Barnett v. Barnett

• Decision Date: 30 June 1854
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JAMES BARNETT AND OTHERS v. JOHN BARNETT AND OTHERS. 1

1 Jones Eq. 221

54 N.C. 221

JAMES BARNETT AND OTHERS

v.JOHN BARNETT AND OTHERS. 1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1854.

The ancient doctrine that persons born deaf and dumb were to be considered as idiots, has been abandoned in modern times, and the legal capacity of such persons fully recognised.

Where a deaf mute had made a bequest of slaves, and directed one of the witnesses to keep it, and have it recorded, but on the next day, took back the will and executed a deed of gift, which was taken possession of, and carried away by the same witness without objection from the donor, but without any particular instructions held that this was a delivery of the deed of gift.

CAUSE removed from the Court of Equity of Person county at the Spring Term, 1854, by consent.

The case is fully presented by the opinion of the Court.

Miller & Lanier for the plaintiffs .

Norwood, E. G. Reade & E. Jordan for the defendants .

NASH, C. J.

The bill is filed to set aside a paper writing purporting to be a deed of gift from Susanah Barnett to the defendants. The grounds upon which relief is sought are two: The first, that the donor was from natural causes, incapable in law of making such a disposition of her property; and secondly--if she had sufficient capacity, the deed was obtained from her by fraud.

Susanah was deaf and dumb from her birth, and lived at the time of her death, and had done so for some time previous, with the defendant John Barnett.

In the earlier history of the law, a person who was born deaf and dumb, was considered to be an idiot. That period has long passed, and the question as to their legal ability to make a contract is placed on its proper ground--their mental capacity. Modern inventions have restored these unfortunates to their proper stations in society. The domestic relation with all its endearments is open to them, and we find them occupying distinguished stations in almost every department of the arts and sciences. To the Abbe Sicard is justly due the distinguished honor of leading in the humane effort to enlighten and instruct this unfortunate class of human beings--and under his direction, their instruction assumed a systematic course. Buildings were erected, which have in time spread over Europe, and our own country is dotted with them. If we cast our eyes over the street, we see a noble structure erected at the public expense for this benevolent purpose. Able teachers employed, and among them those to whom nature has denied the usual inlets to knowledge.--There, may be seen the deaf mute instructing his brother mute-- throwing the light of science across his path, and leading him to the knowledge of the common Father of us all. The Bible is no longer a sealed book to the poor mute. Such are the blessings which have been conferred upon this class of beings in modern times--and it is now an established principle, that the deaf mute's capacity is not to be measured by what he has not, but what he has. Some controversy took place at the bar, as to the onus of proving capacity. It is not necessary for us in this case to decide the question; we are satisfied by the testimony of the witnesses of the entire capacity of Susanah Barnett to understand what she was doing. Dr. Jordan, who drew the paper and witnessed it, states “that the grade of understanding in both, (alluding to her brother Benjamin, who was also a deaf mute,) appeared to be good, particularly in Susan. They were as intelligent as individuals could be, with their means of information.” The Dr. further states that he lived within half a mile of John Barnett's, where Susan lived, and was the family physician for twenty years; that he could converse with her upon ordinary subjects.--When any of the family were sick, she generally attended to them; but particularly when any of the children were; then, her attentions were most constant. “I believe,” (are his words,) “in every instance, I left the prescriptions with her--could learn from her the effects of the medicine. She generally noticed those effects, particularly on the children.” The high standing of Dr. Jordan, both as a physician, and as a man of intelligence, entitles his statements to full faith. In another part of his testimony, he is asked if Susan gave him any directions, when he took possession of the paper in controversy. His answer is--“that she directed me after the first paper was executed to keep it until it was put on the big books at the Court House. Of this, however, I am not positively certain. I knew they were both in the habit of speaking of things that went on the record books of the county in this way.” But Dr. Jordan is not left alone upon this question-- John A. Barnett, whose character is proved to be as high as any man's--states that after the death of John Barnett's wife in 1836, Susan Barnett had the whole management of the domestic affairs of the family, up to 1850, all of which she attended to, as well as any...