The plaintiff is so clearly entitled to recover of the appellants that we deem it unnecessary to discuss the several points presented on the appeal. Counsel with commendable candor was unable to insist with much earnestness upon any of the assignments of error to the rulings of the Judge below. The judgment in both cases must be Affirmed.
Bank of Guilford v. Keogh, 114 N.C. 262 (1894)
Feb. 1894
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
114 N.C. 262
THE BANK OF GUILFORD v. T. B. KEOGH et al.
In two actions brought by the plaintiff, the one against Harriet A. Keogh, a feme covert, Thomas B. Keogh and E. L. Gilmer, and the other against the two last.named, upon two separate notes signed by all of said parties, there was judgment in both cases for the plaintiff against the defendants, T. B. Keogh and Gilmer, at May Term, 1893, of Guilford Superior Court, before Bryan, J.
Defendants appealed.
Mr. L. M. Scott, for plaintiff.
Mr. James E. Boyd, for defendants (appellants).