Cofield v. Griffin, No. 22
| Docket Nº | No. 22 |
| Citation | 238 N.C. 377, 78 S.E.2d 131, 40 A.L.R.2d 966 |
| Case Date | October 14, 1953 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Page 131
v.
GRIFFIN et ux.
W. C. Morse, Jr., Elizabeth City, and Weldon A. Hollowell, Edenton, for plaintiffs, appellees.
J. N. Pruden, Edenton, and LeRoy & Goodwin, Elizabeth City, for defendants, appellants.
ERVIN, Justice.
The only assignments of error requiring elaboration are those which challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of the plaintiffs to carry the case to the jury and support the verdict on the issue of fraud.
The essential elements of fraud are these: (1) That defendant made a representation relating to some material past or existing fact; (2) that the representation was false; (3) that when he made it, defendant knew that the representation was false, or made it recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; (4) that defendant made the representation with intention that it should be acted upon by plaintiff; (5) that plaintiff reasonably relied upon the representation, and acted upon it; and (6) that plaintiff thereby suffered injury. Parker v. White, 235 N.C. 680, 71 S.E.2d 122; Foster v. Snead, 235 N.C. 338, 69 S.E.2d 604; Vail v. Vail, 233 N.C. 109, 63 S.E.2d 202. A false representation is material when it deceives a person and induces him to act. Starnes v. Raleigh, C. & S. R. Co., 170 N.C. 222, 87 S.E. 43; White Sewing Machine Co. v. Bullock, 161 N.C. 1, 76 S.E. 634.
When the evidence of the plaintiffs is interpreted in the light favorable to them, it makes out this case:
1. The male defendant desired to acquire as many of the outstanding interests in the Chowan County land as possible on the basis of a total outlay not to exceed $600 for the entire property. He sought out the plaintiffs at their homes in Virginia, and offered them $300 for their shares in the land. He represented to the plaintiffs that he had just [238 N.C. 380] talked to Mrs. Agnes Heath Cofield and Mrs. Martha C. Forehand at Elizabeth City concerning his desire to acquire the entire property for $600, and that Mrs. Agnes Heath Cofield and Mrs. Martha C. Forehand would sell him their interests in the property for their proportionate part of that sum as soon as he obtained a deed from the plaintiffs for their shares.
2. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Agnes Heath Cofield and Mrs. Martha C. Forehand, acting through the instrumentality of an agent, had just informed the male defendant that they would not sell him their interests in the land at all. Consequently, his representation to the plaintiffs as to what Mrs. Agnes Heath Cofield and Mrs. Martha C. Forehand would do was not only false, but was known to him to be false at the time he made it.
3. The male defendant made the representation as to what Mrs. Agnes Heath Cofield and Mrs. Martha C. Forehand would do to the plaintiffs with intent that the plaintiffs should believe it and be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowan County Bd. of Educ. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 339A91
...S.E.2d 674, 677 (1981) (quoting Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130, 138, 209 S.E.2d 494, 500 (1974)); Page 659 accord Cofield v. Griffin, 238 N.C. 377, 379, 78 S.E.2d 131, 133 (1953). USG focuses on the fourth element of fraud, reliance, and argues that because Rowan failed to identify a spe......
-
Leftwich v. Gaines, COA98-1304.
..."[t]he state of any person's mind at a given moment is as much a fact as the existence of any other thing." Cofield v. Griffin, 238 N.C. 377, 381, 78 S.E.2d 131, 134 (1953) (citation omitted); see also In re Baby Boy Shamp, 82 N.C.App. 606, 614, 347 S.E.2d 848, 853 (1986) (citation omitted)......
-
CF Industries, Inc. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., C-C-77-131.
...fact but is an opinion or prediction about the future. See Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130, 209 S.E.2d 494 (1974); Cofield v. Griffin, 238 N.C. 377, 78 S.E.2d 131 (1953); Craig v. Texaco, Inc., 218 F.Supp. 789 (E.D.N.C. 1963); aff'd mem., 326 F.2d 971 (4th Cir. In Ragsdale the court held ......
-
Spartan Leasing Inc. v. Pollard, 9013SC359
...relied upon the [101 N.C.App. 455] representation, and acted upon it; and (6) that plaintiff thereby suffered injury. Cofield v. Griffin, 238 N.C. 377, 379, 78 S.E.2d 131, 133 As regards the first element, the fraudulent misrepresentation must be of a subsisting or ascertainable fact. Berwe......
-
Rowan County Bd. of Educ. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 339A91
...S.E.2d 674, 677 (1981) (quoting Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130, 138, 209 S.E.2d 494, 500 (1974)); Page 659 accord Cofield v. Griffin, 238 N.C. 377, 379, 78 S.E.2d 131, 133 (1953). USG focuses on the fourth element of fraud, reliance, and argues that because Rowan failed to identify a spe......
-
Leftwich v. Gaines, COA98-1304.
..."[t]he state of any person's mind at a given moment is as much a fact as the existence of any other thing." Cofield v. Griffin, 238 N.C. 377, 381, 78 S.E.2d 131, 134 (1953) (citation omitted); see also In re Baby Boy Shamp, 82 N.C.App. 606, 614, 347 S.E.2d 848, 853 (1986) (citation omitted)......
-
CF Industries, Inc. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., C-C-77-131.
...fact but is an opinion or prediction about the future. See Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130, 209 S.E.2d 494 (1974); Cofield v. Griffin, 238 N.C. 377, 78 S.E.2d 131 (1953); Craig v. Texaco, Inc., 218 F.Supp. 789 (E.D.N.C. 1963); aff'd mem., 326 F.2d 971 (4th Cir. In Ragsdale the court held ......
-
Spartan Leasing Inc. v. Pollard, 9013SC359
...relied upon the [101 N.C.App. 455] representation, and acted upon it; and (6) that plaintiff thereby suffered injury. Cofield v. Griffin, 238 N.C. 377, 379, 78 S.E.2d 131, 133 As regards the first element, the fraudulent misrepresentation must be of a subsisting or ascertainable fact. Berwe......