Tyson v. Jones
| Decision Date | 24 February 1909 |
| Citation | 63 S.E. 734,150 N.C. 181 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | TYSON et al. v. JONES et al. |
A nonsuit is properly denied where there is sufficient evidence in support of an issue to go to the jury.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § 360; Dec Dig. § 159.*]
The direction of a verdict for defendant is properly denied where there is sufficient evi-dence to support the allegations of plaintiff to
go to the jury. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent.
Cent. Dig. § 2007; Dec. Dig. § 434.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Pitt County; O. H. Allen, Judge.
Action by B. F. Tyson and others against B. B. Jones and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Issues were submitted to the jury as follows:
Jarvis & Blow, for appellees.
The plaintiffs and defendants entered into a written contract wherein the defendants contracted to purchase and the plaintiffs to sell a tract of land, therein described, upon the terms therein expressed. The sum of $750 is agreed upon in the contract on stipulated damages in case of a breach of the contract to recover which plaintiffs bring action. The defendants aver that they were induced to enter into the Contract by the deceit, misrepresentation, and fraud of plaintiffs in falsely representing before the contract was executed that the plaintiffs had the legal right to drain this land through that of Miss Emily Daniel, whereas plaintiffs knew they had no such right. The motion to nonsuit as well as the prayer for instruction were properly denied, as there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury to support the allegations of the plaintiff embodied in the third issue.
The other exceptions of the plaintiff necessary to consider relate to the admissibility of the evidence tending to prove the allegation of fraud and deceit. The plaintiff contends that the introduction of such evidence contradicts the terms of the written contract.
The defendants do not seek to contradict or change the written words. They admit that the paper writing contains the contract agreed upon, but they aver they were induced to enter into it by the fraud and deceit of plaintiffs or one of them; that the representation was a material one; that it was false; and that they relied upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Furst & Thomas v. Merritt
...155 N.C. 73, 70 S.E. 1068; Machine Co. v. Feezer, 152 N.C. 516, 67 S.E. 1004; Bank v. Chase, 151 N.C. 108, 65 S.E. 745; Tyson v. Jones, 150 N.C. 181, 63 S.E. 734; Whitehurst v. Insurance Co., 149 N.C. 273, 62 1067; Basnight v. Jobbing Co., 148 N.C. 350, 62 S.E. 420; Hayes v. Railroad, 143 N......
-
American Laundry Machinery Co. v. Skinner
...face of fraud. White Sewing Machine Co. v. Bullock, 161 N.C. 1, 76 S.E. 634; Miller v. Howell, 184 N.C. 119, 113 S.E. 621; Tyson v. Jones, 150 N.C. 181, 63 S.E. 734; Annotation 95 A.L.R. 768. The case was tried on this theory. The allegations of fraud are to be read in the light of the circ......
-
Fox v. Southern Appliances, Inc., 279
...v. Fisheries Products Co., 185 N.C. 68, 116 S.E. 169; J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. McKay, 161 N.C. 584, 77 S.E. 848; Tyson v. Jones, 150 N.C. 181, 63 S.E. 734. 'It is elementary that where a contract or transaction was induced by false representations, the representations and the con......
-
Unitype Co v. Bros
...induced by fraud. It does not change the contract, but nullifies it, and is competent for that purpose, as we held in Tyson v. Jones, 150 N. C. 181, 63 S. E. 734; Whitehurst v. Insurance Co., supra. The exception that there was no evidence of the agency of Lombard other than his own acts an......