McCormick v. . Jackson

183 S.E. 369, 209 N.C. 359, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 479

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: January 22, 1936
• Status: Published

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.