Calloway v. Witherspoon

• Decision Date: 31 December 1847
• Citation: 5 Ired.Eq. 128,40 N.C. 128
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: PRUDENCE CALLOWAY v. JOHN WITHERSPOON.

5 Ired.Eq. 128

40 N.C. 128

PRUDENCE CALLOWAY

v.JOHN WITHERSPOON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1847.

If, when a man is so drunk as to render him an easy prey to the fraudulent designs of another, an unfair advantage is taken of his situation to procure from him an unreasonable bargain, a Court of Equity will interfere and rescind the contract, not on the ground of his drunkenness, but of the fraud.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Caldwell County, at the Spring Term, 1844, by consent of parties.

The bill charges, that the plaintiff and William Howard were the bastard and only children of one Polly Howard, and that William Howard died in August 1840, intestate, and without any lawful issue. For nine or ten years before his death, he had been very intemperate, so much so that his mind was impaired; and about two months before his death, he purchased from the defendant, John Witherspoon, a tract of land, for the sum of $4,000, which he paid for in notes upon other persons.

The bill further states, that, at the time of the purchase, and before the deed for the land was executed, it was distinctly understood between the parties, that the vendor, John Witherspoon, was to execute a deed, conveying the fee-simple in the land; that the deed was drawn by one of the other defendants, Dula, who was the brother-in-law of the grantor, and witnessed by him and another, who is the son of the defendant, and only conveys an estate for the life of William Howard; that nothing was, at the time of its execution, said as to the extent of the estate conveyed, and that the grantee, William Howard, accepted it, under the belief that he was getting a deed in fee simple; that the sum of $4,000 was a high price for the fee simple, and that from the habits of William Howard, it was not worth $300 for his life-estate, and the deed was executed in June, 1840. The bill charges, that the defendant John Witherspoon held the land in right of his wife, and well knew he could not convey a fee simple, but, by his false suggestions and fraudulent conduct, induced William Howard to believe that he could; that, since the death of the latter, the plaintiff requested John Witherspoon to correct the deed and make a good title in fee simple, which he refused. The bill prays that either the contract may be rescinded and the defendant John Witherspoon be decreed to repay the money received by him, or that he may be decreed to execute a good and sufficient deed in fee simple with general warranty. The bill further charges, that, in the division of the estate of William Dula among his heirs, the land now in question was assigned to the wife of the defendant John Witherspoon, who was one of them, and valued by the commissioners at $2700, and that real estate was higher in market at that time than when the defendant sold to William Howard, and charges a combination between the defendants to defraud William Howard.

The answer of John Witherspoon admits the sale of the land to William Howard, at his own request and at the price of $4000; admits that it was held by him as land which he had got by his wife, and that, in the division of the estate among the heirs of her father, it was assigned to her as one of them, and was valued by the commissioners at $2700, but denies that was its true value. It avers that William Howard well knew his title to the land, and that he could not convey it in fee; and denies that he sold or intended to sell, or that Howard bought or intended to buy, any thing but the life estate of the defendant. It avers that the deed was prepared by William H. Dula, who was instructed by said Witherspoon, as to the interest intended to be conveyed, and, before it was executed, it was distinctly and fairly read over to William Howard, who expressed himself fully satisfied with it, and denies that he thought he was receiving a deed in fee. He admits the deed was intended to convey an estate for said defendant's own life, and that he thought it did convey such estate, and consents to have the deed so rectified. In another part of his answer he states, that he was to convey an estate for the life of Howard as well as his own, and is willing to correct that error.

The answer of William H. Dula states, he knows nothing of the contract, but as told him by John Witherspoon; at the request of the latter he drew the deed, but did not witness it, nor was he present when it was executed; was told by John Witherspoon to draw the deed, so as to convey only his life estate as that was all he had sold.

The answer of W. P. Witherspoon, denies all knowledge of the trade between the parties; was a subscribing witness to the deed, and believes he read it over to William Howard, and if so, read it correctly; denies he made any attempt, or that any was made in his presence to induce W. Howard to believe, that it was a deed in fee simple.

Replications were taken to the answers, and the case was set for hearing.

Boyden, for the plaintiff .

Avery and Bynum, for the defendants .

NASH, J.

The equity of the plaintiff's bill is, that, in purchasing the land in dispute from John Witherspoon, William Howard bargained for, and intended to buy, a fee simple in the land, and was induced by the fraudulent representations of the said Witherspoon to accept a deed, which did not convey such an interest, under the belief, that it did convey it, and that it was sufficient for that purpose. The bill charges, that the price paid for the land was the full value of the fee simple, and the answers do not deny it. It is indeed admitted by the defendant, John Witherspoon, that the land, when allotted to his wife, was valued at $2,700, but he denies that was its full value, but does not state what it was worth.

No person was present when the bargain was made. We are left therefore to draw our opinion from the deed itself, and the after declarations of the parties, and the facts admitted. Upon its face, the deed conveys to William Howard nothing but an estate for his life, with a general warranty from J. Witherspoon and his heirs of title to him and his heirs for ever. The price given was the full value of the fee simple of the land, and the defendants admit, that it was the intention of the grantor to convey to Howard a title for the life of John Witherspoon, or for his own life and that of Howard. It is further admitted, that William Howard was a very intemperate man, and that, at the time the deed of conveyance was executed, he had been drinking. The plaintiff does not pretend that William Howard was, at the time of making the contract, drunk to that extreme point, as would?? of itself, invalidate the Act, but that he was so drunk as to render him an easy prey to the...