Beeson v. Smith

• Decision Date: 19 November 1908
• Citation: 62 S.E. 888,149 N.C. 142
• Parties: BEESON. v. SMITH.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

62 S.E. 888

149 N.C. 142

BEESON.

v.SMITH.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 19, 1908.

1. Insane Persons (§ 60^*) — Contracts and Deeds—Validity.

Insane persons' deeds and contracts are voidable, and not void, especially when there has been no adjudication of insanity.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insane Persons, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. § 60.*]

2. Deeds (§ 72^2-*)—Execution—Undue influence.

Deeds procured by undue influence or fraud in the treaty or bargain are voidable, and not void.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. § 190; Dec. Dig. § 72.*]

3. Cancellation of Instruments (§ 57*)— Deeds—Undue Influence—Relief.

In an action to cancel a deed procured through fraud or undue influence, a court may set it aside altogether, or only sub modo, and administer the relief required by justice.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Cancellation of Instruments, Cent. Dig. § 115; Dec. Dig. § 57.*]

4. Cancellation of Instruments (§ 31*)— Deeds — Undue Influence — Effect on Third Persons.

If deeds were procured by fraud or undue influence of one acting as defendant grantee's agent, or if defendant bought with knowledge of the fraud or undue influence, or knew facts sufficient to put a man of average business prudence on inquiry leading to such knowledge, the grantor is entitled to relief against defendant.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Cancellation of Instruments, Dec. Dig. § 31.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Randolph County; Webb, Judge.

Action by Sophia Beeson against Daniel Smith. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. New trial ordered.

The deed from plaintiff to defendant, who was brother to plaintiff, conveyed to defendant the plaintiff's land, recited a valuable consideration of $10, and contained a stipulation, in effect, that, during the life of the grantor, the land conveyed was to be occupied by the grantee and his heirs as tenants, paying to the grantor one-third of the crop as rent, etc.; and the contract was to the effect that the defendant, Daniel Smith, was to look after the personal interests of Sophia Beeson, and see that she was taken care of during her life and provide her a suitable burial on her death, and that for this service the defendant was to have and own all the "personal property and belongings" of said plaintiff which she should have at her death, etc. There was evidence on the part of plaintiff tending to show mental incapacity in the grantor at the time of the execution of these instruments, and that the same were procured by fraud and undue influence on the part of defendant and of one Dave Ferree, who had married a niece of plaintiff and defendant, and had for some time previous lived on plaintiff's land. Issues were submitted and responded to by the jury, as follows: "(1) Did the plaintiff have sufficient mental capacity to make and execute the deed and contract set out in the complaint on the 25th of January, 1905? Answer. Yes. (2) Was the deed and contract described in the complaint obtained by fraud and undue influence? Answer. No. (3) Was the plaintiff induced to execute said deed and contract by false and fraudulent representations of the defendant, or by any one for him? Answer. No." Among other things, and on the second and third issue, the court charged the jury as follows: "If the jury should find, to their satisfaction, from the evidence that David Ferree or any other person exerted an undue influence over the plaintiff, or perpetrated a fraud upon her, or made false representation to her, in order to get her to sign the deed and contract in controversy, this would not be sufficient ground for answering the second and third issues 'Yes, ' unless the plaintiff has proven to your satisfaction that the same was procured to be done by the defendant, or that he was a party to it." The plaintiff excepted. There was judgment on the verdict for defendant, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.

Morehead & Sapp, for appellant.

Hammer & Spence, for appellee.

HOKE, J. (after stating the facts as above). The authorities of this state are to the effect that the deeds and contracts of insane persons, certainly when there is no formal adjudication of their insanity in force at the time, are voidable, and not necessarily void; and the same is true of deeds procured by undue influence, or fraud in the treaty or bargain. In actions brought for the purpose courts on established principles of equity may set them aside altogether, or only sub modo, and administer the relief that right and justice may require. In the case of insane persons, and the relief to be afforded, under certain conditions, an instructive case will be found in Sprinkle v. Wellborn, 140 N. C. 163, 52 S. E. 666, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 174, 111 Am. St. Rep. 827, and other decisions in this state are in accord with that well-considered opinion. Chamblee v. Broughton, 120 N. C. 170, 27 S. E. 111; Odom v. Riddick, 104 N. C. 515, 10 S. E. 609, 7 L. R. A. 118, 17 Am. St. Rep. 686; Riggan v. Green, 80 N. C. 237, 30 Am. Rep. 77; Carr v. Holliday, 21 N. C. 344. In the case of deeds procured by fraud in the treaty, or undue influence, which is held to partake of the nature of fraud, Myatt v. Myatt (at the present term), 62 S. E. 887. Courts are more disposed to set the instruments aside, but, even in these cases, such a decree is not always or necessarily required, and such relief will be given as the merits of the case may require. And this appropriate relief will be afforded, not only against the principal, where he is grantee in the deed, but also against persons who were or have become beneficiaries of the fraud, when they are volunteers or purchasers with notice, or when the deeds have been procured by the fraud or undue influence of one who is acting in the transaction as agent of grantee. Squires v. Riggs, 4 N. C. 253, 6 Am. Dec. 564; Derr v. Dellinger, 75 N. C....