184 S.E. 468 | N.C. | 1936
This was an action on a note for $350.00, due 25 August, 1926, executed by defendant Bumgarner, and endorsed by defendants Colvard and Faw.
Defendant Bumgarner filed no answer, but the endorsers set up the defense of release by extension of the time for payment, and pleaded the statute of limitations.
The note contained these words: "Protest, presentment, notice of dishonor, extension of time of payment waived by all parties to this note." On the back of the note appear the signatures of the appealing defendants and the following credits: "May 25, 1927, int. paid, $15.00; Nov. 29, 1927, received on principal, $125.00; Jan. 7, 1928, $50.00; May 20, 1930, on interest, $2.00."
Suit was instituted 21 May, 1932.
On the trial below there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
Construing similar extension agreements in negotiable instruments, inWrenn v. Cotton Mills,
And in Corporation Commission v. Wilkinson,
In the recent case of Bank v. Hessee,
In the case at bar the only competent evidence of agreements for extensions of time for payment is that implied by the credits on the note. While these credits would prevent the bar of the statute as to the principal, they are not for definite periods of time, nor do they fix a definite time when payment is to be made, so as to bring this case within the rule laid down in the cited cases.
It follows that the action as to the appealing defendants, who were accommodation endorsers, is barred by the statute of limitations, and that they were entitled to have their motion for nonsuit allowed.
Reversed.