Boles v. Caudle
| Decision Date | 24 November 1903 |
| Citation | 45 S.E. 835,133 N.C. 528 |
| Parties | BOLES v. CAUDLE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Stokes County; Shaw, Judge.
Action by J. W. Boles against N. L. Caudle to compel the specific performance of a contract. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Walter W. King, for appellant.
Carter & Lewellyn and Watson, Buxton & Watson, for appellee.
The defendant, N. L. Caudle, on the 9th day of June, 1888, in consideration of $150 to be paid to her in eight annual installments, executed a paper writing purporting to convey assign, and transfer to the plaintiff all the right, title and interest which she then had or should thereafter have in the property and estate of her grandfather, George H. Crouse. Thereafter the said George H. Crouse died, leaving a will executed February 2, 1898, giving to the defendant an interest in his estate, the value of which is in excess of the amount paid her by the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserted legal title to the interest of the defendant in said estate. The effect of said paper writing in that respect was passed upon by this court at the February term, 1900 (126 N.C. 352 35 S.E. 604), when Furches, J., said: The judgment of the court below, declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of the defendant's interest in the estate of the grandfather, was reversed by this court, and a new trial awarded. The plaintiff thereupon amended his complaint and demanded specific performance of the contract. The defendant filed an amended answer, alleging "that if she executed the contract it was procured by undue influence, ignorance of its effect, advantage taken of her ignorance, weak and afflicted condition, necessity and poverty, and that said contract is unfair, harsh, unjust, and oppressive, and without fair and adequate consideration."
When the cause came on for trial upon the amended pleadings, the plaintiff introduced the paper writing dated June 9, 1888, proven and recorded April 4, 1899. It recorded a consideration of $150, and contained appropriate words of conveyance and assignment of "all and every part of her claim to all real and personal property, which she is, or may hereafter own in Henry Crouse's estate, as the grand-daughter of said Henry Crouse, of Solomon Crouse's estate," etc. Plaintiff then offered in evidence the will of said Crouse, dated February 2, 1898. The only portion material to this appeal is a gift of his son Solomon's part of the estate to his children, giving two daughters $100 each, with the provision that "N. L. Caudle is to have the remainder of my son Solomon's part of my estate and J. W. Boles has bought her interest in my estate."
The plaintiff testified that he married the daughter of George H. Crouse. There were seven children. Solomon was killed in the army, leaving three children. George H. Crouse died August 1, 1899. He saw defendant at the Crouse home during the spring of 1888. While he was at the wood pile, defendant came to him and proposed to sell her interest in her grandfather's estate. Witness told her that he would "study about it." She insisted, and said she would take $150; that she did not want it all at once; that it could be paid in small payments; that she and her grandfather had been talking about it. Witness did not buy it then. In about three months George H. Crouse came to his house, and said that at request of defendant he had tried to sell her interest to Wesley Crouse; that he would not buy, and she had got him to come to see witness. Crouse said that he would see that witness did not lose anything by it; that he would fix it in his will. Crouse told witness that he did not know the worth of the estate. He said that defendant was going home in a few days and wanted the paper fixed up. Crouse had paper written, and had defendant to sign it. Witness gave him notes for the $150. That he has paid all of the notes except the last, for which the defendant refused to accept money. At the time of the purchase witness thought that there was but little profit in it. Defendant told witness that she was glad he had bought. She went blind some time after sale. She said six years after the sale that she was glad she had sold; that the money came in good time. Witness was not present at the time paper was signed. The value of Crouse's estate increased very much after sale by defendant. Witness paid interest on the notes. It appeared from tax lists that Crouse listed in 1888 $2,176 worth of property, in 1899 $4,391.
Defendant testified that she was 39 years old; that she was 1 year old when her father was killed; that her husband died 14 years ago, and she went to her grandfather's for the first time in 16 years, and while at her grandfather's he said that he had tried to sell one-third of what was coming to her father for $150, and thought it best to sell, as the witness had two small children; her health was bad, and she went blind in July; that she had never seen the plaintiff, and she had to do what her grandfather said; that he said the plaintiff had bought her interest in the estate, and Wesley carried her to Butner's and she signed the paper, and they paid her $12.50. She did not know the contents of it, and thought it was for Boles to have $150 out of her father's estate; that was what her grandfather told her. In a short time afterwards, the plaintiff paid another note; he sent her two payments during two years, and her grandfather wrote her that the plaintiff was shaving his notes; he shaved six notes, and paid others in full; she stayed at her grandfather's nine years, and went to see the plaintiff once during that time. The witness denied the conversation with the plaintiff. Her grandfather paid her the notes. After her grandfather died, Key, the plaintiff's son, brought her $25, and said that counsel said it was best for her to take it. At the time she executed the paper her financial condition was bad. Had no real estate or any other property. The defendant showed value of Crouse's estate. Plaintiff introduced other testimony tending to corroborate his own. The executor testified that Solomon's share was worth $1,173, and he owed the estate $835. He agreed to knock off interest, which would leave $500. There is some confusion in the testimony in regard to the exact value of the share coming to defendant. The foregoing is substantially the testimony. The defendant requested the court upon the entire evidence to nonsuit the plaintiff. This was refused, and defendant excepted. His honor submitted issues to the jury, to which they responded as follows: There was no exception to any part of the charge.
The only question thus presented for review is whether, upon the whole evidence, the court should have decreed specific performance of the contract. The plaintiff, prior to the adoption of the Constitution of 1868 and the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial