York v. Cole

118 S.E.2d 419, 254 N.C. 224, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 384
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 1, 1961·No. 595·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff assigns as error the overruling of the demurrer ore tenus to defendants’ counterclaim, the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict as to the eighth and ninth issues, the court’s charge on the eighth and ninth issues, and the signing of the judgment. We find no prejudicial error in the rulings of the court, the trial, and entry of judgment. Relative to plaintiff’s cause of action, this trial furnishes a proper example of the application of the maxim: “He who seeks equity must do equity.” A complainant who seeks to have an instrument, obligation, or transaction canceled or set aside must return or offer to return whatever he may have received from the defendant. 19 Am. Jur., Equity, s. 464, p. 321.

No error.

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

York v. Cole, 118 S.E.2d 419, 254 N.C. 224, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 384 (N.C. 1961).

118 S.E.2d 419 (York v. Cole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Melton v. Family First Mortgage Corp.
576 S.E.2d 365 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
Nash v. Craigco, Inc.
585 P.2d 775 (Utah Supreme Court, 1978)
Smith v. Smith
134 S.E.2d 331 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)