{
  "id": 2221476,
  "name": "A. H. McCORMICK et al. v. M. O. JACKSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "McCormick v. Jackson",
  "decision_date": "1936-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "359",
  "last_page": "360",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 N.C. 359"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "99 A. L. R., 1",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 Atl., 62",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N. J. L., 582",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J.L.",
      "case_ids": [
        144585
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/njl/113/0582-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 L. R. A. (N. S.), 240",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 S. E., 384",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N. C., 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270287
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/147/0515-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 L. R. A., 349",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 S. E., 360",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 N. C., 652",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657342
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/137/0652-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 2506,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.512,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.29541448128192e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4339689302349288
    },
    "sha256": "d2db08c972b14e7d7b1528c8f32d168b40b693526300330cef8414178605b8b3",
    "simhash": "1:9a39d46aa6a11edc",
    "word_count": 433
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:34:31.527681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "A. H. McCORMICK et al. v. M. O. JACKSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nPromissory 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.\nThe allegations of the present complaint seem to fall within this principle.\nWhile, 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.\nAffirmed.\nDevin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward H. McMahan for plaintiffs.",
      "J. A. Patla for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. H. McCORMICK et al. v. M. O. JACKSON.\n(Filed 22 January, 1936.)\nFraud A b \u2014 Promissory representations may not be made the basis for action for fraud.\nPlaintiffs alleged that defendant induced them not to sell their land by falsely representing that defendant could later obtain a much higher price for same. Defendant demurred to the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Held: The demurrer was properly sustained, mere promissory representations not being generally regarded as fraudulent in law.\nDevin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Warliclc, J., at May Term, 1935, of Buncombe.\nCivil action for fraud in preventing sale of land and failure to make sale as promised or represented.\nIt is alleged in the complaint that in 1926 plaintiffs were induced to forego sale of their 600-acre tract of land, situate in Buncombe County, upon the promise and representation of the defendant that he could obtain a better price therefor; that defendant was thereupon given the exclusive right to sell plaintiffs\u2019 land, upon representations which later proved to he fraudulent, and that said representations were repeated from time to time until their falsity was discovered in May, 1931. That plaintiffs have been damaged by reason of the decline in the value of their land. This action was instituted 16 November, 1934.\nDemurrer interposed upon the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Demurrer sustained.\nPlaintiffs appeal, assigning error.\nEdward H. McMahan for plaintiffs.\nJ. A. Patla for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0359-01",
  "first_page_order": 421,
  "last_page_order": 422
}