{
  "id": 8628561,
  "name": "LOUISE W. HOWARD v. T. S. WHITE et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howard v. White",
  "decision_date": "1939-03-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "130",
  "last_page": "131",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "215 N.C. 130"
    }
  ],
  "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": "192 N. C., 665",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626009
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0665-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 225",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599096
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0225-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3368,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41403591483518926
    },
    "sha256": "b41350353bf9389e99e6bd991c9a6a569789fb2eae56db18078475c1bc2917ee",
    "simhash": "1:9078861701093e3a",
    "word_count": 589
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.554902+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LOUISE W. HOWARD v. T. S. WHITE et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "SoheNOK, J.\nThis is an action against tbe makers and endorsers of a promissory note, which, resulted in a verdict and judgment against all of the defendants except T. S. White, one of the endorsers. The plaintiff reserved exception to that portion of the judgment which adjudged that the plaintiff recover nothing from the defendant T. S. White, and appealed to the Supreme Court.\nThe note sued upon is dated 3 July, 1933, and matured 15 December, 1933, and is signed \u201cEeed & Felton (Seal) by D. F. Eeed, Part. (Seal),\u201d and is endorsed on the back thereof \u201cD. F. Eeed (Seal), T. S. White (Seal), J. 0. Felton (Seal).\u201d This action was commenced 8 December, 1937. The defendant T. S. White answered and pleaded the three-year statute of limitations, C. S., 441(1). The court declined to instruct the jury that such statute was inapplicable, as requested in apt time by the plaintiff, and the jury found that the action as it relates to T. S. White was barred thereby. As stated in appellant\u2019s brief, \u201cthe only point in the case is whether the three-year statute or the ten-year statute applies to an endorser where the endorsement itself is under seal.\u201d\nThe period prescribed for the commencement of an action \u201cupon a sealed instrument against the principal thereto.\u201d is \u201cwithin ten years.\u201d O. S., 437(2). This is an action upon a note, a sealed instrument, but T. S. White is not a \u201cprincipal thereto,\u201d being an accommodation endorser. \u201cThe relation of an endorser to the note differs from that of a surety, the liability of the latter being primary, that of the former secondary. Defenses available to an endorser are not available to a surety, the distinction being founded upon the difference in their liability.\u201d Dillard v. Mercantile Co., 190 N. C., 225 (228). An action against T. S. White, as an endorser of the note sued upon, was barred by the three-year statute of limitations, which began to run at the maturity of the note, Nance v. Hulin, 192 N. C., 665, and cases there cited; and not being a principal to the note endorsed, the fact that his endorsement was put under seal did not bring the action within the ten-year provision of C. S., 431 (2), and thereby extend the period within which it might have been commenced against him free from the statute, C. S., 441 (1), which prescribes the period of three years for the commencement of an action \u201cupon a contract, obligation or liability arising out of the contract, expressed or implied,\u201d with certain exceptions not here applicable.\nIn the holding of the judge of the Superior Court we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SoheNOK, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. D. Pruden for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "C. R. Holmes and McMullan & McMullam for T. S. White, defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LOUISE W. HOWARD v. T. S. WHITE et al.\n(Filed 1 March, 1939.)\nLimitation of Actions \u00a7 2e \u2014 Action on note under seal is barred in three years as against endorser, even though endorsement itself is under seal.\nAn action on a note under seal against an endorser on the note is \u25a0ordinarily barred after three years from maturity of the note, C. S., 441 (1), even though the endorsement is itself also under seal, an endorser not being a principal to the note so as to come within the provisions of O. S-, 437 (2), prescribing a ten-year period \u201cupon a sealed instrument against the principal thereto.\u201d\nAppeal by plaintiff from Thompson, J., at October Term, 1938, of PeRquimaNS. No error.\nW. D. Pruden for plaintiff, appellant.\nC. R. Holmes and McMullan & McMullam for T. S. White, defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0130-01",
  "first_page_order": 196,
  "last_page_order": 197
}