Corley Co. v. . Griggs
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
OlaeksoN, I.
The defendants set up actionable fraud or deceit to rescind the alleged contract. The only serious contention or assignment of error of plaintiff (4) is that the court below in its charge omits any reference to scienter.
The charge complained of was as follows: “It is necessary for them to show to you by the greater weight of the evidence before you can answer the issue in their favor, first, that such representations were made to them by Mr. Butler, and second, that these representations were false; third, that they relied upon these representations as being true; fourth, relying…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cooper v. SchlesingerSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Lehigh Zinc and Iron Company v. BamfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Modlin v. Roanoke Railroad & Navigation Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- Peebles v. Patapsco Guano Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1877
- Dunbar v. Tobacco Growers Cooperative Ass'nSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ebbs v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Bechtel v. . BohannonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Breece v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Dallas v. . WagnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
- Ramsey v. . WallaceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.