Legal Opinion

Moore v. . Carr

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 20, 1898PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Civil action on a promissory • note for $100, dated March 19, 1892, at 12 months after date, made by J. M. Little and endorsed by defendants in blank. Payment of interest, annually, was received down to 20th March, 189S. The case originated in the Justice’s court, April 16, 1898, and was carried by appeal to the Superior Court of Mecklenburg- County, and tried before Starbuck, J., at October Term, 1898, a jury trial being waived.

Read the full summary

Civil action on a promissory • note for $100, dated March 19, 1892, at 12 months after date, made by J. M. Little and endorsed by defendants in blank. Payment of interest, annually, was received down to 20th March, 189S. The case originated in the Justice’s court, April 16, 1898, and was carried by appeal to the Superior Court of Mecklenburg- County, and tried before Starbuck, J., at October Term, 1898, a jury trial being waived. The defendants, endorsers, pleaded the Statute of Limitations. His Honor held that the action was not barred and rendered judgment against them; and they appealed.

1Opinion of the Court

Faircloth, O. J.:

By consent his Honor found the facts: J. M. Little borrowed $100 from the plaintiff and gave his note, and the defendants endorsed their names in blank on the note before it was delivered to the payee, the plaintiff. Annual payments were made by the maker, and the last payment made by him was on April 13, 1898, and this action was brought on April 15, 1898. The Statute of Limitations was pléaded. The defendants claim that, as they were endorsers and as more than three years had elapsed since the maturity of the note, they are discharged notwithstanding the recent payment by…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Good v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Leduc v. . ButlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
  3. Baker v. . Robinson .Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1869
  4. Johnson v. . HookerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1854

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Schreiner v. City Nat. Bank of McAlesterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API