McCormick v. Jackson
A. H. McCORMICK Et Al. v. M. O. JACKSON
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
Promissory representations, looking to the future, such as to what an agent or optionee can do with property, how much he can make on it, or what he can gain by handling it, are not generally regarded as fraudulent in law.
Nat. Cash Reg. Co. v. Townsend, 137 N. C., 652 , 50 S. E., 360 , 70 L. R. A., 349;
Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C., 515 , 61 S. E., 384 , 17 L. R. A. (N. S.), 240; 15 R. C. L., 252-253. Compare Kamm v. Flink, 113 N. J. L., 582, 175 Atl., 62 , 99 A. L. R., 1, and note.
The allegations of the present complaint seem to fall within this principle.
While, of course, the statute of limitations is not raised by the demurrer, it is observed that plaintiffs have waited more than three years after the discovery of the alleged fraud to bring their action. C. S., 441, subsec. 9.
Affirmed.
Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(noting that statements “such as to what an agent . . . can do with property, how much he can make on it, or what he can gain by handling it” are unactionable future promises)
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.