Lee v. Rhodes

58 S.E.2d 363, 231 N.C. 602, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 353
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 22, 1950·No. 233·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Careful consideration of the assignments of error presented by appellants on this appeal fail to show error in the trial below on the determinative issue in respect to the statute of limitations on defendants’ right of action for reformation of the paper writing in question on ground of mutual mistake. The statute in such cases begins to run from the discovery of the mistake, or when it should have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence. Moore v. Casualty Co., 207 N.C. 433, 177 S.E. 406, and numerous other cases.

*603 Tbe trial judge presented tbe issue to tbe jury in tbe light of tbis principle. Tbe evidence of tbe respective parties as shown in tbe record of case on appeal is in conflict,' — -thus presenting a question for tbe jury, and tbe jury has answered against defendants.

Hence, in tbe judgment below, we find

No error.

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

Lee v. Rhodes, 58 S.E.2d 363, 231 N.C. 602, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 353 (N.C. 1950).

58 S.E.2d 363 (Lee v. Rhodes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stratton v. Royal Bank of Canada
712 S.E.2d 221 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2011)
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Gulf Ins. Co.
2001 NCBC 03 (North Carolina Business Court, 2001)
Huss v. Huss
230 S.E.2d 159 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1976)
Swinton v. Savoy Realty Co.
73 S.E.2d 785 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)