Court Opinion

ID: 9812987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:52:57.842779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:26.726728
License: Public Domain

ShepheRD, 0. J.,
dissenting: I know of no statute which repeals the well-settled principle that a purchaser, after maturity or witli notice, from one who purchased before maturity and without notice, is fully protected against any defences existing between the maker and payee of a negotiable bond or note. See Lewis v. Long, 102 N. C., 206, and the authorities cited. The indorsement made under such circumstances fixes the rights of the parties, and in the absence of additional legislation I am unable to see how the action is barred by the statute of limitations. It is true that under our statute or by suit quia timet the holder might have been compelled to sue the principal, but the bare fact that a bona fide holder discovers the relationship of the parties subsequently to the indorsement cannot, in my opinion, put in operation the statute of limitations. No *513authority, I think, can be found for the position, and I am not prepared to give my sanction to so radical a change in what I believe to be a well-established principle in the law of negotiable paper.