Case Name: WILLIAM H. FULTON v. JOHN LOFTIS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1869-01
Citations: 63 N.C. 393
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM H. FULTON v. JOHN LOFTIS.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 393–395

Head Matter:
WILLIAM H. FULTON v. JOHN LOFTIS.
A bill for the rescission of a contract on account of fraud perpetrated after the contract is made, will not be entertained; therefore,
A bargainor of land is not entitled to such relief in a case where he alleged that some years after the contract had been made, the bargainee, having asked for them upon a pretence of calculating interest, put the notes for the purchase money into his pocket, at the. same time drawing a pistol and telling the bargainor not to follow him.
CAddington v. MaSonneU, ante, 389 cited and approved.)
Bill, set dowu for hearing upon pleadings and proofs, at Spring Term 1868 of the Court of Equity for BuNCOMBE, and by consent transferred to this Court.
The plaintiff alleged, that in 1859, he contracted to sell a tract of land to the defendant, at the price of $412.50, for which he took two notes of the defendant, payable in one and two years, and executed a bond to make title when the purchase money was paid, and that the defendant was put into-possession; that afterwards, in 1865, the defendant, on the-pretence of calculating the interest, induced the plaintiff to let him take the notes into his hands, whereupon he put them into his pocket, pulled out a pistol, and walked off, telling the plaintiff not to follow him. The bill admits a payment of $100 in Confederate notes, in 1868.
The prayer is for a decree rescinding the contract; an account of the rents and profits; and that the defendant be also decreed to give up possession.
No counsel for the plaintiffs.
Merrimon, contra.

Opinion:
PearsoN, C. J,
The plaintiff has misconceived his remedy. When a contract is obtained by fraud or duress, a Court of Equity will entertain a bill for its rescission; but the plaintiff must allege that he was induced to enter into the contract, by reason of such fraud or duress. A bill for rescission on the ground of fraud or duress prepetrated after the contract is made, is one of the first impression, and there is no principle upon which it can be maintained. The question is too plain to allow of discussion: Addington v. McDonnell, at this term.
The plaintiff having the legal title, may take possession, and thus force the defendant to file a bill for a specific performance, when the plaintiff may rely upon the alleged fraud, or duress, as a ground to induce the Court to refuse to entertain the bill; or the plaintiff may file a bill for specific performance, and ask for a reference as to the amount of the purchase-money remaining unpaid, and thus bring up the ques tion, as to tbe manner in wbicb tbe defendant obtained possession of tbe notes, and thus tbe controversy may be settled. But as we have seen, tbe idea of a decree for rescission, for matters occurring sis years after tbe contract was made, and after it bas been in part performed, is out of tbe question.
Let tbe bill be dismissed, but without costs as to the defendant Loftis.
Peb Cubiam. Bill dismissed.