Cardon v. . McConnell
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil aotioN, for damages for slander of plaintiff’s title, whereby he lost an opportunity to make an advantageous sale of land, tried before Brycm, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1896, of Clay Superior Court. On the trial, and after the plaintiff’s evidence was closed, his Honor intimated that plaintiff could not recover and plaintiff took a non-suit and appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Eaiboloth, 0. J.:
This action is for slandering title to real property. The plaintiff alleges that he had title and had negotiated a good sale when the defendant interfered and falsely and maliciously misrepresented the plaintiff’s title, and on that account the plaintiff’s sale failed and he was damaged. The defendant averred that he had an interest in the land; that he, in good faith, asserted his claim and sold his interest to another party. The deed, relied upon as divesting the defendant's interest in the land, contains these words in the habendum clause: “-To have and to hold to the said…
2Cited by22 opinions
- Davis v. Keen.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Fearon v. FoderaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Hopkins v. DrowneSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1898
- Cawrse v. Signal Oil Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1940
- Bass v. Planned Management Services, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1988
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.