# Trust Co. v. . Brown

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · September 16, 1925 · 190 N.C. 847

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3655215

## Case

- **Full name:** Tidewater Bank Trust Company and Metropolitan Bank Trust Company v. Catherine W. brown.W. H. Holland, F. M. W. Butler and J. R. Fleming.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** September 16, 1925
- **Citations:** 190 N.C. 847; 129 S.E. 926; 1925 N.C. LEXIS 189
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** PER CURIAM.
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3655215

## Opinion text

Plaintiffs brought suit to recover judgment on a promissory note for $1,739.00 executed by Catherine W. Brown and endorsed by her codefendants. Pleadings were duly filed, and at the trial the following verdict was returned:
1. Is the plaintiff the owner and holder of the note in due course? Answer: Yes, owner, but not holder in due course.
2. Was the execution and delivery of the note by maker and endorsers obtained by fraudulent misrepresentations of the agent of the payee as alleged in the answer? Answer: Yes.
3. In what sum, if any, are the defendants indebted to the plaintiff? Answer: ____________. *Page 848
This case has been tried in substantial compliance with the law which is applicable, and the record presents no satisfactory reason for disturbing the verdict.
No error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3655215. Public record. Not legal advice.