President of the State Bank v. Locke
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an "action of Beet, commenced in November 1830, upon a bond, made by the defendants in the penalty Of $50,000, dated the zTth day of December, 1815, with the" following condition: “ Whereas, the above “bound .Moses A. Locke, has been appointed Cashier of “'the Salisbury Branch of the State Bank of North-Ca“rolina, now- therefore, the condition of this obligation “is snob,-that-if the above bound Moses Jl..Locke, shall “and does well, truly, honestly and faith fully,…
Read the full summary
This was an "action of Beet, commenced in November 1830, upon a bond, made by the defendants in the penalty Of $50,000, dated the zTth day of December, 1815, with the" following condition: “ Whereas, the above “bound .Moses A. Locke, has been appointed Cashier of “'the Salisbury Branch of the State Bank of North-Ca“rolina, now- therefore, the condition of this obligation “is snob,-that-if the above bound Moses Jl..Locke, shall “and does well, truly, honestly and faith fully, demean “ and behave himself in the said office and capacity of “.Cashier of the said Branch, and shall and does fully,…
1Opinion of the Court
Rueein, Chief-Justice,
after stating the case as above, proceeded: — Upon the trial, several points were made by the defendants, on which his Honor gave opinions, in which it is insisted there was error,to correct which, is the object of the present appeal.
There is no' dispute about the receipt of the money by Boche from Stephens, the Cashier of the Bank of Newborn, nor that it was his duty to enter it as a deposit to the credit of Stephens as Cashier. . But the court having rejected evidence, offered by the plaintiffs, of the recent of payment of the money by the State Bank to the Newbern…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- People v. JansenNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- President of the Union Bank v. ClosseyNew York Supreme Court · 1813
- People v. BernerNew York Supreme Court · 1816
3Cited by1 opinion
- Morehead Banking Co. v. TateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898