{
  "id": 8603291,
  "name": "W. P. TENNANT v. THE PEOPLES BANK, Receiver of The Bank of Maxton, MAXTON CONSOLIDATED GRADED SCHOOL, W. O. BENNETT et al., Trustees of said Graded School District",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tennant v. Peoples Bank",
  "decision_date": "1925-10-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "364",
  "last_page": "365",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 N.C. 364"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "189 N. C., 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654558
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/189/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N. C., 303",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654137
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/189/0303-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 3681,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47321117949347624
    },
    "sha256": "9fc5932f9ac94e78e4c6b98a0e18b5b96f9da6c44bb773a5b23de747222c9560",
    "simhash": "1:516925517de55478",
    "word_count": 627
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:29.672014+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Vaeser, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "W. P. TENNANT v. THE PEOPLES BANK, Receiver of The Bank of Maxton, MAXTON CONSOLIDATED GRADED SCHOOL, W. O. BENNETT et al., Trustees of said Graded School District."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CoNNOB, J.\nIn their brief filed in this Court, attorneys for plaintiff, appellee, say: \u201cAfter an examination of the authorities, candor and frankness compel us to admit that in our opinion the court was in error in rendering judgment against the school board upon the pleadings, and we therefore concede that as to the school board the case should be sent back for a new trial to the end that the facts may be developed and the controverted facts found by a jury.\u201d\nPlaintiff contends, however, that the judgment as rendered against the Peoples Bank, receiver, is correct and should be affirmed. If there is error in the judgment against the school board, entitling it to a new trial, it must follow that a new trial must, be had as to the Peoples Bank, receiver, also. The right of plaintiff to the relief prayed for in this action, and decreed as against the Peoples Bank, receiver, is dependent upon the cause of action set up by plaintiff against the school board. If the check of the school board to plaintiff, on account, was paid by the Bank of Maxton, the drawee, by its cashier\u2019s cheek on Murchison National Bank of \"Wilmington, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for against the Peoples Bank, receiver. If, however, this check was not paid, by reason of the facts alleged, by the cashier\u2019s check on Murchison National Bank, plaintiff, upon return by him \u25a0 of the cashier\u2019s check, is entitled to the return by the Peoples Bank, receiver, to him of the check of the school board.\nWe concur with the frank and candid admission of plaintiff\u2019s attorneys. The judgment upon the pleadings must be reversed to the end that appropriate issues raised by the pleadings may be submitted to a jury.\nUpon the call of this case for argument in this Court, defendants demurred ore tenus, on the ground that no cause of action is alleged in the complaint. The demurrer is overruled.\nIf the allegations in the complaint are sustained by the evidence, and the jury shall find that the check for $3,500, given to plaintiff by the school board, was not paid upon presentation to the Bank of Max-ton, drawee, the plaintiff will be entitled to recover upon a verdict upon appropriate issues in favor of plaintiff. Bank v. Barrow, 189 N. C., 303, and Graham v. Warehouse, 189 N. C., 533, are not controlling as anthorities against plaintiff\u2019s right to recover. The judgment must be\nReversed.\nVaeser, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CoNNOB, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McIntyre, Lawrence & Proctor for plaintiff.",
      "M.cKinnon & Fuller for Peoples Bank, receiver.",
      "McLean & Stacy for Maxton Graded, School District."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. P. TENNANT v. THE PEOPLES BANK, Receiver of The Bank of Maxton, MAXTON CONSOLIDATED GRADED SCHOOL, W. O. BENNETT et al., Trustees of said Graded School District.\n(Filed 28 October, 1925.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 New Trial.\nWhere there is error found on appeal as to one of the appealing defendants so interrelated as to affect the other\u2019s legal rights, a new trial will be ordered as to both.\n2. Pleadings \u2014 Demurrer \u2014 Banks and Banking \u2014 Receivers \u2014 Unpaid Cashier\u2019s Check.\nWhere a bank gives a cashier\u2019s check in exchange for a check of its depositor, and afterwards becomes insolvent and is in the hands of a receiver, and the cashier\u2019s check has not been paid, the receiver must return the original check upon return of the cashier\u2019s check for which it was given, and upon demurrer to the complaint: Held,, the issues upon conflicting evidence were for the jury to determine.\nVarseb, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendants from Grady~, J., at May Term, 1925, of Robe-soN.\nReversed.\nFrom judgment on tbe pleadings, upon motion of attorneys for plaintiff, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, defendants appealed.\nMcIntyre, Lawrence & Proctor for plaintiff.\nM.cKinnon & Fuller for Peoples Bank, receiver.\nMcLean & Stacy for Maxton Graded, School District."
  },
  "file_name": "0364-01",
  "first_page_order": 468,
  "last_page_order": 469
}