TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Shelby National Bank v. Hamrick

Shelby National Bank v. D. W. Hamrick.

Shelby Nat'l Bank v. Hamrick, 78 S.E. 12 (N.C. 1913)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 30, 1913
Judges
BeowN
Citations
78 S.E. 12162 N.C. 2161913 N.C. LEXIS 333
Headnotes
Corporations — Receivers—Notes—Payments—Limitation of Actions. Payments made on a note given by a corporation with individuals as sureties, by a receiver of the corporation, are not such as will repel the bar of the statute of limitations.
Summary
Appeal by plaintiff from Justice, J., at Fall Term, 1912, of Cleveland. Civil action to recover on a note an alleged balance of $638.31, executed by the Ottoway Furniture Company to plaintiff, with the other defendants as sureties.. The plea of statute of limitations was sustained, and plaintiff appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — BeowN

*217 BeowN, J.

It is agreed by counsel tbat the only question involved is whet-bet the payments made by the receiver of the Ottoway Furniture Company at the time and in the amounts shown by the credits entered upon the note prevented the bar of the statute of limitations.

We agree with the 'court below, that such payments do not prevent the bar of the statute. Payments made by trustee, or assignee, for the benefit of creditors do not have such effects Battle v. Battle, 116 N. C., 161 ;

Cone v. Hyatt, 132 N. C., 810 ;

Robinson v. McDowell, 133 N. C., 185 .

Neither do payments made by an assignee in bankruptcy have such effect. 13 Am. and Eng. Enc., 760; Burrill on Assignments (6 Ed.), sec. 399, and cases there cited;

Battle v. Battle, 116 N. C., 164 , bottom of page.

Nor payments by a receiver. 25 Cyc., p. 1383, and cases cited.

In Battle’s case, supra, page 164, it is said partial payments are allowed the effect of stopping the running of the statute “only when made under such circumstances as will warrant the clear inference that the debtor recognizes the debt as then existing, and his willingness, or at least his obligation, to pay the balance.”

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1935: 12000: 119352026peak 1935 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Holloway Et Ux v. Wetzel45 P.2d 565 (Utah 1935)
  2. Person Earth Movers, Inc. v. Buckland525 S.E.2d 239 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)

Most recent

  1. Person Earth Movers, Inc. v. Buckland525 S.E.2d 239 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)
  2. Holloway Et Ux v. Wetzel45 P.2d 565 (Utah 1935)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Battle v. Battle, 21 S.E. 177 (N.C. 1895) 22
Cone v. Hyatt., 44 S.E. 678 (N.C. 1903) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list