Legal Opinion

Davis v. Davis

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 24, 1952No. 101PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeNNY, J.

It is tbe general rule that an unfulfilled promise cannot be made tbe basis for an action for fraud. Williams v. Williams, 220 N.C. 806, 18 S.E. 2d 364; Shoffner v. Thompson, 191 N.C. 664, 150 S.E. 195; Trust Co. v. Yelverton, 185 N.C. 314, 111 S.E. 299; Pritchard v. Dailey, 168 N.C. 330, 84 S.E. 392; 23 Am. Jur., Fraud and Deceit, section 38, page 799, et seq. Tbe rule, of course, is otherwise, where tbe promise is made fraudulently with no intention to carry it out, and such promise constitutes a misrepresentation of a material fact which induces tbe promisee to act upon it to bis injury.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Williams v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  2. McNeill v. . McNeillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  3. In Re Will of CravenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  4. Planters Bank & Trust Co. v. YelvertonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  5. Page Trust Co. v. Carolina Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Overstreet v. Brookland, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Hoyle v. BagbySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  3. Pierce v. American Fidelity Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Walters v. BridgersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  5. Brandis v. Lightmotive Fatman, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

11 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