Legal Opinion

Ghormley v. . Hyatt

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 18, 1935PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOlaeksoN, J.

The court below refused to submit the following issue tendered by plaintiffs: “Was the note and mortgage of 5 July, 1926, obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, as alleged in the complaint?” We think the court below correct.

In Electric Co. v. Morrison, 194 N. C., 316 (317), it is said: “The essential elements of actionable fraud or deceit are the representation, its falsity, scienter, deception, and injury. The representation must be definite and specific; it must be materially false; it must be made with knowledge of its falsity or in culpable ignorance of its truth; it must be made with…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Miller v. . DunnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. Stone v. Doctors' Lake Milling Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  3. Leggett Electric Co. v. MorrisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  4. Peyton v. . GriffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  5. Wilson v. Union Trust Co. of MarylandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Henderson v. SECURITY MORTAGAGE AND FINANCE CO.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Bowen v. Mount Vernon Sav. BankCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
  3. Atkinson v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  4. Atkinson v. . AtkinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  5. Berwer v. Union Central Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API