American National Bank v. Northcutt

BkowN, J. This action is brought to recover on two promissory notes of $1,000 each, payable to tbe Southern Savings Bank of Wadesboro, *221 N. C., and indorsed by that bank to plaintiff. Tbe execution and in-dorsement of tbe notes by defendants are admitted. There are no exceptions to tbe evidence or to tbe charge; therefore, tbe findings of tbe jury stand unchallenged. These entitle tbe plaintiff tbe judgment, unless tbe defendants have pleaded a Valid set-off or counterclaim in their answer, which has been disregarded by tbe court. This case is very similar to that of the American National Bank v. Hill, from same county, post, 241. Much that is said in that opinion is applicable to this appeal. There is no allegation in tbe answer that tbe debt due plaintiff by tbe Southern Savings Bank, for which tbe note sued on and other notes have been assigned as collateral, has been fully paid by tbe collection of tbe collateral by tbe plaintiff. Then, again, tbe answer fails to properly plead any set-off or counterclaim. Tbe allegation is that tbe defendants “are stockholders in tbe Southern Savings Bank, and were depositors in said bank at tbe time of tbe appointment of tbe receivers, and as such are now among tbe creditors of said bank.” Tbe answer fails to set out tbe amount of tbe deposit and in what amount tbe Southern Savings Bank is indebted to defendants. It may be $1 or it may be a much larger sum. If tbe true amount were set out, and it appeared to be inconsiderable, plaintiff could and probably would admit it and give defendants credit for it on tbe note and take judgment for tbe balance. As it is, no counterclaim is sufficiently pleaded that would be good against the Southern Savings Bank, tbe assignor of plaintiff. v It is well settled that tbe averments as to set-off or counterclaim shall be definite and certain. Yague, general, and indefinite allegations are not sufficient. Tbe plea must be specific and must fully apprise tbe plaintiff of tbe nature and extent of tbe defendant’s claim. 19 Enc. P. and P., 151. In some cases it has been held that in pleading a set-off or counterclaim tbe same definiteness and certainty are required as in stating a cause of action in a declaration or complaint. Bernard v. Mullott, 1 Cal., 368; Stockton v. Graves, 10 Ind., 294; Gragg v. Frye, 32 Me., 283; and other cases cited; 19 Enc. P. and P., 751. In this State it' is held that a counterclaim which only alleges that plaintiff is indebted to tbe defendant, without alleging further tbe nature, extent, and kind of indebtedness, and bow it arose, is imperfectly pleaded and ought to be disregarded. Smith v. McGregor, 96 N. C., 101. In that case the Court says: “A counterclaim should be alleged with clearness and precision; its nature and tbe consideration supporting it; *222 when, how, and where it arose, should be stated with reasonable certainty. This the statute requires, and, moreover, it is necessary to just and intelligent procedure. The counterclaim is substantially the allegation of a cause of action on the part of the defendant against the plaintiff, and it ought to be set forth with the same precision as if alleged in the complaint.” The judgment of the Superior Court is Affirmed.