Diemar & Kirk Company v. Smart Styles, Inc.

*159 Sharp, J. The complaint .alleges, and the 'answer admits, these facts: Defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff the two checks upon which this suit is brought as payment on account. Both checks were duly presented to the drawee bank for payment. Both were returned- unpaid — one because defendant had insufficient funds on deposit with which to pay it, and the other because defendant had stopped payment on it. Defendant’s appeal raises this question: Do these specific admissions, followed only by a general denial in the answer that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff, entitle plaintiff to a judgment on the pleadings for the amount of the two checks? A check is ami instrument ¡by which a depositor seeks to withdraw funds from a bank. It is a bill of exchange -drawn on a bank and payable -upon demand. G.S. 25-192; State v. Ivey, 248 N.C. 316, 103 S.E. 2d 398. Ordinarily a check is given for a debt 'contracted or money borrowed and, in a commercial transaction as well -as in law, it is equivalent to the drawer’s promise to pay the payee or holder. An action may be brought om it as upon a promissory note payable on demand. Camas Prairie State Bank v. Newman, 15 Idaho 719, 99 Pac. 833, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 703, 128 Am. St. Rep. 81, 88; 11 Am. Jur. 2d, Bills and Notes § 591. As a practical matter, in business transactions, there is little difference between a check and a demand note. Both are acknowledgments of indebtedness and -an unconditional promise to pay. Smith v. Treuthart, 223 N.Y.S. 481; 11 Am. Jur. 2d, Bills and Notes § 591; Deal v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 225 Ala. 533, 144 So. 81, 86 A.L.R. 455. A check is a contract within itself. By the act of drawing -and delivering it t-o the payee, the drawer commits himself to pay the amount of the 'check in .the event the drawee refuse© payment upon presentment. Deal v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., supra; Permenter v. Bank of Green Cove Springs, Fla., 136 So. 2d 377; Williams v. Lowe, 62 Ind. App. 357, 113 N.E. 471. A negotiable instrument -is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration and not a© a gift unless the circumstances indicate otherwise. G.S. 25-29; Francis’ Executor v. Francis, Ky., 280 S.W. 2d 192. The 'drawer of a .'check has ¡tlhe right, at any time prior to acceptance ¡by the bank, to stop its payment. In re Will of Winborne, 231 N.C. 463, 57 S.E. 2d 795; Trust Co. v. Raynor, 243 N.C. 417, 90 S.E. 2d 894. However, his revocation of the bank’© .authority to. pay the check does not 'discharge hi© liability to the payee or holder. 10 C.J.S., Bills and Notes § 35. The situation becomes the same as if the check had been .dishonored and notice thereof given to the drawer. Flynn v. Currie, 130 Me. 461, 157 A. 310; Annot., 14 A.L.R. 562. *160 The execution, 'delivery, presentment 'and ¡nonpayment of the two checks in suit were not issuable facts. They were alleged in the complaint and admitted by the answer. Hutchins v. Davis, 230 N.C. 67, 52 S.E. 2d 210. The dhecks were deemed prima facie Uo have been issued for a valuable consideration — 'and, in addition, the answer admitted that they represented payment on account. Failure of consideration was a defense available to the defendant if he desired to plead it. G.S. 25-33; Mills v. Bonin, 239 N.C. 498, 80 S.E. 2d 365. However, this is an affirmative defense 'and therefore must be specifically pleaded by setting out the .applicable facts. Godwin v. Cooper, 227 N.C. 700, 41 S.E. 2d 734. Failure of consideration may not be shown under a general denial of indebtedness. 1 McIntosh, N. C. Practice and Procedure, § 1236(9); 11 C.J.S., Bills and Notes § 649(b). Where new matter constituting .a defense to ¡a negotiable instrument iis properly alleged in the answer, the plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment on /the pleadings even though 'the .answer admits the execution ‘and nonpayment of the instrument. Carroll v. Brown, 228 N.C. 636, 46 S.E. 2d 715; Stelling v. Trust Co., 213 N.C. 324, 197 S.E. 754. However, “(a)n .answer’ is -fatally deficient in substance and subject to a motion by the plaintiff -for judgment on the pleadings, if it admits every material averment in the complaint and fails to set up any defense or n'ew matter sufficient in law to avoid or defeat the plaintiff’s claim.” Erickson v. Starling, 235 N.C. 643, 71 S.E. 2d 384. Such is the situation in the instant case. It is controlled by Godwin v. Cooper, supra. The judgment on the pleadings is Affirmed.