Case Name: ROSE THOMPSON v. DORIS STADIEM, ABRAHAM STADIEM, JACOB STADIEM, and C. C. EDWARDS, Trustee
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1955-12-14
Citations: 243 N.C. 291
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROSE THOMPSON v. DORIS STADIEM, ABRAHAM STADIEM, JACOB STADIEM, and C. C. EDWARDS, Trustee.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 243
Pages: 291–292

Head Matter:
ROSE THOMPSON v. DORIS STADIEM, ABRAHAM STADIEM, JACOB STADIEM, and C. C. EDWARDS, Trustee.
(Filed 14 December, 1955.)
Cancellation and Rescission of Instruments § 12—
Evidence in tbis action by a blind and poorly educated woman to rescind contract of purchase and sale of real property and to recover damages for fraud, 7held sufficient to be submitted to the jury, and further, there being no evidence that plaintiff made any payments on the mortgage executed by her after she discovered that the house was not properly underpinned and had not passed city inspection as represented, there was no sufficient evidence of ratification to bar recovery.
Appeal by defendants from Hall, Special J., April Term, 1955, Durham.
Civil action to rescind contract of purchase and sale of real property and to recover damages.
The jury answered the issues submitted by the court in favor of the plaintiff. There was judgment on the verdict and defendants appealed.
Blackioell M. Brogden for plaintiff appellee.
J. Grover Lee and Frazier & Frazier for defendant appellants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
After a careful examination of the record we are constrained to hold that the plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to require the submission of issues to a jury. We have here a blind, poorly educated woman who "Brailled" the house in an attempt to ascertain its condition, on the one hand, and an experienced real estate dealer, on the other. There is no evidence that the plaintiff made any payment on the mortgage she executed after she discovered that the house was not properly underpinned and had not passed city inspection as repre sented. Hence, there is no sufficient evidence of ratification to bar plaintiff's recovery.
The judgment entered in the court below is
Affirmed.