Blades v. Wilmington Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | 28. |
| Citation | 178 S.E. 565,207 N.C. 771 |
| Parties | BLADES v. WILMINGTON TRUST CO. et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Pasquotank County; Moore, Special Judge.
Action by Florence Gray Blades against the Wilmington Trust Company executor and trustee under the will of Charles G. Blades deceased, and Ezekial Blades and others, beneficiaries under said will. Judgment for plaintiff, and corporate defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Testimony relating to statements made by grantee subsequent to execution of deed held competent against defendant claiming under grantee, who was in possession when he made declarations against his interest and in disparagement of his title.
This is a civil action to remove a cloud from the title of the plaintiff to certain lots and parcels of land in Elizabeth City by having an alleged deed from the plaintiff to her late husband declared null and void. The case came on to be heard at term time, when and where trial by jury was waived by the parties, and the court heard the evidence, found the facts reached conclusions of law (C. S. §§ 568, 569), and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, from which the corporate defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors.
J. M Broughton, of Raleigh, for appellant Wilmington Trust Co.
Thompson & Wilson, of Elizabeth City, for appellee.
The plaintiff in this action, while admitting that the alleged deed, which she introduced for the purpose of attack, was regular in form, signed by her, and physically passed to the grantee therein, contends that there was never such a delivery of said alleged deed as was necessary to a transmutation of title. The defendant, on the contrary, contends that there was a valid delivery of said alleged deed, and that by reason thereof title to the land described therein is now vested in it, as trustee under the will of the grantee.
Upon these adverse contentions, there arises the following question: Did the alleged deed pass from the possession and control of the grantor (the plaintiff) to that of the grantee (the defendant's testator) with the intent at the time that the title should pass, or that the instrument should become effective as a conveyance?
The court found substantially the following facts: (1) That H. C Foreman and wife on September 12, 1929, conveyed the property involved to the plaintiff and she, simultaneously therewith, executed the alleged deed; (2) that the land described therein was worth from eight to ten thousand dollars at the time said alleged deed was executed, and if any consideration passed from the grantee to the grantor at the time it was nominal and very inadequate; (3) that said alleged deed was dated September 12, 1929, and was not filed for registration till December 5, 1933; (4) that subsequent to the death of the grantee, the defendant's testator, the said alleged deed was found by the defendant in a sealed envelop in the safe deposit box of the testator, with the following notation, in the handwriting of the testator, on said envelop: ; (5) that the plaintiff and her husband moved into the dwelling house on the land described in said alleged deed on October 8, 1929, and lived there till the death of her husband, C. G. Blades, on December 19, 1932; (6) that the plaintiff listed the land described in said alleged deed in her name for the year 1930; and during the years 1931 and 1932 the testator listed said land in the name of his wife, the plaintiff, and he, himself, signed the tax abstracts; (7) that at all times after the execution of said alleged deed the plaintiff has paid the city and county taxes on said land, namely, for the years 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932; and (8) that after the execution of said alleged deed the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial