Court Opinion

ID: 6697489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:57:42.169938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:17.852519
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
The defendants seek to set aside an assignment of the proceeds of a certain note owned by the feme defendant, upon the ground of fraud, duress and failure of consideration. The only evidence of fraud offered at the trial was to the effect that the plaintiff, acting through an agent, refused to convey a tract of land to a corporation in which both plaintiff and defendants were interested and to have a mortgage executed thereon and delivered to the defendants as security for sums advanced by the defendants to the new enterprise. We perceive no element of fraud in this phase of the transaction, nor is there any evidence of duress as contemplated and defined by law. The defendants had a right to stand upon their legal rights and assert them in a court of justice. The applicable rule of law is tersely stated in Smithwick v. Whitley, 152 N. C., 369, 67 S. E., 913, as follows: “Duress exists where one, by the unlawful act of another, is induced to make a contract or perform or forego some act under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of free will.” The testimony offered at the trial was not of sufficient or definite probative value to be submitted to the jury. Moreover, on 7 July, the date of the recording of the assignment in controversy a certain release was executed and recorded, and this, together with other negotiations between the parties, constituted a consideration, sufficient in law to support the contract.
No error.