Case ID: nc_178/html/0660-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Peb Cubiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NINFA MORMINO MASCARI, A. J. LYMAN, Admr., et al. v. W. H. LASATER and J. W. WOLFE.
    (Filed 10 December, 1919.)
    Evidence — Contracts—Lands—Fraud—Questions for Jury — Trials.
    In this action to enforce a contract to purchase land wherein plaintiff’s title was denied upon the alleged existence of a prior similar contract made with another, with allegation and evidence that the prior contract had been procured by fraud: Held, there was sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict and judgment in plaintiff’s favor, and no error found upon the trial sufficient to disturb them.
    Appeal from Finley, J., and a jury, at October Term, 1919, of BUNCOMBE.
    Verdict and judgment for plairitiff, and defendant, W. H. Lasater, excepted and appealed.
    
      Marie W. Brown for plaintiff.
    
    
      Merrimon, Adams & Johnston for defendants.
    
   Peb Cubiam.

Tbe action was instituted by Mrs. Ninfa MorminO' Mascari against W. H. Lasater and J. "W". Wolfe to enforce a contract to purchase a lot belonging to plaintiffs, against tbe defendant, J. H. Wolfe, and to remove cloud upon plaintiff’s title, created by a previous, contract on part of Mrs. Mascari, tbe original plaintiff, to sell tbe same lot to ,W- H. Lasater, the ground of relief alleged against said Lasater being tbat bis contract was procured by false and fraudulent representations on bis part, inducing Mrs. Mascari to execute tbe same. Mrs. Mascari having died, ber surviving busband, ber three children and heirs at law, and A. J. Lyman, ber administrator, were substituted as parties plaintiff seeking relief. Defendant Wolfe answered, admitting bis agreement to buy at tbe price of $17,000, and bis willingness to comply in case there should be no valid interference by reason of tbe previous contract with defendant Lasater. On tbe part of tbe latter there was denial of all allegations of wrongdoing, and averring that be held a valid contract for tbe property, duly registered, etc.

On issues submitted tbe jury rendered a verdict, in effect, that Mrs. Mascari was induced to execute tbe contract under which Lasater claimed bis interest by false and fraudulent representations on bis part; that tbe busband, Obarlie Mascari, bad neither signed nor acknowledged any execution of tbe alleged contract; that tbe feme plaintiff bad not been privily examined touching ber execution of tbe same, etc.

Upon tbe answer of defendant Wolfe, and tbe verdict on tbe issues between plaintiffs and defendant Lasater, there was judgment that said Wolfe comply with bis contract of purchase; that tbe alleged contract with Lasater be declared void and of none effect; that be has no interest in tbe lot in controversy, and that reference to tbe judgment be entered on tbe registry docket of Buncombe County, where tbe instrument bad been recorded, etc.

Tbe controversy between these parties, almost exclusively one of fact, has been determined by tbe jury in plaintiff’s favor. There were facts in evidence to justify tbe verdict, and we find no reason that will justify tbe Court in disturbing tbe results of tbe trial.

Tbe objections to tbe rulings of tbe Court on questions of evidence can none of them be sustained. Some were very properly not insisted on in tbe brief, and those contended for are without merit, and could have bad no appreciable effect or significance in tbe determination of tbe issues.

On careful consideration, we find no prejudicial error in tbe proceedings, and tbe judgment in plaintiff’s favor is affirmed.

No error.