Black v. Black

• Decision Date: 29 April 1892
• Citation: 14 S.E. 971,110 N.C. 398
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Black v. Black.

14 S.E. 971

110 N.C. 398

Black

v.Black.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 29, 1892.

Deceit — Reliance on False Representations.

In an action for deceit for misrepresenting the condition of a mule received from defendant by plaintiff in exchange for a horse, the court charged that plaintiff, to maintain his action, must "establish that the mule was unsound; that defendant falsely and fraudulently asserted it to be sound, and that these false representations induced plaintiff to make the trade;" and that "if plaintiff was not in fact misled by de fendant, hut acted on his own judgment in making the trade, " they should find that plaintiff was not "thereby induced to part with his property. " Held, that the charge plainly implied that plaintiff could not recover if he took the mule at his own risk; that is, relied and acted on his own judgment.

Appeal from superior court, Mecklenburg county; W. A Hoke, Judge.

Action by J. E. Black against W. H. Black. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages which he alleges he sustained by reason of the deceit of the defendant in respect to a mule which the plaintiff took from him in exchange for a horse. The pleadings raised issues of fact. The verdict of the jury was favorable to the plaintiff, and the court gave judgment in his favor. The defendant, having assigned error, appealed to this court.

Burwell & Walker, for appellant.

Clark-son & Duls, for appellee.

Merrimon, C. J. The issues tendered by the defendant were appropriate, but the substance of them was sufficiently embodied in those submitted to the jury.

The latter, though unnecessarily multiplied, served to ascertain and settle the material facts in controversy; they were simple, did not necessarily confuse the jury, nor can we see that the defendant suffered prejudice from them. The issues raised by the pleadings were, in substance, submitted, though not in the most direct form. Thej' afforded the parties, respectively, opportunity to introduce all pertinent evidence, and apply it fairly and intelligently. This is sufficient unless the complaining party shows that he suffered prejudice from the number and character of the issues. The first exception is therefore unfounded.

The defendant requested the court to give the jury 12 special instructions. It gave several of them, properly declined to give others, and gave so much of the remaining ones as he was entitled to have given. He complains...