Martin v. Ewing
| Decision Date | 17 May 1932 |
| Docket Number | 7122. |
| Citation | 164 S.E. 859,112 W.Va. 332 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. EWING et ux. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted May 3, 1932.
Rehearing Denied July 20, 1932.
Syllabus by the Court.
Meeting of minds is essential to all contracts.
Conveyance made solely in consideration of maintenance of grantor by grantees should be canceled, where there was no meeting of minds as to whether maintenance was to be furnished on property conveyed or at grantees' home.
1. A meeting of the minds of the parties is a sine qua non of all contracts.
2. Where, in contemplation of maintenance to be furnished the grantor by the grantees, property was conveyed without other consideration, and the minds of the parties never met as to the place for furnishing the maintenance, the geographical location of the property conveyed (where the grantor claimed the right to be maintained) and the location of the home of the grantees (where they were willing to maintain him) being such as to render the place of maintenance of vital importance, the said conveyance will be canceled by a court of equity at the instance of the grantor on the ground of total failure of consideration.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kanawha County.
Suit by H. L. Martin, by next friend, against Oscar V. Ewing and wife. From an adverse decree, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
E. M Surber and Henry S. Cato, both of Charleston, for appellants.
M. M Robertson and L. E. Given, both of Charleston, for appellee.
From a decree of the circuit court of Kanawha County canceling a deed and a bill of sale the defendants appeal.
The plaintiff, H. L. Martin, who sues by A. E. Price, his next friend, to cancel said instruments on the ground of the grantor's mental incompetency to execute them, was about 61 years of age at the time of their execution. His wife had died eighteen days previously. There were no children. The defendants, Oscar B. Ewing and Icie L. Ewing, husband and wife, were neighbors of the plaintiff, whose wife was a half-aunt of Mrs. Ewing.
The plaintiff owned and lived on a tract of 15 acres of land on the west side of Elk river some 14 or 15 miles north of the city of Charleston. On the 27th of May, 1929, he conveyed 13 1/2 acres of said tract to the defendants, and executed to them a bill of sale for personal property listed as of $245.00 value. The land conveyed to the defendants was supposed to be worth about $20,000 at the time of the conveyance.
It is a concessum that at the time of the execution of the conveyance and bill of sale it was in the contemplation of the parties that maintenance should be furnished the grantor by the grantees, though no mention of that fact is made in either the deed or the bill of sale. The latter instrument carries the recital that it was in consideration of cash in hand paid. The deed recites that it was "in consideration of the sum of ten dollars cash and other good and valuable considerations in hand paid the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged." Neither instrument contains any lien or reservation. Both are absolute and unqualified.
There is a clash of testimony as to the plaintiff's mental capacity at the time of the transactions under consideration. For the plaintiff, there is medical testimony that he is a moron--mental development about that of a child of twelve years; that he was not competent to transact business. A number of lay witnesses sustain the proposition that the plaintiff was below normal mentality, and particularly that because of stress and worry consequent upon the death of his wife he seemed to act in an unnatural manner. On the other side there is the testimony of numerous acquaintances, some of whom have known the plaintiff many years. They say they never saw anything to indicate that the plaintiff was not of normal mentality and competent to transact the ordinary business affairs of life, and never heard any intimation to the contrary until about the time this suit was brought.
At the time of the execution and delivery of the deed and bill of sale at plaintiff's home, it appears that there was some discussion between plaintiff and defendants concerning the subsequent preparation of a contract for the support and maintenance of the former by the latter. A. E. Price who wrote both instruments testified that after he prepared the deed he asked Martin if he wanted a contract written then and Martin replied that it wasn't necessary to "make it at that time." Price stated further that Ewing said he "would rather they had one, and they would know then what they were to do"; and that as they were crossing the river returning to defendants' home from the home of plaintiff, Ewing said "make the contract as strong as you want to, it makes no difference how hard you make it, I will do more than I have to." It does not appear that there were any negotiations between plaintiff and defendants regarding the contract prior to the execution and delivery of the deed.
After spending about three months at defendants' home plaintiff had a contract prepared and presented to defendants for their signatures. They refused to sign and thereafter submitted one to plaintiff for his signature, which he declined to sign. The drafts of contract differed as to the place where plaintiff was to be supported and cared for by defendants. By the one prepared for plaintiff, he was to be supported at his home upon the land conveyed, with a stipulation that, should the defendants fail to comply with the provisions of the contract, the deed should be void and the property should revert to the plaintiff; by the one prepared at the instance of the defendants they were to support the plaintiff in their own home. The former draft would have made the care and maintenance of plaintiff a charge upon the land; the latter would not.
The trial court found that although the plaintiff was considerably below the average man in...
To continue reading
Request your trial