Carr v. Holliday
| Decision Date | 30 June 1836 |
| Citation | 1 Dev. 344,21 N.C. 344 |
| Parties | SARAH CARR, Administratrix of ROBERT CARR, v. TILMAN HOLLIDAY. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
If a person contracts with a lunatic, in good faith, without taking advantage of his situation, and without knowledge of the lunacy, a court of equity, although the contract is legally void, will not interfere to deprive such person of the advantages he has obtained, without restoring to him whatever benefit the estate of the lunatic has received by the contract.
ROBERT CARR came of age on the 10th day of January in the year 1829, and on the 8th of April following, was, by an inquisition legally taken, found to be a lunatic, and that he had been such since the month of November, 1827. Sarah Carr was appointed, by the Court, his committee. Between the time of his arrival at age and the finding of the inquisition, the defendant entered into several pretended contracts with him, and obtained from him by way of exchange or purchase, several slaves, one-third part of a tract of land, called Haw Landing, and some bonds for money which have been paid. On the 12th May, 1830, Sarah Carr, as the committee of Robert, and on his behalf, filed the present bill for the purpose of having the aforesaid pretended contracts set aside, and the property restored, and for general relief. After the filing of the bill, Robert Carr died, and Sarah Carr administered upon his estate, and was made a party plaintiff. The defendant answered the bill, and admitted that he made several contracts with the said Robert at the times mentioned in the bill; but denied that Robert was a lunatic at any of those times. He alleged that all the contracts were bona fide, and that Robert received from him a full and adequate consideration for the slaves, land and bonds.
A replication to the answer was filed by the plaintiff, and proofs taken, the result of which will be found in the opinion of the court.
Devereux, for the plaintiff .
W. C. Stanly, for the defendant contended--That if lunacy was established, although the contract was void at law, yet a court of equity would not interfere, unless notice of the lunacy or inadequacy of price was shown; and for this he cited the cases of Loomis v. Spencer, 2 Paige's Ch. Rep. 153. Neil v. Morley, 9 Ves. Jun. 477.
DANIEL, Judge, having stated briefly the pleadings, proceeded:
The inquisition was prima facie evidence that Robert Carr was a lunatic, and had been and continued so from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wadford v. Gillette
...was "taken, and that the insane person is not able to restore the consideration or to make adequate compensation therefor. Carr v. Holliday, 21 N. C. 344; Odom v. Riddick, 104 N. C. 515, 10 S. E. 609, 7L.E.A. 118, 17 Am. St. Rep. 686; Creekmore v. Baxter, 121 N. C. 31, 27 S. E. 994; Sprinkl......
-
Wadford v. Gillette
...was taken, and that the insane person is not able to restore the consideration or to make adequate compensation therefor. Carr v. Holliday, 21 N.C. 344; Odom Riddick, 104 N.C. 515, 10 S.E. 609, 7 L. R. A. 118, 17 Am. St. Rep. 686; Creekmore v. Baxter, 121 N.C. 31, 27 S.E. 994; Sprinkle v. W......
-
West v. Seabd. Air Line Ry
...no ground for setting it aside where the other party had no notice of the insanity and derived no inequitable advantage from it. Carr v. Holliday, 21 N. C. 344; Rhoades v. Fuller, 139 Mo. 179, 40 S. W. 760; Jamison v. Culligan, 151 Mo. 410, 52 S. W. 225; Schaps v. Lehner, 54 Minn. 208, 55 N......
-
West v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.
...no ground for setting it aside where the other party had no notice of the insanity and derived no inequitable advantage from it. Carr v. Holliday, 21 N.C. 344; v. Fuller, 139 Mo. 179, 40 S.W. 760; Jamison v. Culligan, 151 Mo. 410, 52 S.W. 225; Schaps v. Lehner, 54 Minn. 208, 55 N.W. 911; Br......