McCormick v. . Jackson

183 S.E. 369, 209 N.C. 359, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 479
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 22, 1936·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Promissory representations, looking to the future, such as to what an agent or optionee can do with property, how much he can make on it, or what he can gain by handling it, are not generally regarded as fraudulent in law. Nat. Cash Reg. Co. v. Townsend, 137 N. C., 652, 50 S. E., 360, 70 L. R. A., 349; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C., 515, 61 S. E., 384, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.), 240; 15 R. C. L., 252-253. Compare Kamm v. Flink, 113 N. J. L., 582, 175 Atl., 62, 99 A. L. R., 1, and note.

The allegations of the present complaint seem to fall within this principle.

While, of course, the statute of limitations is not raised by the demurrer, it is observed that plaintiffs have waited more than three years after the discovery of the alleged fraud to bring their action. C. S., 441, subsec. 9.

Affirmed.

Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

McCormick v. . Jackson, 183 S.E. 369, 209 N.C. 359, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 479 (N.C. 1936).

183 S.E. 369 (McCormick v. . Jackson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Braun v. Glade Valley School, Inc.
334 S.E.2d 404 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
Johnson v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance
266 S.E.2d 610 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)
Lester v. McLean
87 S.E.2d 886 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)