Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 N.C. 379

McKee v. . Hicks

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 5, 1830

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1830-06-05

From Caswell. Debt upon a single bill executed by the Defendant as the surety of one John Campbell, payable to the Plaintiff.

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Blank”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1830-06-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1964

5 state decisions

3018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hall, Judge.

¶1 The opinion of the Judge of the. Superior Court, on the question raised in this case, is so full and so correct, that with all the deliberation with which it is our duty to examine it, nothing can be added. We therefore think the rule for a new trial should be discharged. Whatever injustice may be done to the Plaintiff in this rase, is attributable to his own oversight in taking a security for his debt, which the law cannot recognise as a legal one. If an instrument with a seal to it is not completely executed by signing, sealing and delivering, it cannot heroine more so by any art of an unauthorized agent. It would be dangerous if the law were otherwise. Suppose the son of Mr. Campbell, or any other unauthorized agent had filled up the bond with ten times the sum actually borrowed ; it would be thought a great hardship upon the obligors. And so it would he^ if they were compelled to pay it.

¶2 Per Curiam. — Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed,

/13/nc/379 · .json · Public domain