Bank of Spruce Pine v. Vance
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hawthorne v. Austin Organ Co. (4th Cir. 1934)
- First National Bank of Elgin v. Achilli (Ill. App. Ct. 1973)
- Erickson v. Starling (N.C. 1952)
- Erickson v. Starling (N.C. 1952)
- Johnson v. Graff (S.D. 1942)
- Hansen v. Lindell (Wash. 1942)
- Annis v. Pfeiffer (Mich. 1937)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It does not appear from tbe pleadings in tbis action that T. B. Vance was indebted to tbe plaintiff, at bis death, or that bis estate received any consideration for tbe note sued on by tbe plaintiff. It is *105 alleged in the answer that the defendants, S. C. Yance and Ira Yance, as administrators of the estate of T. B. Yance, endorsed the note solely for the accommodation of the makers. It is clear, therefore, that the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings for the amount of the note against the defendants as administrators of T. B. Yance, deceased. Banking Co. v. Morehead, 122 N. C., 318, 30 S. E., 331.
There is nothing on the face of the note which shows that the defendant, Ira Yance, did not intend to become personally liable on the note by reason of his endorsement as administrator. It is alleged, however, in his answer that it was not the intention of the parties that he should become personally liable. In view of this allegation, which for the purpose of this appeal is admitted, it was error to allow plaintiff’s motiou for judgment on the pleadings. See Banking Co. v. Morehead, 116 N. C., 413, 21 S. E., 191.
If it shall be found at the trial of the action that it was understood by the parties to the note, at the time it was endorsed by the defendants, S. C. Yance and Ira Yance, as administrators, that they did not thereby become personally liable, the plaintiff will not be entitled to judgment against Ira Yance, personally, for the amount of the note. O. S., 3001. The judgment is
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.