Aderholt v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1910 |
| Citation | 67 S.E. 978,152 N.C. 411 |
| Parties | ADERHOLT v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; W. R. Allen, Judge.
Action by J. C. Aderholt against the Seaboard Air Line Railway. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
Evidence in an action for personal injury, in which plaintiff seeks to avoid a release of liability executed by him reciting merely a money consideration received by him, held insufficient to show that it was procured by fraudulent representations that plaintiff would be given employment by defendant, with intent to then discharge him.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries which he alleged resulted from the negligence of the defendant company while he was in the discharge of his duties as roadmaster. The defendant denied the allegations of the complaint as to its negligence, and set up as a defense certain releases executed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff replied, admitting the execution of the releases set forth in the answer, but alleged that they were procured by fraudulent representations. The issues submitted were found against the defendant; and, judgment being rendered thereon, defendant appealed.
Murray Allen and W. H Pace, for appellant.
Douglass & Lyon and Armistead Jones & Son, for appellee.
In the view we take of this case, it is only necessary to consider questions relating to the first and second issues:
That the jury's response to the first issue which was made by consent would have put an end to this cause, in the absence of an affirmative answer to the second issue, is a matter not open to dispute. A release executed by an injured party and based upon a valuable consideration is a complete defense to an action for damages for the injuries, and, where the execution of such a release is admitted or established by the evidence, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove the matter in avoidance of the release. In this case the plaintiff admits the execution of the releases relied upon by the defendant, and alleges in his reply that they were procured by the representations of the defendant, made with fraudulent intent, that the plaintiff should have employment with the defendant, in his former capacity, as long as he could properly discharge his duties; and the second issue quoted above, was intended to cover that view of the case. The burden of that issue was upon the plaintiff, and, as we have said, unless he sustained the burden and procured an affirmative response to that issue, he could not have recovered in this action, and the jury's finding upon the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages would have been unnecessary and of no avail to the plaintiff. At the conclusion of the evidence, the defendant entered a motion of nonsuit, which raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to be submitted to the jury on the second issue; that is, whether or not there was any evidence of fraud in the procurement of the releases. Upon a careful examination of all the testimony, we are of the opinion that there was not sufficient evidence of fraud to be submitted to the jury, and the defendant's motion of nonsuit should have been sustained. Plaintiff's evidence shows a state of facts that is inconsistent with an intention on the part of the defendant to procure the releases in this case by fraud. The plaintiff sustained the injuries complained of on April 5, 1905, and was removed to the home of his father-in-law at Sanford, N. C., and more than two months elapsed before the defendant's agent called on him. The plaintiff himself says that no settlement was made at the time of the first visit, but that defendant's agent returned at the end of two or three weeks, and on July 5th, three months after the injury, a conditional release agreement, in the following words, was signed by the plaintiff: "If before the expiration of thirty days from this date, the Seaboard Air Line Railway shall pay to me, J. C. Aderholt, the sum of three hundred dollars, I do hereby agree to release the said railway of and from all claims whatsoever for damages for or on account of personal injury sustained by freight train parting and running together, throwing me against seat, breaking four ribs and injuring back, on the 5th day of April, 1905." At the time of signing this agreement, besides the plaintiff and defendant's agent, there were present D. M. McIver, plaintiffs father-in-law, and Miss Mary McIver, his sister-in-law, and no one else. D. M. McIver signed the agreement as a witness. There is no evidence that the plaintiff was not then in full possession of his mental faculties and did not fully understand what he was doing. The plaintiff says that at this meeting in Sanford, when the conditional release agreement, recited above, was signed, he had a very pleasant conversation with Baldwin, the defendant's agent, and that Baldwin said that as soon as he, Aderholt, was able he could get his position back. Plaintiff says: "That is all that passed." The negotiations for a settlement, which culminated in the execution of the release agreement, were open and fair, and there is nothing in the evidence which tends to show that any unfair advantage was taken of the plaintiff. He signed the agreement freely and voluntarily. The final release was signed 17 days after the execution of the conditional release agreement. According to the undisputed facts, Aderholt met Baldwin in Raleigh on July 22d and received a voucher for $300, and executed the final release in the following words: "For and in consideration of the sum of three hundred dollars ($300) to me...
To continue reading
Request your trial