guano Co. v. Walston

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 27, 1926PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

Plaintiff brought an action against tbe defendants, wbo gave a negotiable note 23 February, 1921, to Tomlinson Guano Company, due 1 November, 1921, witb interest from 1 January, 1921. Credit $150, 22 November, 1921. Plaintiff claimed it was tbe owner in due course. As a defense to tbe note, defendants allege tbat tbey stored witb Tomlinson Guano Company, or Tomlinson & Co., Inc., 79% bales of cotton upon certain terms to be sold and applied on tbe note. Tbis was not recited in tbe note. Tbey further allege tbat Tomlinson Guano Company, or Tomlinson & Co., Inc., were one and tbe same concern.…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Kellogg v. Douglas County BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1897
  2. Hendrix v. Bauhard Bros.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1912
  3. Dillard v. Farmers Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. Robinson v. LairSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
  5. Dunham v. PetersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Adolph Ramish, Inc. v. WoodruffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Cristina v. MattenbergerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Hoosier Mutual Insurance v. Citizens Trust & Savings BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API