Court Opinion

ID: 9826412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:54:15.969311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:03.045889
License: Public Domain

The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This is an appeal from a decree of Judge Featherstone. His decree will be reported for a proper understanding of the case. The- exceptions, seven in number, challenge the correctness of his Honor’s rulings.
The appellant’s counsel at the hearing conceded that, if the note and mortgage involved in the suit were not indivisible, the position of the appellant was untenable.
The note and mortgage are divisible and not indivisible. The evidence satisfies us that the note came into possession of the respondent before maturity for value and without notice. The purchase of the note carried with it the mortgage.
The testimony of the bank officers is unco'ntradicted. They were not cross-examined. Their evidence shows that the note was purchased before maturity for value and without notice, and that the bank innocently holds the same.
All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Cothran and Messrs. Acting Associate Justices J. H. Marion and R. O. Purdy concur in result.
*302Mr. Chiee Justice Gary did not participate.