Campbell v. . McCormac
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil Aotiox upon a promissory note, tried at Fall Term, 3 883, of Robesox Superior Court, before JIcKojj, J. The complaint states that defendant executed his promissory note on the 29th of May, 1882, and promised to pay to the plaintiffs or order the sum of $273.33, and that no part thereof has been paid.
Read the full summary
Civil Aotiox upon a promissory note, tried at Fall Term, 3 883, of Robesox Superior Court, before JIcKojj, J. The complaint states that defendant executed his promissory note on the 29th of May, 1882, and promised to pay to the plaintiffs or order the sum of $273.33, and that no part thereof has been paid. The defendant demurred because the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that it does not allege that the note was given for a consideration either good or valuable. Demurrer overruled. Judgment appealed by defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtAshe, J.
At the common law, promissory notes were not negotiable, but were made so by the statute of 3 & 4 ANNE, ch. 9, which was re-enacted in this state by the act of 1762, and that act was amended by the act of 1786, which declared them to be negotiable, whether expressed to be payable to order or for value received. Rev. Stat., ch. 13, §§1, 2; Rev. Code, ch. 13, §1; The Code, §41.
All such notes thus made negotiable import prima facie that they are founded upon a valuable consideration ; and while such consideration is essential to their support, yet it is not necessary, in an action upon them, for…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Lightner v. LightnerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1962
- Lightner v. LightnerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1962
- Hunt v. . EureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Shaffer v. BondCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1917
- Hudson v. MoonUtah Supreme Court · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.