{ "id": 8551435, "name": "MINNIE W. YATES v. JOSEPH B. BROWN and Wife, LOUISE W. BROWN", "name_abbreviation": "Yates v. Brown", "decision_date": "1969-02-26", "docket_number": "No. 6919SC33", "first_page": "92", "last_page": "95", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "4 N.C. App. 92" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "51 S.E. 79", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N.C. 529", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269880 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/138/0529-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 S.E. 811", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614353 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 S.E. 635", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N.C. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626934 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 N.W. 409", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 Iowa 965", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 8648088 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/192/0965-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 N.W. 333", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Minn. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 758189 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/45/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 S.E. 2d 159", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ga. App. 103", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga. App.", "case_ids": [ 1567796 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga-app/91/0103-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 S.E. 601", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "114 N.C. 575", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651032 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/114/0575-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 428, "char_count": 6807, "ocr_confidence": 0.609, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.135771028113528e-07, "percentile": 0.7665145728573365 }, "sha256": "64ade57e9c7a340a2cb86af55f7eb55b3265aee770bc0a8200fdebb97d0d334e", "simhash": "1:6979f143140f2ba0", "word_count": 1167 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:38.610889+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Mallard, C.J., and Parser, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "MINNIE W. YATES v. JOSEPH B. BROWN and Wife, LOUISE W. BROWN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Britt, J.\nSubsequent to the filing of the case in this court, defendants\u2019 counsel filed a motion to add to the record an order entered by Criss-man, J., on 17 October 1968 extending the time for defendants to docket their record on appeal to and including 16 November 1968. The motion is allowed.\nIn passing upon the merits of the appeal, the first question we must decide is whether the endorsement on the note which is the subject of this action was qualified or unqualified. We hold that it was an unqualified endorsement.\nIn reaching this conclusion, we must consider the law of our State as it existed on 18 October 1963, the date of the endorsement. Defendants were endorsers of the note. G.S. 25-69. To have constituted a qualified endorsement, it was necessary to add to the endorsers\u2019 signatures the words \u201cwithout recourse\u201d or words of similar import. G.S. 25-44.\nIn the case before us, the endorsement contained the following words: \u201cThis note * * * is transferred and assigned to Minnie W. Yates.\u201d In Davidson v. Powell, 114 N.C. 575, 19 S.E. 601, the words \u201cI assign over the within note\u201d were used; the court held that the words used did not limit the endorser\u2019s liability, and in the opinion we find the following: \u201cWhen assigned or transferred by endorsement he becomes simply an endorser unless, by the terms of the assignment, his liability is limited. When, as in this case, he uses the words, \u2018I assign over the within note to S. M. Powell,\u2019 and S. M. Powell endorses, \u2018for value received I assign over the within note to G. A. Davidson,\u2019 there is no restriction upon their liability.\u201d\nOur conclusion is also supported by decisions from other states. In McCullough v. Stepp, 91 Ga. App. 103, 85 S.E. 2d 159, the words \u201cI hereby transfer my right to this note to W. E. McCullough\u201d were used. The Georgia court held this to be an unqualified endorsement. In Maine Trust & Banking Co. v. Butler, 45 Minn. 506, 48 N.W. 333, the following words were used: \u201cFor value received, I hereby assign and transfer the within note, together with all interest in and all rights under the mortgage securing the same, to L. D. Cooke.\u201d The Minnesota court held this endorsement to be unqualified. See also Jones County Trust & Savings Bank v. Kurt, 192 Iowa 965, 182 N.W. 409; and 11 Am. Jur. 2d, Bills and Notes, \u00a7 363, p. 386.\nThe next question for our consideration is whether the trial court erred in refusing to permit defendants to introduce parol evidence of an alleged agreement which would tend to qualify the endorsement. We hold that the court did not err in rejecting the proffered testimony. In Bank v. Dardine, 207 N.C. 509, 177 S.E. 635, it was held that evidence of a parol contemporaneous agreement that a person signing a note should not be obligated thereon in any way is incompetent, even as against the payee, the parol evidence being in contradiction of the written instrument. Of like effect were the holdings of our Supreme Court in Kindler v. Trust Co., 204 N.C. 198, 167 S.E. 811, and Bank v. Moore, 138 N.C. 529, 51 S.E. 79.\nWe have carefully reviewed each of defendants\u2019 assignments of error but finding them without merit, they are overruled.\nNo error.\nMallard, C.J., and Parser, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Britt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Coltrane & Gavin by T. Worth Coltrane and H. Wade Yates for plaintiff appellee.", "Ottway Burton for defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MINNIE W. YATES v. JOSEPH B. BROWN and Wife, LOUISE W. BROWN\nNo. 6919SC33\n(Filed 26 February 1969)\n1. Bills and Notes \u00a7 9\u2014 endorsers\nPersons who sign their names on the back of a note are endorsers. G.S. 25-44.\n2. Bills and Notes \u00a7 7\u2014 qualified endorsement\nTo constitute a qualified \u25a0 endorsement it is necessary to add to the endorsers\u2019 signature the words \u201cwithout recourse\u201d or words of similar import. G.S. 25-44.\n3. Bills and Notes \u00a7 9\u2014 language constituting unqualified endorsement\nAn endorsement containing the words \u201cthis note is transferred and assigned to Y\u201d constitutes an unqualified endorsement.\n4. Bills and Notes \u00a7 19\u2014 competency of parol evidence to qualify endorsement\nIn an action by holder in due course to recover on a note, trial court properly refused to allow the defendant endorsers to introduce parol evidence of an alleged contemporaneous agreement which would tend to qualify their endorsement.\n'\u2022 Appeal by defendants from Crissman, J., at the 9 July 1968 Session of RaNdolph Superior Court.\n\u2022Plaintiff filed her complaint 15 September 1965 alleging substantially as follows: That she was owner and holder in due course of a note in the amount of $2,050.00 signed by Harlan Ray Lutz and wife, Ada W. Lutz, dated 20 August 1963, and made payable to Joseph B. Brown and wife, Louise W. Brown. That she took the note before maturity, without notice of any defect, or. infirmity, for value, and in good faith. That the makers left the State about December 1964 and failed and refused to make payments thereafter; that notice was given and demand made to the defendants, as endorsers, but they have refused to make payment. That foreclosure of a second deed of trust securing the note failed to yield more than the cost of sale and that the first deed of trust was being foreclosed. The plaintiff then prayed for $2,050.00 and interest. \u2022\u2022\nThe defendants answered, denying that the plaintiff was a holder in due course and contending that the note referred to in the complaint was one of eleven notes, secured' by eleven second deeds of trust, all transferred to the plaintiff by defendants for the lump sum of $12,010.00.\n\u25a0 \u2018 The defendants further alleged that the transfer was based on a written agreement that the defendants had received no payments and that there were no prior liens on the land, except for the first deed of trust in each case, and an oral agreement that there would be no further liability on the part of the defendants.\nAt the trial, plaintiff introduced the note upon which the suit was based, the note providing that \u201cany default in the payment of principal or interest shall cause the whole amount to become immediately due and payable upon demand by the holder.\u201d The final due date was 1 August 1970, with monthly payments to begin 1 September 1963. On the back of the note was the following:\n\u201cFor valuable considerations, this note, together with the deed of trust securing it, is transferred and assigned to Minnie W. Yates.\nThis 18th day of October, 1963.\n(Signed) Joseph B. Brown [Seal] (Signed) Louise W. Brown [Seal] \u201d\nThe defendants introduced the written assignment wherein the eleven notes and second deeds of trust were listed, following which the defendants warranted that there were no prior liens on any of the property, except the first deed of trust, and that no payments had been received personally by the defendants.\nFrom judgment on the jury verdict for the plaintiff, the defendants appealed.\nColtrane & Gavin by T. Worth Coltrane and H. Wade Yates for plaintiff appellee.\nOttway Burton for defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0092-01", "first_page_order": 112, "last_page_order": 115 }