Burwell v. Burwell

• Decision Date: 08 December 1904
• Citation: 49 S.E. 68,103 Va. 314
• Parties: BURWELL v. BURWELL et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

49 S.E. 68

103 Va. 314

BURWELL

v.BURWELL et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Dec. 8, 1904.

parent and child contracts — presumption of validity—burden of proof—estates of decedents—rental value of lands—charge to occupant—accounting —set-off.

1. Where a mother gave her son a bond for services rendered, as her agent, under an agreement which had been terminated, there was no such confidential relation existing between the mother and son as to raise any presumption of invalidity, and the burden of showing that the son had procured the bond by fraud or undue influence was on the one attacking it.

2. Where a son cultivated the lands of his mother under an agreement with her that he was to receive a certain portion of the crops, as between the son and the estate of the mother, it was error to charge him for the rental value of the lands after the mother's death without giving him an opportunity to show what taxes and other proper charges he was entitled to have set off against the use of the land.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County (Saunders, Judge, not sitting).

Action by one Burwell against the estate of Mary E. Burwell, deceased. Judgment in favor of defendant and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Dillard & Lee, for appellant.

S. & M. Griffin, for appellees.

BUCHANAN, J. The appellant instituted a creditor's suit against the estate of his mother, Mary E. Burwell, deceased. His claim was evidenced by a bond for $4,000, given, as stated in the bond, for services rendered his mother from January 1, 1869, until December 31, 1876, under a contract between the appellant and his mother for the management of her farm and business. That agreement was terminated by the mother at the expiration of the year 1876, and the appellant, who was unmarried, afterwards and until her death, in the year 1897, remained with her under an arrangement between them, by which he was to cultivate her lands, and each receive a certain portion of the crops.

The bond of the appellant was executed, as appears from its date, on May 14, 1884. The defense chiefly relied on to defeat the appellant's recovery is that he did not keep and perform his agreement with his mother, and was therefore not entitled to the compensation therein provided for, and for which the bond was given, and that he procured the execution of the bond by false representations to, and improper or undue influence over, her.

Upon a hearing of the cause the circuit court disallowed his claim. From that decree this appeal was allowed.

The appellant insists that the circuit court erred in holding that such confidential relations existed between him and his mother, when the bond was executed, as imposed upon him the duty of showing that its execu-tion was procured in good faith after a full disclosure of all the facts and circumstances affecting the transaction, and in the absence of all undue influence.

There are certain relations in life, which, from the peculiar confidence necessarily subsisting, courts of equity feel bound to guard and protect. These are guardian and ward, trustee and cestui que trust, attorney and client, principal and agent, parent and child, and the like. Transactions between persons occupying such confidential relations are viewed with jealous vigilance by courts of equity. 1 Story's Eq. Jur. §§ 307-323.

While the natural and just influence which a parent has over a child renders it peculiarly important for courts to watch over and protect the interests of the latter, and to set aside contracts and conveyances whereby benefits are secured by children to their parents, if they are not entered into with scrupulous good faith, and are not reasonable under the circumstances, the same rule does not apply where contracts and conveyances are made by which benefits are secured by the parent to the children. Instead of such contracts and conveyances being guarded with a jealous eye, they will generally be presumed to be free from suspicion, and the party who claims that they were procured by undue influence must generally prove it.

Mr. Pomeroy says, in discussing the transactions between parent and child, that: "A child is presumed to be under the exercise of...