Abel v. Dworsky
| Decision Date | 04 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | 269. |
| Citation | 142 S.E. 475,195 N.C. 867 |
| Parties | ABEL et al. v. DWORSKY et ux. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Cranmer, Judge.
Action by John A. Abel and another, trading as the Abel Bros Company, against M. Dworsky and wife. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. New trial.
Issue of fraud of defendant in purchasing diamond ring and procuring insolvent corporation to sign notes for ring held for jury.
Evidence of ratification of sale after discovering alleged fraud by defendant in procuring insolvent corporation to sign notes for ring held for jury.
This is an action for actionable fraud, brought by plaintiffs against defendants.
The issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:
J. W. Bailey and W. H. Weatherspoon, both of Raleigh, for appellants.
J. C. Little, of Raleigh, for appellees.
The defendants, at the close of plaintiff's evidence and at the close of all the evidence, made a motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S. § 567.
"It is the settled rule of practice and the accepted position in this jurisdiction that, on a motion to nonsuit, the evidence which makes for the plaintiff's claim and which tends to support her cause of action, whether offered by the plaintiff or elicited from the defendant's witnesses, will be taken and considered in its most favorable light for the plaintiff and she is 'entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence, and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom."' Nash v. Royster, 189 N.C. at p. 410, 127 S.E. 357.
This action for fraud is based on the allegations: The purchase of a diamond ring from plaintiffs, doing business in New York by M. Dworsky (Dworsky's, Inc., doing business in Raleigh, N. C.) for $1,200, with a preconceived intention not to pay for it, he and the corporation he controlled, Dworsky's, Inc., being insolvent at the time, which fact was concealed from plaintiffs; the ring being sold to M. Dworsky for his wife. Three notes of $400 each, signed by Dworsky's, Inc., were given at the time for the diamond instead of the notes being given by M. Dworsky. We are of the opinion there was sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury on the issues of fraud. Des Farges v. Pugh, 93 N.C. 31, 53 Am....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Y. & B. Corporation
... ... reasonable intendment upon the evidence, and every reasonable ... inference to be drawn therefrom. Abel v. Dworsky, ... 195 N.C. 867, 142 S.E. 475 ... It is ... also well settled in this jurisdiction that controversies on ... ...
-
Clark v. Laurel Park Estates, Inc.
... ... purpose of inducing action by another, it is fraudulent, and ... may be made the ground of relief." Abel" v ... Dworsky, 195 N.C. 867, 142 S.E. 475; Palmetto Bank & Trust Co. v. Grimsley, 134 S.C. 493, 133 S.E. 437, 51 A ... L. R. 42 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
MacMillan Buick Co. v. Rhodes
...the contract and to recoup his damages by way of counterclaim. Pryor v. Foster, 130 N.Y. 171, 29 N.E. 123. The case of Abel v. Dworsky, 195 N.C. 867, 142 S.E. 475, cited in support of the rulings below, is not at herewith. That was an action grounded on rescission or renunciation, and there......