Irvin v. Jenkins

• Decision Date: 20 December 1923
• Docket Number: (No. 445.)
• Citation: 186 N.C. 751,120 S.E. 341
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: IRVIN . v. JENKINS.

120 S.E. 341

(186 N.C. 751)

IRVIN .

v.JENKINS.

(No. 445.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 20, 1923.

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Webb, Judge.

Action by E. V. Irvin against W. L. Jenkins. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Partial new trial.

Civil action to rescind two contracts in regard in the purchase of certain cotton mill stocks and to recover of the defendant the price paid therefor. Two causes of action are set out in the complaint: One in regard to the sale of 20 shares of stock in the Ronda Cotton Mills, Inc., and the other" In regard to the sale of 18 shares of stock in the Grier Cotton Mills, Inc.

Upon the issues joined on the first cause of action, the jury returned the following verdict:

"(1) Did the defendant, on or about the 26th day of January, 1920, for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to purchase 20 Shares of the capital stock of the Ronda Cotton Mills, represent to the plaintiff that the actual and final cost of the land, buildings, machinery, and equipment, etc., constituting said manufacturing plant, had been ascertained to be $30 per spindle? Answer: Yes.

"(2) If so, was said representation so made by the defendant to the plaintiff false to the knowledge of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No, "(3) Did the defendant, on or about the 28th day of January, 1920, for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to purchase 20 shares of the capital stock of the Ronda Cotton Mills, represent to the plaintiff that he was a director in said company, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

"(4) If so, was said representation so made by the defendant to the plaintiff false to the knowledge of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

"(5) Did the defendant, on or about the 26th day of January, 1920, for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to purchase 20 shares of the capital stock of the Ronda Cotton Mills, represent to the plaintiff that the stock in said mills could only be purchased through the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

"(6) If so, was said representation so made by the defendant to the plaintiff false to the knowledge of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

"(7) If so, did the plaintiff rely upon said representations or any of them, and was he thereby induced to purchase from the defendant 20 shares of the capital stock in said Ronda Cotton Mills at the price of $133 per share, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

"(8) If so, did the plaintiff, within a reasonable time, after the discovery by him of the falsity of said representations, elect to rescind said contract of sale, and before the institution of this action tender to the defendant the certificates for said stock and demand a return by the defendant of the purchase price paid him by the defendant therefor, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes."

Issues of similar character were submitted on...