McD. Ray v. Livingston
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
All tbe signatures on tbe note were forged except those of tbe defendant and T. A. Steele, tbe payee. It is fundamental tbat a forged signature creates no obligation. Steele is not a party to tbe action. Tbe only question is whether tbe defendant is liable to tbe plaintiff.
In asserting tbe liability of tbe defendant tbe plaintiff relies chiefly on tbe provisions of section 3041 of tbe Consolidated Statutes and on tbe legal principle enunciated in Bank v. Grafton, 181 N. C., 404. In tbat case tbe Court held tbat a “contract of endorsement is a substantive contract, separable and independent of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lancaster v. StanfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Bank v. Carr.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
- Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. CraftonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Hill v. . ShieldsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
- First National Bank v. Eureka Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Denniston's Adm'r v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1947