Case Name: THE BANK OF SPRUCE PINE v. HALE VANCE, FLORENCE VANCE and IRA VANCE
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1933-07-12
Citations: 205 N.C. 103
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE BANK OF SPRUCE PINE v. HALE VANCE, FLORENCE VANCE and IRA VANCE.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 205
Pages: 103–105

Head Matter:
THE BANK OF SPRUCE PINE v. HALE VANCE, FLORENCE VANCE and IRA VANCE.
(Filed 12 July, 1933.)
1. Bills and Notes C c — lístate held not liable on note signed by administrator purely for accommodation of makers.
Defendant, an administrator, endorsed a note in the name of the estate, thereunder writing his name as administrator. In an action on the note by the payee judgment was rendered against the makers, which judgment was not paid, and the payee sought to recover on the endorsement. The payee did not allege that the intestate was indebted to him at the time of his death or that his estate received any consideration for the note. Defendant alleged that he signed the note as an accommodation to the makers: Held-, plaintiff was not entitled to judgment on the pleadings against the administrator in his representative capacity.
2. Same — Party signing note in representative capacity under agreement that he should not be personally liable is not liable to payee.
Where an administrator signs a note in the name of the estate and thereunder writes his name as administrator, and at the time of the execution of tlie note the parties agree that he should not he personally liable thereon, the payee may not hold the administrator personally liable thereon, O. S., 3001, and where in an action on the note the administrator alleges such agreement the plaintiff payee is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings against him personally.
Appeal by tbe defendant, Ira Vance, from McElroy, J., at November Term, 1932, of Mitchell.
Reversed.
Tbis is an action on a note for $600.00. Tbe note is fully set out in tbe complaint. It is payable to tbe order of tbe plaintiff, and was due prior to tbe commencement of tbis action.
Tbe defendants, Hale Vance and Florence Vance, tbe makers of tbe note, did not file an answer to tbe complaint. For tbis reason, judgment by default final was rendered by tbe clerk of tbe court ag’ainst these defendants for tbe amount of tbe note. Tbis judgment bas not been paid.
Tbe note as set out in tbe complaint, is endorsed as follows:
“T. B. Vance estate, S. O. Vance, Ira Vance, administrators.”
Tbe defendant, Ira Vance, filed an answer to tbe complaint in wbicb be admitted tbe execution of tbe note by tbe defendants, Hale Vance and Florence Vance, as makers, and its endorsement by him and S. C. Vance as appears on tbe note.
He alleges “that tbe said note sued on by tbe plaintiff in tbis action, set out in paragraph two of tbe complaint, was endorsed in tbe name of 'T. B. Vance Estate, S. C. Vance and Ira Vance, administrators,’ as an accommodation for tbe makers of said note; that tbe defendant, Hale Vance, is a son of T. B. Vance, deceased, and defendant, Florence Vance, is tbe wife of Hale Vance and tbe estate of T. B. Vance, deceased, bas not yet been settled up by tbe administrators of said estate, and tbe said note sued on by tbe plaintiff was not and was not intended to be personally endorsed by tbis defendant, but endorsed by the administrators of tbe estate of said T. B. Vance, as such administrators in the name of T. B. Vance Estate, to wbicb endorsement reference is hereby made.”
When tbe action was called for trial, tbe plaintiff moved for judgment in tbe pleadings. Tbe motion was allowed, and tbe defendant excepted.
From judgment that plaintiff recover of tbe defendant, Ira Vance, tbe sum of $600.00, with interest from 23 January, 1932, and the costs of tbe action, tbe defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court.
McBee & McBee for plaintiff.
Charles Hughes for defendant.

Opinion:
CoNNon, J.
It does not appear from tbe pleadings in tbis action that T. B. Vance was indebted to tbe plaintiff, at bis death, or that bis estate received any consideration for tbe note sued on by tbe plaintiff. It is alleged in the answer that the defendants, S. C. Yance and Ira Yance, as administrators of the estate of T. B. Yance, endorsed the note solely for the accommodation of the makers. It is clear, therefore, that the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings for the amount of the note against the defendants as administrators of T. B. Yance, deceased. Banking Co. v. Morehead, 122 N. C., 318, 30 S. E., 331.
There is nothing on the face of the note which shows that the defendant, Ira Yance, did not intend to become personally liable on the note by reason of his endorsement as administrator. It is alleged, however, in his answer that it was not the intention of the parties that he should become personally liable. In view of this allegation, which for the purpose of this appeal is admitted, it was error to allow plaintiff's motiou for judgment on the pleadings. See Banking Co. v. Morehead, 116 N. C., 413, 21 S. E., 191.
If it shall be found at the trial of the action that it was understood by the parties to the note, at the time it was endorsed by the defendants, S. C. Yance and Ira Yance, as administrators, that they did not thereby become personally liable, the plaintiff will not be entitled to judgment against Ira Yance, personally, for the amount of the note. O. S., 3001. The judgment is
Reversed.