No. 7423DC283
(Filed 5 June 1974)
Bills and Notes § 20— liability on promissory note
The evidence supported the trial court’s determination that appellant was liable on a promissory note executed to plaintiff’s intestate.
Appeal by defendant Kite from Osborne, Judge, 15 October 1973 Session of Wilkes County, the General Court of Justice, District Court Division.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 May, 1974.
This action was instituted to collect a $2,500.00 promissory note under seal executed by the defendants Walter A. West and R. F. Kite dated 6 March 1967, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% from June 6, 1967 (which was apparently the *61due date of the note). There was a second cause of action stated in the complaint which involved Carrie W. West but was not brought forward on appeal. Walter A. West and wife, Carrie W. West, filed no pleadings and did not resist the cause of action. The defendant Kite filed an answer denying the execution of the note or any indebtedness thereon.
The case was tried before the judge and without a jury.
The judge found that West and Kite executed the note under seal to Fannie Walsh in the sum of $2,500.00; that said note was due and payable on 6 June 1967; that demand had been made on the makers and that no portion of the note had been paid and that judgment by default had been taken against the defendant West. The judge then entered conclusions of law to the effect that West and Kate, as co-makers, were jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff; that plaintiff was entitled to recover from Kite the sum of $2,500.00, plus interest, at the rate of 6% per annum from 6 June 1967. The judge then entered judgment against Kite in the sum of $2,500.00, plus interest, at the rate of 6 % per annum from 6 June 1967, together with the costs of the action. From the entry of this judgment, the defendant Kite appealed.
Brewer and Bryan by Dennis R. Joyce for plaintiff appellee.
Erie Davis for defendant appellant, R. F. Kite.
CAMPBELL, Judge.
The evidence was sufficient to support the findings of fact entered by the judge, and those facts were sufficient to support the conclusions of law and the judgment.
We find no prejudicial error in the trial of this case.
Affirmed.
Chief Judge Brock and Judge Britt concur.