Legal Opinion

Royster v. Hancock

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 1, 1952No. 742PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtValeNtiNe, J.

The only question presented is, did plaintiffs make out a case sufficient to repel defendant’s demurrer to the evidence and motion for judgment as of nonsuit? The facts impel an affirmative answer to this question.

The fact that the note in question is under seal raises the presumption of a good and sufficient consideration. Angier v. Howard, 94 N.C. 27; Wester v. Bailey, 118 N.C. 193, 24 S.E. 9; Lentz v. Johnson, 207 N.C. 614, 178 S.E. 226. The plaintiffs allege execution, delivery and nonpayment of the note. These “issuable facts” are admitted by the defendant and when so admitted become as…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Speas v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. Leathers v. Blackwell Durham Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  3. Hunt v. EureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. Cook v. . GuirkinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  5. Warren v. Pilot Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hartley v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  2. McGowan v. BeachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Mills v. BoninSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. In Re the Foreclosure of a Deed of Trust Executed by CookeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  5. Fleming v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

6 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