{
  "id": 8623028,
  "name": "E. E. BELL et al. v. HARRY B. CHADWICK et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bell v. Chadwick",
  "decision_date": "1946-10-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "598",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "226 N.C. 598"
    }
  ],
  "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": "62 S. E., 510",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N. C., 388",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270171
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/148/0388-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N. C., 10",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650126
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/94/0010-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N. C., 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8690669
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0213-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 S. E., 48",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 N. C., 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655794
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/176/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 S. E., 581",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655060
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 S. E., 14",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 401",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629475
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0401-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S. E., 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 922",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8633638
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0922-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N. C., 625",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625713
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0625-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "183 S. E., 606",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221289
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0174-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 S. E., 664",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 N. C., 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654945
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/176/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N. C., 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697063
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/14/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 S. E., 377",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N. C., 469",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650693
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/99/0469-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N. C., 815",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626713
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0815-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S. E., 151",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 225",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8605155
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0225-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S. E., 806",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 202",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599901
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0202-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 443,
    "char_count": 6864,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9918559759354843e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7418901642528194
    },
    "sha256": "5470c0e97ad0c5fab666a37cd745a88d918dd2cc386bd9d6fccc2043b2852400",
    "simhash": "1:b336143d6c7920f8",
    "word_count": 1211
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:42.041183+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. E. BELL et al. v. HARRY B. CHADWICK et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nAs stated above, the only question presented for decision is the competency of Chadwick\u2019s proffered testimony that in executing the notes or bonds in suit, he did not adopt, or intend to adopt, as his seal, the printed word \u201cSeal\u201d appearing in brackets at the end of the line opposite his signature. Williams v. Turner, 208 N. C., 202, 179 S. E., 806; Allsbrook v. Walston, 212 N. C., 225, 193 S. E., 151; Currin v. Currin, 219 N. C., 815, 15 S. E. (2d), 279; Baird v. Reynolds, 99 N. C., 469, 6 S. E., 377; Yarborough v. Monday, 14 N. C., 420. See, also, Supply Co. v. Windley, 176 N. C., 18, 96 S. E., 664.\nInitially, it should be observed the defendant admitted, in answering the 3rd paragraph of the complaint \u2014 and this admission was offered in evidence \u2014 that he executed the several notes or bonds in suit, \u201call identical in language,\u201d and each bearing the word \u201cSeal\u201d opposite his signature. The allegation and admission establish the word \u201cSeal\u201d as a part of each instrument. They are therefore immune from amendment, modification, or contradiction by parol. Ins. Co. v. Wells, ante, 574; Coleman v. Whisnant, ante, 258; Ins. Co. v. Morehead, 209 N. C., 174, 183 S. E., 606; Bank v. Dardine, 207 N. C., 509, 177 S. E., 635; Stansbury\u2019s N. C. Evidence, sec. 253.\nWhen it is admitted, as it is here, that tbe defendant signed or executed several instruments under seal, be is bound by bis admission. Davis v. Crump, 219 N. C., 625, 14 S. E. (2d), 666; Peanut Co. v. Lucas, 206 N. C., 922, 175 S. E., 176; State ex rel. Lee v. Martin, 191 N. C., 401, 132 S. E., 14; Weston v. Typewriter Co., 183 N. C., 1, 110 S. E., 581; Jones v. R. R., 176 N. C., 260, 97 S. E., 48; Stansbury\u2019s N. C. Evidence, sec. 177. It is true, tbe notes or bonds in suit contain no in testimoniwrn clause, nevertheless they are alleged to be notes or bonds under seal, and tbis is admitted. 11 C. J. S., 404. Hence, in tbe instant case, tbe proffered testimony of tbe defendant Chadwick t'bat be did not adopt, or intend to adopt, as bis seal, tbe word \u201cSeal\u201d appearing in brackets at tbe end of tbe line opposite bis signature, was properly excluded under tbe rule wbicb prohibits tbe introduction of parol testimony to vary, modify, or contradict tbe terms of a written instrument. Etheridge v. Palin, 72 N. C., 213. Tbe rule is, that \u201cparol evidence will not be beard to contradict, add to, take from or in any way vary tbe terms of a contract put in. writing . . . for tbe reason that tbe parties, when they reduce their contract to writing, are presumed to have inserted in it all tbe provisions by wbicb they intended to be bound.\u201d Ray v. Blackwell, 94 N. C., 10. As against tbe recollection of tbe parties, whose memories may fail them, tbe written word abides. Walker v. Venters, 148 N. C., 388, 62 S. E., 510.\nAppellees further suggest Chadwick\u2019s proffered testimony was properly excluded under tbe \u201cdead man\u2019s\u201d statute, G. S., 8-51, as it concerns a personal transaction or communication between tbe witness and J. K. Warren, deceased. However tbis may be, we think tbe proffered testimony was correctly excluded on other grounds.\nIt is conceded that if tbe notes or bonds in suit be under seal, tbe ten-year statute of limitations applies, and tbe action is not barred; while if they be not under seal, tbe three-year statute of limitations applies, and tbe action is barred. Tbe notes or bonds were executed 3 December, 1929, and matured one each year for five successive years after date of making. Tbe present action was instituted 30 August, 1940.\nNo error has been made to appear; consequently tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. E. Whitehurst and W. B. R. Guion for plaintiffs, appellees.",
      "R. A. Nunn and H. P. Whitehurst for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. E. BELL et al. v. HARRY B. CHADWICK et al.\n(Filed 16 October, 1946.)\n1. Evidence \u00a7 42f: Seals \u00a7 2\u2014\nWhere defendant admits in his answer the paragraph of the complaint alleging that defendant had executed notes or bonds as set out therein, showing the printed word \u201cseal\u201d in brackets-at the end of the line opposite defendant\u2019s signature, the admission is that defendant executed instruments under seal and defendant is bound by the admission introduced in evidence by plaintiff.\n2. Evidence \u00a7 39: Seals \u00a7 2\u2014\nWhere the execution of instruments under seal is established by defendant\u2019s admission, his testimony that he did not adopt or intend to adopt, as his seal, the printed word \u201cseal\u201d appearing' in brackets at the end of the line opposite his signature, is properly excluded as parol testimony tending to vary, modify, or contradict the terms of a written instrument.\n3. Limitation of Actions \u00a7 4a\u2014\nAn action upon an instrument under seal is not barred until the expiration of ten years from its date of maturity.\nAppeal by defendants, Harry B. Obadwick and wife, from Carr, J., at May Term, 1946, of CbaveN.\nCivil action to recover on promissory notes or bonds and to foreclose deed of trust given to secure their payment.\nIt is alleged in paragraph three of the complaint that on 3 December, 1929, the defendant, Harry B. Chadwick, then unmarried, executed and delivered to plaintiffs, E. E. Bell and J. K. \"Warren, six promissory notes or bonds in the aggregate sum of $2,608.40 (severally listed as bonds and showing maturity dates from one to five years after date of making), \u201call . . . identical in language\u201d (so far as presently material), as follows :\nNew Bern, N. C., December 3, 1929.\n\u201cOn or before . . . after date, I promise to pay to the order of E. E. Bell and J. 3L Warren . . . with interest after maturity . . . expressly waiving any protest . . . Secured by Deed of Trust of even date herewith. For value received.\n\u201cDue . . .\nHarry B. Chadwick (Seal)\u201d\nIn tbe answer of defendants, tbe allegations of paragraph three of the complaint are admitted. The defendants further plead, however, that the notes in suit were not under seal, and were therefore barred by the three-year statute of limitations.\nThis action was instituted 30 August, 1940.\nAt the time of trial, the death of J. 3L Warren was suggested, and his administratrix came in as party plaintiff and duly adopted the complaint.\nIn support of the defendants\u2019 plea, Harry B. Chadwick offered to testify as follows: \u201cAt the time I executed these notes' it was not my intention to adopt the seal thereon as my seal. This word 'seal\u2019 didn\u2019t imply any special meaning at all to me. I didn\u2019t know what it meant at all. If Griffin or Warren knew they didn\u2019t call my attention to it. That is a printed 'seal\u2019 on the notes. I was then 29 years old. That is my signature on the notes. I never adopted the printed word 'seal\u2019 as my seal.\u201d\nThis evidence was excluded, and its exclusion constitutes the sole exception for consideration on the appeal.\nFrom verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, the defendants appeal.\nR. E. Whitehurst and W. B. R. Guion for plaintiffs, appellees.\nR. A. Nunn and H. P. Whitehurst for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0598-01",
  "first_page_order": 646,
  "last_page_order": 648
}