Roberson v. Williams, 98
Decision Date | 13 October 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 98,98 |
Citation | 240 N.C. 696,83 S.E.2d 811 |
Parties | Mrs. Annie L. ROBERSON v. D. C. WILLIAMS, Jr. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Critcher & Gurganus, Williamston, for plaintiff, appellant.
Lucas, Rand & Rose, Wilson, and Clarence W. Griffin, Williamston, for defendant, appellee.
The sole question presented here is whether the evidence of actionable fraud taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff was sufficient to go to the jury. (If the evidence was insufficient, the judgment of nonsuit should be affirmed.) If it was sufficient, the case should go back for submission to the jury.
Ordinarily, when parties are on equal footing, competent to contract, enter into an agreement on a lawful subject, and do so fairly and honorably, the law does not permit inquiry as to whether the contract was good or bad, whether it was wise or foolish. However, under certain conditions, when fraud by one party is an inducement which influences the other party to contract to his prejudice, the law does permit inquiry.
' ' Vail v. Vail, 233 N.C. 109, 113, 63, S.E.2d 202, 205.
Ward v. Heath, 222 N. C. 470, 473, 24 S.E.2d 5, 8.
In this case the plaintiff, a widow, was the owner of a tract of timber that she had never seen; it was located 14 miles from her home. The defendant sought out the plaintiff for the purpose of buying the timber rights. The permissible inference is that he knew the timber and he sought out its owner for the purpose of negotiating a deal. First off, he was met with the statement that she had never seen it, had never been on the land, and did not know the amount or value and did not want to sell for that reason. At every meeting, according to the evidence, she repeated lack of knowledge sufficient to enable her to make a contract. Finally, the defendant, on October 31, 1952, again appeared at plaintiff's home and with him a Mr. Sparrow, who had been somewhat active in attempting to close the deal. Also with them was another man whom they did not introduce other than as a timber cruiser. He was called on by Mr. Sparrow in the presence of the defendant, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crockett v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Charlotte
...security of the lender was not threatened. As was wisely said by Justice Higgins speaking for our Court in Roberson v. Williams, 240 N.C. 696, 700, 701, 83 S.E.2d 811, 814 (1954), 'Ordinarily, when parties are on equal footing, competent to contract, enter into an agreement on a lawful subj......
-
In re EPIC Mortg. Ins. Litigation
...in its oral presentations was true. Johnson v. Lockman, 41 N.C.App. 54, 59, 254 S.E.2d 187, 190 (1979) (quoting Roberson v. Williams, 240 N.C. 696, 702, 83 S.E.2d 811, 815 (1954)), cert. denied, 297 N.C. 610, 257 S.E.2d 436 (1979). Accord Northwestern Bank v. Roseman, 81 N.C. App. 228, 233-......
-
Knutton v. Cofield, 194
...281; Dennis v. Albemarle, 242 N.C. 263, 87 S.E.2d 561. Courts do not make contracts. As stated by Higgins, J., in Roberson v. Williams, 240 N.C. 696, 83 S.E.2d 811, 'Ordinarily, when parties are on equal footing, competent to contract, enter into an agreement on a lawful subject, and do so ......
-
Norburn v. Mackie
...are thoroughly established by our decisions and need not be restated. See Keith v. Wilder, 241 N.C. 672, 86 S.E.2d 444; Roberson v. Williams, 240 N.C. 696, 83 S.E.2d 811; Cofield v. Griffin, 238 N.C. 377, 78 S.E.2d 131, 40 A.L.R.2d 966; Whitehurst v. Life Insurance Co., 149 N.C. 273, 62 S.E......