Page 92 |
Previous | 92 of 847 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
68 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS [I9
Bennett v. Guaranty Co.
MORRIS, Judge.
Plaintiff contends that he is entitled, under G.S. 25-3-302,
to the amount d the draft. G.S. 25-3-302 defines a holder in
due course as one who takes an instrument for value, and in
good faith, and witbut notice that it is overdue or has been
dishonored olr of any defense against or claim to it on the part
of any person.
The undisputed evidence discloses that plaintiff was with-out
notice of the defense of the insurer and that he took the
instrument in good faith and for the purpose of purchasing an
automobile to replace the one wrecked by defendant's insured.
The only question about which the parties disagree is whether
plaintiff took the check for value.
G.S. 25-3-303 defines taking for value as follows:
"A holder takes the instrument for value
(a) to the extent that the agreed consideration has been
performed or that he acquires a security interest in or a
lien on the instrument otherwise than by legal process; or
(b) when he takes the instrument in payment of or as
security for an antecedent claim against any person whether
or not the claim is due; or
(c) when he gives a negotiable instrument for it or makes
an irrevocable commitment to a third person."
Plaintiff earnestly contends that he comes within the pur-view
of the definition for two reasons.
[I] He first contends that the evidence discloses that he took
the check in payment of an antedent claim against Wilbur
Lee Prince and, therefore, he took the check for value. There
is no dispute about the fact that the car was registered in the
name of plaintiff's mother. Plaintiff, therefore, had no claim
against Prince for the damage to the car. See G.S. 20-38(19)
fGr definition of "owner" as person holding legal title to a motor
vehicle, and 61 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, 5 500, pp. 253-254. On
appeal he says, however, that he had a claim against Prince
for damage to personal property in the car at the time of the
wreck. A close examination of the record, and particularly the
deposition and affidavit of plaintiff, reveals absolutely no evi-dence
of whether plaintiff had any property in the car and if
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.019, Spring Session 1973 - Fall Session Session 1973] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1974 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 19, Spring Session 1973 - Fall Session Session 1973. Cited as 19 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 37.5 MB; 848 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_019.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 92 |
| Full Text | 68 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS [I9 Bennett v. Guaranty Co. MORRIS, Judge. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled, under G.S. 25-3-302, to the amount d the draft. G.S. 25-3-302 defines a holder in due course as one who takes an instrument for value, and in good faith, and witbut notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored olr of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person. The undisputed evidence discloses that plaintiff was with-out notice of the defense of the insurer and that he took the instrument in good faith and for the purpose of purchasing an automobile to replace the one wrecked by defendant's insured. The only question about which the parties disagree is whether plaintiff took the check for value. G.S. 25-3-303 defines taking for value as follows: "A holder takes the instrument for value (a) to the extent that the agreed consideration has been performed or that he acquires a security interest in or a lien on the instrument otherwise than by legal process; or (b) when he takes the instrument in payment of or as security for an antecedent claim against any person whether or not the claim is due; or (c) when he gives a negotiable instrument for it or makes an irrevocable commitment to a third person." Plaintiff earnestly contends that he comes within the pur-view of the definition for two reasons. [I] He first contends that the evidence discloses that he took the check in payment of an antedent claim against Wilbur Lee Prince and, therefore, he took the check for value. There is no dispute about the fact that the car was registered in the name of plaintiff's mother. Plaintiff, therefore, had no claim against Prince for the damage to the car. See G.S. 20-38(19) fGr definition of "owner" as person holding legal title to a motor vehicle, and 61 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, 5 500, pp. 253-254. On appeal he says, however, that he had a claim against Prince for damage to personal property in the car at the time of the wreck. A close examination of the record, and particularly the deposition and affidavit of plaintiff, reveals absolutely no evi-dence of whether plaintiff had any property in the car and if |
