Horne v. Cloninger
Decision Date | 13 December 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 316,316 |
Citation | 123 S.E.2d 112,256 N.C. 102 |
Parties | Joseph Frederick HORNE and wife, Dixie Smith Horne v. C. A. CLONINGER, Jr. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Richard A. Williams, Newton, for defendant, appellant.
Corne & Warlick, by Thomas W. Warlick, Newton, for plaintiffs, appellees.
The court correctly held the evidence sufficient to go to the jury on the issues of fraud and damages (Brooks v. Ervin Construction Co., 253 N.C. 214, 116 S.E.2d 454) but insufficient on punitive damages (Swinton v. Savoy Realty Co., 236 N.C. 723, 73 S.E.2d 785). The charge on the issue of fraud was correct and in accord with the established authorities. With respect to damages, however, the court fell into error--induced in part, at least--by the emphasis the parties placed on the cost of moving the house from the sinking to a solid foundation.
On the issue of damages, the court charged:
The courts have been careful to define the rights of parties to a fraudulent transaction. The purchaser has the right at his election to rescind or to keep the property and recover the difference between its actual value and its value as represented. Hutchins v. Davis, 230 N.C. 67, 52 S.E.2d 210. 'The great weight of authority sustains the general rule that a person acquiring property by virtue of a commercial transaction, who has been defrauded by false representations * * * may recover as damages in a tort action the difference between the actual value of the property at the time of making the contract and the value that it would have possessed if the representation had been true.' 24 Am.Jur., Fraud and Deceit, § 227, p. 55. To like effect, Hutchins v. Davis, supra; Morrison v. Hartley, 178 N.C. 618, 101 S.E. 375; Lunn v. Shermer...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
River Birch Associates v. City of Raleigh
...of a contract is the difference between the value of what was received and the value of what was promised, Horne v. Cloninger, 256 N.C. 102, 123 S.E.2d 112 (1961), and is potentially trebled by N.C.G.S. § 75-16. In this instance, damages suffered by the individual members of the Homeowners ......
-
Newton v. Standard Fire Ins. Co.
...cannot be recovered for false representations. Nunn v. Smith, 270 N.C. 374, 377, 154 S.E.2d 497, 499 (1967); Horne v. Cloninger, 256 N.C. 102, 103, 123 S.E.2d 112, 113 (1961). (3) A plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages in an action for fraud merely upon a showing of misrepresentati......
-
Media Network, Inc. v. Mullen Advertising, Inc.
...was actually paid before being terminated in February 2005, with any such award potentially trebled. See Horne v. Cloninger, 256 N.C. 102, 104, 123 S.E.2d 112, 113 (1961) ("The jury, having established the fraud, should have awarded as damages the difference between the actual value and the......
-
Lightning Litho, Inc. v. Danka Industries, Inc.
...Inc., 258 Neb. 581, 605 N.W.2d 110, 122 (2000); Stewart v. Potter, 44 N.M. 460, 104 P.2d 736, 738-39 (1940); Horne v. Cloninger, 256 N.C. 102, 123 S.E.2d 112, 113 (1961); Haynes v. Cumberland Builders, Inc., 546 S.W.2d 228, 233 (Tenn.Ct. App.1976); Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Cottey, 7......