Carter v. Carter, (No. 6433.)
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Writing for the Court | HATCHER |
| Citation | 148 S.E. 378 |
| Parties | CARTER. v. CARTER et al. |
| Docket Number | (No. 6433.) |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1929 |
148 S.E. 378
CARTER.
v.
CARTER et al.
(No. 6433.)
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
May 21, 1929.
[148 S.E. 378]
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cabell County.
Action by Lucinda M. Carter against Ditson P. Carter and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant named appeals, and plaintiff assigns cross-error. Affirmed.
Vinson, Thompson, Meek & Scherr, of Huntington, for appellant.
J. H. Strickling and R. P. Asbury, both of Huntington, for appellee.
HATCHER, J. In 1891 the plaintiff purchased a lot in the city of Huntington at the price of $500 on which she built a house costing approximately $2,000. On June 12, 1895, she conveyed the house and lot to one of her sons, O. M. Carter, who resided at that time in the East. By deed of July 1, 1895, O. M. Carter granted the property without a monetary consideration to the defendant Ditson P. Carter, another son of plaintiff, who resided in Huntington. O. M. Carter testified that both of these conveyances were made at the suggestion of Ditson, and that their purpose was to put the property in the hands of Ditson so that he could "readily handle" it for the plaintiff. Ditson sold the property in 1911, and this is a suit to compel him to account therefor. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, Ditson appeals.
Both in the brief of Ditson Carter and in the argument of his counsel, it was stated that the bill alleged that Ditson had "failed from the beginning to comply with the trust which the plaintiff sets up, " and that the bill contained no explanation of the long delay in bringing this suit. For these rea sons, it is contended the demurrer should be sustained. An examination of the bill fails to find the allegation upon which the defendant relies. The bill simply alleges the trust in her favor and that "Ditson has sold the lot and has never paid nor accounted to her therefor." The date of the sale is not alleged, and no "long delay" in bringing this suit is apparent from the bill. Therefore the demurrer was properly overruled.
It is also contended that the circuit court erred in holding that the conveyance to Ditson Carter was in trust for the plaintiff. Ditson denies the trust and testifies that the conveyance was a mere gift to him from his brother. Both the commissioner and the circuit court, however, have found against him on that proposition; there is ample evidence to support the finding, and we cannot say that it is wrong. McBee v. Deusenberry, 99 W. Va. 176, 128 S. E. 378.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brand v. Lowther, No. 14886
...appellee was guilty of laches. "Laches is delay which operates prejudicially to another person's rights. Carter v. Carter, 107 W.Va. 394, 148 S.E. 378 [1929]." Syl. pt. 1, Bank of Marlinton v. McLaughlin, 121 W.Va. 41, 1 S.E.2d 251 (1939). "Where a party knows his rights or is cognizant of ......
-
Dunn v. Rockwell, No. 34716.
...of limitations period."). Laches is "delay which operates prejudicially to another person's rights." Carter v. Carter, 107 W.Va. 394, 148 S.E. 378 (1929). As we said in Syllabus Point 1 of State ex rel. Smith v. Abbot, 187 W.Va. 261, 418 S.E.2d 575 Mere delay will not bar relief in equity o......
-
Kuhn v. Shreeve, No. 10732
...alone does not constitute laches; it is delay which places another at a disadvantage.' Pt. 3, syllabus, Carter v. Carter, 107 W.Va. 394, 148 S.E. 378. But that alone does not cause an estoppel to arise in the circumstances of this case. We think the delay was excusable. We do not think the ......
-
Maynard v. Board of Educ. of Wayne County, No. CC963
...sought. Stated succinctly, " '[l]aches is delay which operates prejudicially to another person's rights. Carter v. Carter, 107 W.Va. 394, 148 S.E. 378 [1929].' Syl. pt. 1, Bank of Marlinton v. McLaughlin, 121 W.Va. 41, 1 S.E.2d 251 (1939)." Brand v. Lowther, 168 W.Va. 726, 737, 285 S.E.2d 4......
-
Brand v. Lowther, No. 14886
...appellee was guilty of laches. "Laches is delay which operates prejudicially to another person's rights. Carter v. Carter, 107 W.Va. 394, 148 S.E. 378 [1929]." Syl. pt. 1, Bank of Marlinton v. McLaughlin, 121 W.Va. 41, 1 S.E.2d 251 (1939). "Where a party knows his rights or is cognizant of ......
-
Dunn v. Rockwell, No. 34716.
...of limitations period."). Laches is "delay which operates prejudicially to another person's rights." Carter v. Carter, 107 W.Va. 394, 148 S.E. 378 (1929). As we said in Syllabus Point 1 of State ex rel. Smith v. Abbot, 187 W.Va. 261, 418 S.E.2d 575 Mere delay will not bar relief in equity o......
-
Kuhn v. Shreeve, No. 10732
...alone does not constitute laches; it is delay which places another at a disadvantage.' Pt. 3, syllabus, Carter v. Carter, 107 W.Va. 394, 148 S.E. 378. But that alone does not cause an estoppel to arise in the circumstances of this case. We think the delay was excusable. We do not think the ......
-
Maynard v. Board of Educ. of Wayne County, No. CC963
...sought. Stated succinctly, " '[l]aches is delay which operates prejudicially to another person's rights. Carter v. Carter, 107 W.Va. 394, 148 S.E. 378 [1929].' Syl. pt. 1, Bank of Marlinton v. McLaughlin, 121 W.Va. 41, 1 S.E.2d 251 (1939)." Brand v. Lowther, 168 W.Va. 726, 737, 285 S.E.2d 4......