McPhaul v. . Walters
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by defendant from Rountree, J., at April Term, 1914, of HoKE. Tbis is an action to set aside a deed, executed by tbe plaintiff to tbe defendant in 1905, upon tbe ground of fraud.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from Rountree, J., at April Term, 1914, of HoKE. Tbis is an action to set aside a deed, executed by tbe plaintiff to tbe defendant in 1905, upon tbe ground of fraud. Tbe plaintiff alleged, in substance, tbat tbe relation of mortgagor and mortgagee existed at tbe time of tbe execution of tbe deed, and tbat tbe amount paid or advanced by tbe defendant was less than tbe value of tbe land, and also tbat be was induced to sign tbe deed by tbe false representation tbat it was a mortgage. Tbis was denied by tbe defendant. Evidence was introduced tending to support tbe contentions…
1Opinion of the CourtAlleN, J.
When an issue is raised upon tbe trial of an action, involving fraud and undue influence in procuring tbe execution of a deed, tbe consideration paid is an important and material fact, and is frequently controlling.
If it is near tbe value of tbe land conveyed, it is natural and reasonable to conclude, in tbe absence of peculiar conditions and circumstances, tbat there is no fraud, as men are not apt to engage in fraudulent conduct with no hope of gain; and, on tbe other band, if there is a gross inequality between tbe price paid and the value of the property, the inference of mistake or…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Leonard v. Southern Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Goddard v. KingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Perry v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Gross v. . McBrayerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
3Cited by3 opinions
- Estate of Graham v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
- Carland v. . AllisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Malcolm v. Mooresville Cotton MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926