Isler v. Brown

196 N.C. 685
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 27, 1929·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per OumAM.

Fraud can be practiced by a suppressio veri or sug-gestio falsi. “It is a rule of equity, as well as of law, that a suppressio veri is equivalent to a suggestio falsi; and where either tbe suppression of tbe truth or tbe suggestion of what is false can be proved, in a fact material to tbe contract, tbe party injured may have relief against tbe contract.” 18 Johns., 405; Black’s Law Diet., p. 1040; McNair v. Finance Co., 191 N. C., at p. 715. This is good law as well as good morals.

Tbe court below charged clearly and fully tbe law of actionable fraud applicable to tbe facts in this case. We find

No error.

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

Isler v. Brown, 196 N.C. 685 (N.C. 1929).

196 N.C. 685 (Isler v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ragsdale v. Kennedy
209 S.E.2d 494 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1974)
Ragsdale v. Kennedy
207 S.E.2d 301 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)
Setzer v. OLD REPUBLIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
126 S.E.2d 135 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Thomas-Yelverton Co. v. State Capital Life Insurance
77 S.E.2d 692 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Butler v. New York Life Insurance
196 S.E. 317 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Knowles v. . Wallace
188 S.E. 195 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)