Haynes v. . Rogers

The deed which the plaintiff attacks in this action is an absolute one from N. A. Coward to the defendant Rogers, made for a valuable consideration. It was therefore necessary for him to establish by a preponderance of testimony, not only the fraudulent intent of the grantor, but also the knowledge of that intent on the part of the grantee. Reiger v. Davis, 67 N.C. 185; Beasley v. Bray,98 N.C. 266; Savage v. Knight, 92 N.C. 493. It was within the province of the jury alone, under proper instructions, to determine whether or not the defendant Rogers had that knowledge, and his Honor erred when…