Broadway v. Gate City Life Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Broadway v. Gate City Life Insurance

161 S.E. 71, 201 N.C. 639, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 56

DecidedNovember 10, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 161 S.E. 71 (Broadway v. Gate City Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broadway v. Gate City Life Insurance, 161 S.E. 71, 201 N.C. 639, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 56 (N.C. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Oueiam.

The defendant at the close of plaintiff’s evidence and at the close of all the evidence, made motions in the court below for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. The motions were overruled and in this we can see no error.

It is the well settled rule of practice and accepted position in this jurisdiction, that, on a motion to nonsuit, the evidence which makes for the plaintiff’s claim and which tends to support her cause of action, whether offered by the plaintiff or elicited from the defendant’s wit *641 nesses, will be taken and considered in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, and she is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence, and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.

The sole material question was the evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the second issue: “Was the paper-writing- purporting to be a release obtained by fraud or undue influence?” We think so.

“Fraud is the overreaching of one person by another, and yet this definition is as broad as the term itself. It has been said that fraud, actual or constructive, is so multiform as to admit of no rules or definitions. ‘It is indeed, a part of equity doctrine not to define it,’ says Lord Sardwicke, ‘lest the craft of men should find a way of committing fraud which might escape such a rule or definition.’ Oil Co. v. Hunt, 187 N. C., p. 159.” Furst v. Merritt, 190 N. C., at p. 404. We see no error in the judgment of the court below.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Oueiam.

The defendant at the close of plaintiff’s evidence and at the close of all the evidence, made motions in the court below for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. The motions were overruled and in this we can see no error.

It is the well settled rule of practice and accepted position in this jurisdiction, that, on a motion to nonsuit, the evidence which makes for the plaintiff’s claim and which tends to support her cause of action, whether offered by the plaintiff or elicited from the defendant’s wit *641 nesses, will be taken and considered in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, and she is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence, and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.

The sole material question was the evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the second issue: “Was the paper-writing- purporting to be a release obtained by fraud or undue influence?” We think so.

“Fraud is the overreaching of one person by another, and yet this definition is as broad as the term itself. It has been said that fraud, actual or constructive, is so multiform as to admit of no rules or definitions. ‘It is indeed, a part of equity doctrine not to define it,’ says Lord Sardwicke, ‘lest the craft of men should find a way of committing fraud which might escape such a rule or definition.’ Oil Co. v. Hunt, 187 N. C., p. 159.” Furst v. Merritt, 190 N. C., at p. 404. We see no error in the judgment of the court below.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E. 71, 201 N.C. 639, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadway-v-gate-city-life-insurance-nc-1931.