Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina
Brooks v. Sullivan.
129 N.C. 190
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of North Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- North Carolina
- Date
- 1901-11-05
- Topic
- general
C-laRK, J. The only question is whether, when a negotiable note is transferred before maturity as collateral security for a pre-existing debt, the assignee is such holder for value that he takes free from equities of which he had no notice. The “Negotiable Instruments” statute, Acts 1899, Chap. 183, secs. 25-21, settles that such is the case now to the extent of the debt secured, but that is a change of the law, which was previously otherwise. Holderby v. Blum, 22 N.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Brooks v. Sullivan.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 12 opinions
The only question is whether, when a negotiable note is transferred before maturity as collateral security for a pre-existing debt, the assignee is such holder for value that he takes free from equities of which he had no notice. The “Negotiable Instruments” statute, Acts 1899, Chap. 183, secs. 25-21, settles that such is the case now to the extent of the debt secured, but that is a change of the law, which was previously otherwise. Holderby v. Blum, 22 N. C., 51; Harris v. Horner, 21 N. C., 455, 30 Am. Dec., 182; Potts v. Blackwell, 56 N. C., 449. This case is governed by the law as it stood prior to the act of 1899.
Affirmed.