Case ID: tenn_13/html/0452-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Peck, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tansel vs. Pepin.
    If the answer deny the allegations in the hill, proof of the facts set forth'in the hill by one witness alone, will not overthrow the answer and' sustain the bill.
    The bill charges that the plaintiff and defendant were the securities of one Yerell, to the Bank of North Carolina, at Raleigh, in the sum of one hundred and ninety-eight dollars. That the manner of transacting business in that bank, was, for him who wished to have a note discounted, to have it executed by the principal and one of the securities, payable to the other security, whp endorsed to the bank.
    Tansel and Verell made the note to Pepin, who endorsed. Pepin took up the note, having paid the money, and has brought suit against Tansel for the whole, Yerell being insolvent. The bill further charges, that the understanding was, that they, complainant and defendant, were to be securities, and that each should be liable to one half, &c. That on the trial at-law, he endeavored to get in his defence, but could not.
    The answer positively denies that there was any agreement that defendant should stand as security of Yerell. That respondent-received no part of the money, had the whole to pay, and has a right to recover the whole from complainant; that the note not being under seal, the party, if the equity set up for him was tenable, had a right to show it; and having failed at law, ought to be concluded.
    Yerell is the only witness in the case; he proves that he has paid nothing towards said note; that his understanding was, that complainant and defendant were securities, and that in relation to the transaction they stood alike.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The proof does not make-out the plaintiff’s case. The denial in the answer is as positive as the allegation in the bill. The proof is, as to what was the understanding of the witness. If one witness would, in such a case, be sufficient, his proof should be positive and direct of the fact, that they were securities, and that each was to be liable for one half. And this, because, on the face of the paper executed, they did not appear to stand in the same relative situation. To explain away the apparent contract, on the face of the paper executed, the evidence should be clear.

Bill dismissed.