Rich v. . Marsh
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The bill is for the redemption and reconveyance of a; tract of land. In l’S'37 there were several judgments and’ executions against the plaintiff, under which the premises were about to he sold ;; and he applied to the defendants' Davis, to lend him money to' discharge them, and take a deed of trust to secure the same.
Read the full summary
The bill is for the redemption and reconveyance of a; tract of land. In l’S'37 there were several judgments and’ executions against the plaintiff, under which the premises were about to he sold ;; and he applied to the defendants' Davis, to lend him money to' discharge them, and take a deed of trust to secure the same. But Davis declined doing so, as he states in the answer, because he feared the incumbrances of" other' judgments ; and they e'ame to another'agreement :• which Was, “that'this defendant (fie not having the' rbady m'oney)'should borrow money and bid off the land at the sheriff’s…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, C. J.
The plaintiff is clearly entitled to the relief he seeks. Independent of the express agreement for redemption, and the right to have that executed upon the admission of it in the answer, the suppression of competition at the sale by the representations of Davis, that he was buying for the plaintiff, by means of which he purchased the land of a distressed man for $36, which was worth $400 or more, would authorize a decree for the plaintiff upon the ground of an undue advantage taken of his necessities and a fraud practiced in getting the title in that way and claiming it for his .own benefit.…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Froneberger v. First Nat. Bank of CharlotteCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1913