Case Name: BETHLEHEM STEEL AND IRON COMPANY, Incorporated, v. JERRY LINER-JUNALUSKA SUPPLY COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1932-06-15
Citations: 203 N.C. 10
Docket Number: 
Parties: BETHLEHEM STEEL AND IRON COMPANY, Incorporated, v. JERRY LINER-JUNALUSKA SUPPLY COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 203
Pages: 10–11

Head Matter:
BETHLEHEM STEEL AND IRON COMPANY, Incorporated, v. JERRY LINER-JUNALUSKA SUPPLY COMPANY.
(Filed 15 June, 1932.)
Bills and Notes H c — Evidence held to establish prima facie ownership of note by plaintiff.
Where the plaintiff in an action on a note introduces evidence that the note was negotiable, duly endorsed by the payee and held by the plaintiff, the evidence is sufficient to establish prima facie ownership of the note by the plaintiff, and the defendant’s demurrer to the evidence is properly overruled.
Appeal by defendant from SinJc, J., at February Term, 1932, of BuNcombe.
Civil action to recover on defendant’s promissory note of $1,200, given to Ohandlee Steel and Iron Company, endorsed by said payee and delivered to the plaintiff for value.
From a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the General County Court of Buncombe County, the defendant appealed to the Superior Court where the judgment of the county court was affirmed.
Defendant appeals, assigning errors.
Bourne, Parker, Arledge & DuBose for plaintiff.
Joseph W. Little, for defendant.

Opinion:
Stacy, C. J.
The only question presented by the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to establish plaintiff's ownership of the note in suit, which was admittedly executed by the defendant and delivered to Chandlee Steel and Iron Company, the payee named therein. The evidence shows that the note is negotiable, duly endorsed by the payee, and held by the plaintiff. This made out a prima facie case. Bank v. Rochamora, 193 N. C., 1, 136 S. E., 259; Clark v. Laurel Park Estates, 196 N. C., 624, 146 S. E., 584.
Moreover, if it be conceded that plaintiff took the note in question after maturity, no equities are pleaded, hence the only question is one of fact, the plaintiff's alleged ownership of the note. The demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled.
Affirmed.