Mason v. Pelletier

• Decision Date: 31 January 1879
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JEMIMA MASON v. JEREMIAH J. PELLETIER.

80 N.C. 66

JEMIMA MASON

v.JEREMIAH J. PELLETIER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1879.

PETITION TO REHEAR filed by plaintiff on the 12th of February, 1878, and heard at January Term, 1879, of THE SUPREME COURT.

Messrs. Gilliam & Gatling, for plaintiff .

No counsel for defendant.

DILLARD, J.

This is an application to rehear a judgment of this court at June term, 1877, reported in 77 N. C., 52, and in order to understand the grounds of the application it is necessary to recite the following facts:

Edward Hill many years ago sued Matthew Mason for a tract of land, and from the verdict and judgment in the cause, an appeal was taken to the supreme court, and in the supreme court the litigation was ended by a decision in favor of Mason, whereby the land in dispute was decided to belong to him and not to Hill. Hill v. Mason, 7 Jones, 551. Mason died in 1861, and by will devised the land in controversy between him and Hill to the plaintiff, his widow. Hill sold and conveyed in his life time a large tract of land to the defendant, of which the land in litigation in the said suit was claimed to be a part, but excepted the same in the deed, stipulating to convey it, if he established his title thereto, and agreeing to pay defendant five dollars per acre therefor in case he failed to establish his title.

The plaintiff conveyed to defendant a part of the lands devised to her and which had been the subject of litigation in the said suit of Hill against her husband, and the defendant conveyed to plaintiff a part of the same tract called the “Marsh lands,” and the plaintiff alleges that the transaction was induced and brought about by a false and fraudulent representation of defendant, that the suit of Hill v. Mason had been decided in favor of Hill, in which she confided and believed to be true at the time of executing the deed aforesaid to the defendant; and plaintiff, on finding out the deception and fraud practiced on her in relation to the result of the said suit, brought her action against the defendant for the rescission of the deed she had made to him and for a reconveyance of the land to herself. This action of the plaintiff was tried at fall term, 1876, of Carteret superior court, and judgment given for the plaintiff, and on appeal to the supreme court the cause was heard at the June term, 1877, and the judgment of the court below was reversed for error set forth in the opinion of the court, and a certificate thereof directed to issue to the court below to govern its further action. The error in the judgment of this court is assigned to be, in that, this court declared that there was no evidence that the fraudulent representations found by the jury to have been made by defend...