Mills v. Lynch, 529
| Decision Date | 01 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 529,529 |
| Citation | 259 N.C. 359,130 S.E.2d 541 |
| Parties | John Lloyd MILLS and wife, Rosella Mills v. W. H. LYNCH. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Coltrane & Gavin, Asheboro, Elreta Melton Alexander, Greensboro, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Norman & Reid, Pilot Mountain, for defendant-appellee.
This appeal presents only the question of whether the plaintiffs' evidence was sufficient to survive the motion for nonsuit. There are a number of discrepancies and omissions in plaintiffs' evidence. Defendant's evidence, of course, was not before the court. In his answer defendant categorically denies that he was guilty of any fraud. He alleges the transaction was handled by plaintiffs' own attorney who had been employed by the family to sell the land of their father in order to pay his debts, and the proceeds of the sale were used for that purpose; that the brothers and sisters had theretofore conveyed their interest in the land to the plaintiff in order to expedite the sale; that he had refused to make plaintiffs a loan and it was at all times understood by those concerned that defendant was buying the land outright.
Albeit the facts may be different, on motion to nonsuit, plaintiffs' evidence must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to them. 4 Strong's North Carolina Index, Trial, Section 21. Applying this well-established rule, plaintiffs' evidence, if believed, would establish that they were wilfully misled and misinformed by the defendant and the attorney acting for all parties; that the attorney of the defendant informed plaintiffs, an illiterate man and his wife, that the instrument they were signing was a deed of trust when it was actually a deed; that plaintiffs were prevented from reading the paper or having it read to them by the positive assertion that this was unnecessary because they knew what it was, a deed of trust.
'(T)he duty to read an instrument or to have it read before signing it is a positive one, and the failure to do so, in the absence of any mistake, fraud, or oppression, is a circumstance against which no relief may be had, either at law or in equity.' Furst & Thomas v. Merritt, 190 N.C. 397, 130 S.E. 40. However, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs' evidence in this case shows an absence of fraud or oppression. Neither can we hold as a matter of law, under the circumstances and considering the relation of the plaintiffs to the attorney acting for all the parties, that plaintiffs might not reasonably have relied upon the positive misrepresentations which they say were made.
Fraud affecting the validity of deeds is of two kinds, fraud in the treaty and fraud in the factum. Medlin v. Buford, 115 N.C. 260, 20 S.E. 463; Cutler v. Roanoke R. & Lumber Co., 128 N.C. 477, 39 S.E. 30. Although it has been said 'definitions are a bog for the unwary and a chart...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spartan Leasing Inc. v. Pollard
...signing a written instrument is under a duty to read it and ordinarily is charged with knowledge of its contents. Mills v. Lynch, 259 N.C. 359, 130 S.E.2d 541 (1963). These rules apply to the non-fiduciary relationship as exists between a creditor and a guarantor. International Harvester Cr......
-
Wescott v. State Highway Commission, 22
...would invalidate the agreement as it might relate to the Casino property. Nixon v. Nixon, 260 N.C. 251, 132 S.E.2d 590; Mills v. Lynch, 259 N.C. 359, 130 S.E.2d 541; Davis v. Davis, 256 N.C. 468, 124 S.E.2d 130; Ward v. Heath, 222 N.C. 470, 24 S.E.2d 'In all controversies at law respecting ......
-
Northwestern Bank v. Roseman
...Roseman had a duty to read the document and is bound by its terms absent proof of mistake, fraud, or oppression. See Mills v. Lynch, 259 N.C. 359, 130 S.E.2d 541 (1963); Harris v. Bingham, 246 N.C. 77, 97 S.E.2d 453 (1957). In order to defeat the bank's claim under the personal guaranty, Mr......
-
Spivey v. Wright's Roofing
...of any mistake, fraud or oppression, is a circumstance against which no relief may be had, either at law or in equity.’ ” Mills v. Lynch, 259 N.C. 359, 362, 130 S.E.2d 541, 543–44 (1963) (quoting Furst v. Merritt, 190 N.C. 397, 402, 130 S.E. 40, 43 (1925)). In recognition of the fact that a......