{
  "id": 2221516,
  "name": "E. G. VANNOY v. MRS. E. F. STAFFORD, Administratrix of Estate of E. F. STAFFORD, Deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vannoy v. Stafford",
  "decision_date": "1936-03-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "748",
  "last_page": "749",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 N.C. 748"
    }
  ],
  "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": "136 N. C., 34",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658338
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/136/0034-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651033
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N. C., 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651497
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/115/0158-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625121
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0344-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C., 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622516
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0071-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1763,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.122925643839539e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5739483267171175
    },
    "sha256": "a7a4bf23bac17d7c613e0f943bfe4cd07e50e6e8062d198cf2e9b718f85db38e",
    "simhash": "1:0812aa55da1c3e73",
    "word_count": 320
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:34:31.527681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. G. VANNOY v. MRS. E. F. STAFFORD, Administratrix of Estate of E. F. STAFFORD, Deceased."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis was an action against the endorser of a note and was resisted on the ground of release by an extension of the time for payment. On the face of the note appears the following: \u201cProtest, presentment, notice of dishonor, and extension of time of payment waived by all parties to this note.\u201d\nThese words constituted a waiver by defendant\u2019s intestate, who was a \u201cparty\u201d to the note as an endorser. c. S., 3092; Bank v. Hessee, 207 N. C., 71; Corp. Com. v. Wilkinson, 201 N. C., 344.\nDefendant also excepted to the testimony of an attorney, who had formerly held the note for collection, as to declarations of defendant\u2019s intestate to him, but C. S., 1795, disqualifies \u201conly such as have a direct and substantial, or a direct legal or pecuniary interest in the result\u201d (Jones v. Emory, 115 N. C., 158), and does not apply to an attorney. Propst v. Fisher, 104 N. C., 214; Hall v. Holloman, 136 N. C., 34.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J ohn R. J ones and J. M. Brown for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Trivette & Holshouser and J. H. Whicker for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. G. VANNOY v. MRS. E. F. STAFFORD, Administratrix of Estate of E. F. STAFFORD, Deceased.\n(Filed 18 March, 1936.)\n1. Bills and Notes G f\u2014\nAn extension of time for payment of a note will not discharge an endorser when the note provides on its face that extension of time for payment is waived by all parties to the note, the endorser being a \u201cparty\u201d to the note. O. S., 3092.\n2. Evidence D b\u2014\nAn attorney formerly holding a note for collection is not an interested party in an action on the note within the meaning of O. S., 1795, prohibiting testimony by interested parties as to transactions with or declarations of a decedent.\nAppeal by defendant from Phillips, J., at October Term, 1935, of Wilkes.\nNo error.\nJ ohn R. J ones and J. M. Brown for plaintiff, appellee.\nTrivette & Holshouser and J. H. Whicker for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0748-01",
  "first_page_order": 810,
  "last_page_order": 811
}