Court Opinion

ID: 9613249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:15:33.251598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:27.069431
License: Public Domain

Chief Judge Hedrick
dissenting.
In my opinion the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment for plaintiff against defendant Clarence Edward Roseman. “ ‘In this State, it is held that one who signs a paper writing is under a duty to ascertain its contents, and in the absence of a showing that he was wilfully misled or misinformed by the defendant as to these contents, or that they were kept from him in fraudulent opposition to his request, he is held to have signed with full knowledge and assent as to what is therein contained.’ ” Gas House, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone Co., 289 N.C. 175, 180, 221 S.E. 2d 499, 503 (1976) (quoting Williams v. Williams, 220 N.C. 806, 18 S.E. 2d 364 (1942)). Defendant’s testimony that he told plaintiff that he would not sign a guaranty does not amount to his having been misled or misinformed as to the contents of the thing he signed, or that the contents of the inr strument were fraudulently kept from him.
I also believe the trial court was correct in entering summary judgment for plaintiff on defendant Angela Roseman’s counterclaim for fraud. See Perkins v. Insurance Co., 4 N.C. App. 466, 167 S.E. 2d 93 (1969).