Wilson v. White
| Decision Date | 31 January 1879 |
| Citation | 80 N.C. 280 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILSON, PALMER & CO. v. D. P. L. WHITE and another. |
CLAIM AND DELIVERY tried at Spring Term, 1878, of MECKLENBURG Superior Court, before Cox, J.
The defendant, White, doing business in Charlotte was adjudicated a bankrupt upon his own petition in the district court of the U. S. for the western district of North Carolina, on the 26th of June, 1875, and the defendant, Cuthbertson, was duly appointed assignee of his estate. About the 15th of June, next, before the filing the petition in bankruptcy, White contracted with the plaintiffs through their travelling agent to buy on a credit, thirty-two barrels of syrup, amounting in value to $402.40. At the time of the purchase the plaintiff's agent, before making the sale, told White that he did not know his pecuniary condition, and asked of him references, to which White replied by referring agent to Henry Welch and Moore, Jenkins, & Co., trading firms in the city of New York, and thereupon the sale was concluded. The goods were accordingly shipped from Baltimore on the 19th of June, and arrived in Charlotte on the 23rd, and on the 24th they were taken out of the depot by one Black under the order of White, and were deposited in a cellar, the key to which was kept in White's storehouse, and two days after this, to-wit, on the 26th of June, the said White went to Greensboro and filed his petition in bankruptcy, under which he was adjudicated a bankrupt, and the defendant Cuthbertson appointed his assignee.
The defendant at the time of the purchase of the syrup, was entirely insolvent, being the owner of a house and lot under mortgage for its full value, and a personal estate worth but a few dollars above the exemptions allowed him by law.
The plaintiffs had no notice of the insolvency of White at the time of the sale and were misled and prevented from making inquiry in relation thereto, as they alleged, by the declarations and conduct of defendant. The plaintiffs a few days after petition in bankruptcy filed, demanded the syrup on the ground that the sale was voidable for fraud, and on refusal this action of claim and delivery was brought.
On the trial, issues were submitted to the jury as to property in the goods and the value thereof at the commencement of the action, and the jury in response found that the right was in the plaintiffs, and the same was of the value of $402.40, and from the judgment rendered on the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs the defendant appealed.
Messrs. Jones & Johnston, for plaintiffs .
Messrs. Shipp & Bailey, for defendant .
DILLARD, J. (After stating the case.)
If a vendor of goods is drawn in to part with his property by fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment of a fact material to the contract and operating an inducement thereto, and such as a man of ordinary sagacity might reasonably rely on and be influenced by, the sale is voidable, and the vendor has the option to affirm the sale and sue for the price, or hold it null and sue for the goods in specie, as against the purchaser or a stranger holding without valuable consideration or with notice of the fraud. Benjamin on Sales, 342; Story on Sales, § 165; Bigelow on Fraud, § 2.
The plaintiffs urged on the trial that they entered into the contract and forwarded the goods, believing that White was solvent and intended to make payment, and so believed from the representation in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maney v. Greenwood
...presumption against him." The reason for the difference readily suggests itself. The doctrine laid down is not in conflict with Wilson v. White, 80 N.C. 280, Greenlee Greenlee, 93 N.C. 278, Kerchner v. McRae, 80 N.C. 219, or Blackwell v. McElwee, 96 N.C. 71, 1 S.E. 676, 60 Am. Rep. 404. If ......
-
Rudisill v. Whitener
...conceals his condition and promise to pay for goods with a preconceived purpose not to do so, no title will pass to him. Wilson v. White, 80 N.C. 280. Des Farges v. Pugh, 93 N.C. 31, 53 Am. Rep. 446, Ashe, J., says: "It matters not by what means the deception is practiced-whether by signs, ......
-
Carrow v. Weston
...653, 109 S.E. 867, 870. Where a sale is voidable, because induced by fraud, the applicable rule is well stated by Dillard, J., in Wilson v. White, 80 N.C. 280, as follows: 'If a vendor of goods is drawn in to part with his property by fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment of a fact ma......
-
In re Hunter-Rand Co.
...Court of this state holds that insolvency, without a false representation, will not entitle the seller to rescind the sale. Wilson v. White, 80 N.C. 280; Des v. Pugh, 93 N.C. 31, 53 Am.Rep. 446, although in the last case no express representation as to solvency was made. The element of the ......