Folger v. . Clark

150 S.E. 618, 198 N.C. 44, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 403
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 4, 1929
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 S.E. 618 (Folger v. . Clark) 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
Folger v. . Clark, 150 S.E. 618, 198 N.C. 44, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 403 (N.C. 1929).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The plaintiff has failed to show any loss due to the defendants’ negligence. True, he did not get the dividend in question, but there is no evidence that the price of the stock was not thereby reduced. The testimony of defendants’ agent would seem to indicate that it was. At any rate, we have discovered no evidence on the record of loss suffered by the plaintiff which may reasonably be said to be proximately attributable to the negligence of the defendants. Plaintiff to'ok the stock and never offered to rescind the contract of purchase. There is no allegation of fraud in the transaction. McNair v. Finance Co., 191 N. C., 710, 133 S. E., 85; Pritchard v. Dailey, 168 N. C., 330, 84 S. E., 392.

Of course, a broker is liable in damages for fraud or negligence which results in injury to.his customer, but no measurable tort liability has been shown on the present record. 4 R. C. L., 285.

Reversed.

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

Related

Sterner v. Penn
583 S.E.2d 670 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 S.E. 618, 198 N.C. 44, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/folger-v-clark-nc-1929.