Farmers' Bank of Roxboro v. Couch

Clark, J.: The note was signed jn December, 1892, and was made payable to the plaintiff bank. It was handed to-the president of the bank who received it individually and not as president, and advanced the money for the amount of the note, paying therewith certain claims in his hands-which he held as a lawyer against the principal in the *439 note. The president intended to discount the note immediately at the bank, but forgot to do so till December, 1894.' This, though delayed, was a valid delivery. Parker v. McDowell, 96 N. C., 219, and similar authorities relied on by the defendants do not apply, because, here, the note was eventually discounted by the payee bank, and suit is brought by it as a bona fide holder; nor did the temporary holding of the paper by Winstead and' his advancing money on it, vitiate it. 1 Daniel Neg. Inst., Sec. 792. There is no evidence that the defendants, the sureties, were in anywise prejudiced by the delay; besides the note contains the following express stipulation, “ the said sureties hereby agreeing to continue and remain bound for the payment of this note and interest, notwithstanding any extension of time granted from time to time to the principal debtor, waiving all notice of such extension of time from either payor or payee.” No agreement to extend timéis shown, and certainly a mere delay (not amounting to the bar of the Statute of Limitations) cannot release the sureties when they have contracted that an express extension, though made without notice, shall not discharge them. Upon the facts found, judgment should be entered below in favor of the plain tiff. Reversed.