Anderson v. Purvis
| Decision Date | 24 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | 16000. |
| Parties | ANDERSON et al. v. PURVIS. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
John D. Nock, of Cheraw, for appellants.
Samuel Want, of Darlington, for respondent.
This suit was commenced on May 9, 1943 for the foreclosure of a mortgage given by O. H. Purvis to J. L Anderson, of date November ___, 1927, in the sum of $5511.09. Anderson died on February 18, 1940, and the foreclosure proceeding was brought by his widow, as his legatee of a one-fifth interest, and his four children, as assignees of a four-fifths interest.
The origin of the debt relates back to 1920, at which time Anderson, in order to enable Purvis (a practicing physician) to erect an office building, furnished him with brick, lumber and cash. This debt was first evidenced by a note given on May 21, 1920, which was secured by a mortgage of the same date covering the office property, and recorded May 17, 1923. On April 12, 1927, at the request of Purvis, Anderson satisfied the mortgage he held on the office building and in place of it accepted the mortgage upon which suit has now been brought, which covers the residence of the defendant.
On January 27, 1931, there was a balancing of accounts between Anderson and Purvis. The indebtedness evidenced and secured as aforestated was credited with certain sums due Purvis for medical services rendered by him to the employees of Anderson's brick yard and veneer plant. Upon this credit being given, which amounted to $1285, Purvis executed and delivered to Anderson a new note for $5161.45 representing the balance due on the original indebtedness. This note is secured by the mortgage executed in 1927. At the time this foreclosure suit was brought, the mortgage debt principal and interest, amounted to $10,813.76.
The defense admits the execution and delivery of the note and mortgage and the amount of the debt secured thereby. No issue is raised thereabout.
The answer sets up the defense that the mortgage indebtedness had been fully paid and satisfied by reason of the medical services rendered by the defendant to J. L. Anderson and his family from 1915 to 1940, and that the value of such services was fixed by Anderson in his lifetime by his agreement and repeated statements that the indebtedness secured by the mortgage was considered by him fully paid.
Prior to the institution of the suit, the defendant upon request furnished a statement of the account of his medical services to the Anderson family dating from 1915 to 1940. This statement was made up from memory and was not itemized, and the account totaled the sum of $9,680.
The master for Chesterfield County, to whom the case was referred to take the testimony and report the same to the court with his conclusions of law and fact, found every issue against the plaintiffs. Numerous exceptions were filed to all the findings of the master. They were heard before the circuit court, which entered a decree overruling all the exceptions, adjudging the note and mortgage to be fully paid and satisfied, and dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs by appeal to this court, vigorously challenge this disposition of the case.
The record in this case covers many pages. Several references were held, and numerous witnesses examined. The questions involved present a series of facts and circumstances, all of which are largely in conflict; and which, it is insisted by the respondent, ultimately require the application of one of the oldest principles of equity--'He who seeks equity should do equity.'
The crucial issue presented by the appeal involves this inquiry: Were the master and the circuit judge justified in concluding from the testimony that the respondent, Dr. Purvis, and the decedent, J. L. Anderson, both acted under an understanding and agreement that the mortgage indebtedness was to be extinguished by reason of the many years of professional services rendered by the respondent to the decedent and his family, in consequence of which respondent took no steps to assert his claim or otherwise protect his rights against the decedent's legatee and assignees.
As found by the master and affirmed by the circuit court, the answer of the respondent does not set up a defense based upon a claim to an accounting or a balancing of mutual accounts. The essence of the defense is that the mortgage has been paid and satisfied by the professional services rendered by respondent to J. L. Anderson and his family, which, by agreement between them, constituted an extinguishment of the mortgage debt. On this issue and under this agreement, it is claimed that there was no necessity or reason to prove the precise value of the professional services rendered by the respondent. However, respondent contends that there was relevancy and pertinence in the character and extent of the services rendered as bearing upon the credibility of the testimony respecting the alleged agreement to treat the mortgage as satisfied.
The evidence covers a long period of time, dating from the year 1915, when Dr. Purvis first moved to Cheraw to engage in the practice of medicine, until February 18, 1940, the date of Anderson's death. It is clearly inferable from the evidence that he sought the aid and friendly cooperation of Anderson, his second cousin, who was a resident of Cheraw and a man of wide business interests. Their association developed into a fast friendship, which continued through the years, and proved most beneficial to Purvis in many material ways. He became the physician of the Anderson family, and Anderson became his benefactor. Through Anderson, Dr. Purvis attended professionally all of the employees at Anderson's brick and veneer plants. Later, when these industries were converted from private ownership to corporations, still owned by Anderson, Dr. Purvis continued to receive the major portion of the medical practice derived therefrom.
The record shows without dispute that Dr. Purvis never presented Anderson a bill for professional services rendered to him and his family; that his books show no charges against Anderson; that the statement of account for such personal services was made up from memory after Anderson's death, after the lapse of twenty-five years, and that Anderson did not know during his lifetime that any charges against him were being held in reserve.
It might be stated in passing that between 1927 and 1940 payments received by Dr. Purvis as medical fees from Anderson's two corporations amounted to $17,000, all of which was turned over to Purvis and none of it applied on his mortgage indebtedness.
Purvis states that he got the idea in 1934 that Anderson did not intend to enforce collection of the mortgage, but he frankly states that nothing Anderson said to him led him to this conclusion. It was in the year 1934 that Dr. Purvis, following a serious illness, became incapacitated and practically retired from the active practice of medicine, and the evidence offered by him to substantiate his alleged agreement with Anderson comes after that date.
One witness for respondent detailed a conversation which he stated he heard in the spring of 1939 between Dr. Purvis and Mr. Anderson, in which Anderson asked Purvis if he had 'fixed those papers,' since he (Dr. Purvis) had gotten out of the hospital. Dr. Purvis replied that he had not, but that he wished to get it straight before he made a will. Mr. Anderson then said: 'I don't mean a will--I mean the deed to Eunice--to Mrs. Purvis.' And he then inquired of Dr. Purvis if he owed anyone else, and the respondent replied, 'I don't owe anyone but you.' Whereupon he was told by Anderson not to let the mortgage stand in the way of the execution of the deed; that he could go ahead and fix his deed, 'just as though the mortgage was not there,' because it was not recorded.
The mortgage which is the subject of this action was not recorded until July, 1939, but Mr. Anderson had instructed his attorney to file it for record on March 10, 1939. The delay was caused by the preparation of many papers changing the ownership of the Anderson industries from a corporation to a partnership to be owned and operated by Anderson and his four children.
On another occasion, in 1937, Anderson is quoted as saying with reference to the indebtedness of the respondent, 'He did owe me, but he does not owe me anything now.'
Another witness for respondent quotes Anderson as saying: 'He owes me some, but I am not going to bother him about that.' And again in the same conversation, Anderson mentioned that Dr. Purvis owed him a mortgage, but said,
Another witness for the respondent overheard a conversation between Dr. Purvis and Anderson, in which the latter told the respondent that he would like Purvis to get his business affairs straightened out. 'Of course I will take care of Eunice, but I would feel better to know that you had gotten your business affairs straightened out.' And then he asked him if he owed any money, and Dr. Purvis replied, 'No, J. L., I don't owe anything except a mortgage I owe you.' Whereupon Mr. Anderson remarked: 'Well, I don't feel that you owe very much, because I feel that I owe you as much as you owe me.'
The record discloses that Dr. Purvis and his wife had no children, and that Anderson wished Dr. Purvis, whose health was uncertain, to convey the property to his wife, so that if she survived him she would own the fee.
One other witness for the respondent, his brother, stated that at a time when Dr. Purvis was very ill, he had a conversation with Anderson about the indebtedness, in the course of which the latter told him, 'If the truth be known, I would owe Otis more than he...
To continue reading
Request your trial