{
  "id": 8599901,
  "name": "J. F. WILLIAMS, Administrator, v. O. B. TURNER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Turner",
  "decision_date": "1935-05-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "202",
  "last_page": "203",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 202"
    }
  ],
  "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": "50 N. C., 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276581
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/50/0139-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 N. C., 193",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692877
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/2/0193-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 S. E., 854",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N. C., 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650358
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/112/0044-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 S. E., 286",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 N. C., 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271948
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/162/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 S. E., 902",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N. C., 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650065
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/108/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N. C., 572",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683258
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/64/0572-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 U. S., 514",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5701174
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/160/0514-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N. C., 282",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692278
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/90/0282-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N. C., 469",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650693
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/99/0469-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N. C., 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697063
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/14/0420-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 4105,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.438,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.338863219749856e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6307222930757739
    },
    "sha256": "8de2d0e9a20546a21924fd4cb91e0f83d533986f7f180634dd3b430ba78d4f1e",
    "simhash": "1:b2c94a287925a39b",
    "word_count": 744
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. F. WILLIAMS, Administrator, v. O. B. TURNER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe finding that the defendant did not adopt as his seal the word \u201c(Seal)\u201d appearing at the end of the line, unless he did so by writing his name on said line, is a finding, as we understand it, that the maker had no intention at the time of executing a sealed instrument, which perforce renders it a simple contract. Yarborough v. Monday, 14 N. C., 420; Baird v. Reynolds, 99 N. C., 469; Pickens v. Rymer, 90 N. C., 282; Caputo v. Di Loreto, 148 Atlantic (Conn.), 367.\nWhether a mark or character is to be regarded as a seal depends upon the intention of the executant. Jacksonville, etc., Railway v. Hooper, 160 U. S., 514; Lynam v. Califer, 64 N. C., 572; 3 R. C. L., 923; 24 R. C. L., 695; 1 Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, 31.\nThe note is one which could be, indifferently, a simple contract or a sealed instrument. Note, 19 Ann. Cas., 674. A different result might follow if it were required by law to be under seal. Devereux v. McMahon, 108 N. C., 134, 12 S. E., 902; Hopkins v. Lumber Co., 162 N. C., 533, 78 S. E., 286.\nThe case of Ducker v. Whitson, 112 N. C., 44, 16 S. E., 854, is not authority for plaintiff\u2019s position. The question now presented was not mooted in that case. For history of seals, see Ingram v. Hall, 2 N. C., 193; Cromwell v. Tate's Executors, 7 Leigh (Va.), 305.\nThe defendant\u2019s plea of the statute of limitations would seem to be good. C. S., 2988; Caldwell v. Rodman, 50 N. C., 139.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appearing for plaintiff.",
      "Oscar B. Turner, in propria persona."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. F. WILLIAMS, Administrator, v. O. B. TURNER.\n(Filed 1 May, 1935.)\n1. Seals A I\u00bb \u2014 \u25a0\nA finding that executant of an instrument not required by law to be under seal, did not adopt as his seal the word \"(Seal)\u201d printed in the form on the line upon which executant wrote his name, unless he did so by writing his name on the line, is held a finding that executant had no intention at the time of executing a sealed instrument.\n2. Same\u2014\nWhether a mark or character iipon an instrument not required by law to be under seal is to be regarded as a seal depends upon the intention of the executant.\n3. Limitation of Actions A c \u2014 Note not intended to be under seal held barred by three-year statute.\nUpon a finding to the effect that the maker of a negotiable note did not intend to adopt as his seal the printed word \u201c (Seal) \u201d appearing thereon, and therefore did not intend to execute a sealed instrument, the note is a simple contract and the three-year statute of limitations is applicable co an action thereon, and where the note is payable upon demand, the statute begins to run immediately.\nAppeal by defendant from Barnhill, J., at December Term, 1934, of DupliN.\nCiyil action to recover on $200 note, given by defendant to plaintiff\u2019s intestate, 6 September, 1924. Defendant pleads (1) payment, and (2) the three-year statute of limitations.\nA jury was waived, and the court found the following pertinent facts:\n\u201c5. Said note is made on a printed form, the date and the amount thereof and the words \u2018On demand\u2019 and \u2018with interest from date\u2019 having been inserted when the note was made, together with the name of the payee. The line on which the maker\u2019s (defendant\u2019s) signature appears and the word enclosed in brackets, to wit, \u2018(Seal)\u2019, at the right of said signature, are parts of said printed form.\n\u201c6. There is no reference in the body of said note to the maker\u2019s (defendant\u2019s) seal; that the defendant did not make any scroll or other substitute for his seal, nor adopt as his seal the word \u2018(Seal)\u2019 as aforesaid, unless he did so by writing his name on said line, at the right-hand end of which is printed \u2018(Seal)\u2019, and the defendant\u2019s name was written on the line where it would have been written in the absence of said \u2018(Seal)\u2019.\n\u201c7. The plaintiff produces said note without credits, and defendant admits the execution thereof, and that under the law he can offer no evidence of payment. It is, therefore, further found that said amount \u25a0of $200.00, with interest from 6 September, 1924, is due and unpaid.\u201d\nJudgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals, assigning error.\nNo counsel appearing for plaintiff.\nOscar B. Turner, in propria persona."
  },
  "file_name": "0202-01",
  "first_page_order": 268,
  "last_page_order": 269
}