Case Name: GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks, ex rel. BANK OF ROSE HILL, v. H. J. BONEY and Wife, INEZ C. BONEY, A. McL. GRAHAM, Administrator of J. A. BANNERMAN, Deceased; and GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks, ex rel. BANK OF ROSE HILL, and S. D. PITTMAN, Trustee, v. HARVEY J. BONEY and INEZ C. BONEY, His Wife
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1933-03-15
Citations: 204 N.C. 364
Docket Number: 
Parties: GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks, ex rel. BANK OF ROSE HILL, v. H. J. BONEY and Wife, INEZ C. BONEY, A. McL. GRAHAM, Administrator of J. A. BANNERMAN, Deceased, and GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks, ex rel. BANK OF ROSE HILL, and S. D. PITTMAN, Trustee, v. HARVEY J. BONEY and INEZ C. BONEY, His Wife.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 204
Pages: 364–365

Head Matter:
GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks, ex rel. BANK OF ROSE HILL, v. H. J. BONEY and Wife, INEZ C. BONEY, A. McL. GRAHAM, Administrator of J. A. BANNERMAN, Deceased, and GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks, ex rel. BANK OF ROSE HILL, and S. D. PITTMAN, Trustee, v. HARVEY J. BONEY and INEZ C. BONEY, His Wife.
(Filed 15 March, 1933.)
Limitation oí Actions E c—
In an action on a note under seal a mere allegation that defendant was a surety on her husband’s note, without supporting evidence, will not support her plea of three-year statute of limitations.
Appeal by H. J. Boney and Inez C. Boney, his wife, from Harris, J-, at January Term, 1933, of Duplin.
No error.
Oscar B. Turner for appellants.
George R. Ward for plaintiff.

Opinion:
Adams, J.
This is an action to recover judgment on two notes executed by the defendants to the Bank of Rose Hill. The execution of the notes and the amounts due are admitted, but the defendant Inez C. Boney alleges that she is a surety and pleads the three-year statute of limitations in bar. The notes are under seal. Action was brought within ten years. The defendants offered no evidence and excepted to an instruction that upon the evidence the issues should be answered in favor of the plaintiff. We find no error entitling the defendants to a new trial.
No error.