Christmas v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 30 June 1845
• Citation: 3 Ired.Eq. 535,38 N.C. 535
• Parties: LEONIDAS CHRISTMAS et al. v. PETER MITCHELL et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

3 Ired.Eq. 535

38 N.C. 535

LEONIDAS CHRISTMAS et al.

v.PETER MITCHELL et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1845.

An inquisition, which merely states, that the party is “of unsound mind,” does not shew, even prima facie, that he is an idiot.

But any inquisition as to lunacy or idiocy, is but presumptive evidence, in a suit inter alias partes, and may be rebutted by contradictory evidence.

The ancient presumption of law, that one, who was born deaf and dumb, was an idiot, does not now exist.

If it did, it might be repelled by evidence.

Where one was born deaf and dumb, but had his intellectual faculties, though these were not improved by the modern system of education for persons of that class, Held, that he was not within the exception of the statute of limitations, which only excepts him, who is non compos mentis.

When a bill is amended, introducing new matter or a new charge against the defendant, the latter may make such defence to this new charge, as if it were now the foundation of an original bill.

To enable a purchaser of a legal title, without notice of an equity affecting it, to avail himself of that defence in a Court of Equity, it must not only appear that he had no actual notice of the equity, but, also, that he could not, by the ordinary means, which a prudent man would have used, have obtained information of such equitable incumbrance.

Therefore, where executors, to whom slaves were bequeathed in trust, voluntarily conveyed them to one not entitled, and the person, claiming to be purchaser without notice, from the person so not entitled, knew that the slaves were devised to the executors, but did not know how the executors conveyed to his vendor-- Held, that he ought to have examined the will and the conveyance from the executors, that he was bound by their contents, in construction of a Court of Equity, and therefore was answerable for the equities, attaching to the legal estate, as shewn either by the will or by the deed of conveyance.

The doctrine of constructive notice applies in this State, not only to lands, but also to slaves, where a deed of conveyance is required in all cases except where the slaves are actually delivered and the money or money's value paid, or in the peculiar case of a gift of a parent to a child, accompanied with the death of the parent, without a will.

This doctrine of constructive notice applies, also, as to other subjects of personal property, where a purchaser knows his vendor derived his title under a deed, will or other writing.

Gross negligence, on the part of him, who deals with an executor, will, in Equity, be considered notice of the abuse of the executor's authority.

This cause was transmitted, by consent of parties, from the Court of Equity of Warren County, at the Spring Term, 1845.

The following case now appeared upon the pleadings and evidence; the case having been before this court at a former term, when, certain questions having been decided, the court ordered the case to be remanded, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their bill.

The original bill in this case was filed in the year, 1833, and such proceedings were had therein, that this court, at the June Term, in the year 1837, made a declaration of the rights of the parties, as they were then presented. At the same term, a decretal order was made, remanding the case to the Court of Equity, for Warren County, with leave to the plaintiffs to amend their bill. At the Fall Term 1842, of Warren Court, the bill, as it now appears was filed. It appears, that Buckner Davis died in the year, 1820, having made his last will and testament, wherein he devised and bequeathed as follows: “I appoint my friends, Gov. James Turner, Peter R. Davis, and Stephen Davis, executors of this my last will and testament, and guardians for my children, as hereafter named. I give and devise to my said friends, James Turner, Peter R. Davis, and Stephen Davis, jointly and severally, all the estate of which 1 may die seised and possessed, be it real, personal or mixed, to have, use, regulate and manage and control, without accountability or responsibility to any of my said children hereinafter named. And, accordingly, I give to my said friends, jointly and severally, full power and authority to sell, lease, hire and to dispose of the whole of said estate or any part of it, and jointly to execute good, valid and sufficient titles thereto, in fee simple, to the purchaser or purchasers, in the event of their, or either of them, deeming a sale of any portion of it necessary to the welfare of my children hereinafter named.” The testator by another clause in his will, recommended to his executors to afford to his daughter, Betsy C. Christmas, the mother of the complainants, a support out of a tract of land therein named, and certain negroes, whose names are set forth in the will, and by a subsequent clause, he recommends to his said friends, after the death of the said Betsy C. Christmas, to give the whole of said negroes and other property to her children. After the death of the said Buckner Davis, the will was properly proved, and the two Davis' alone qualified as executors thereof. James Turner never did in any manner interfere with the estate of the testator, and died in the year 1824. The bill charges, that Peter R. and Stephen Davis, received the said negroes, not for their own use and benefit, but in trust for Betsy Christmas, and, after her death, for the plaintiffs, who are her children. And they charge, that the said Peter R. and Stephen Davis, in violation of the trust reposed in them, conveyed said negroes to Thomas H. Christmas, but without any valuable consideration, as appears by the deed made by them to him, and that he, Christmas, therefore, held them in trust for the plaintiffs; that certain of the negroes, whose names are set forth in the bill, were subsequently sold, either by the said Christmas, or by the Sheriff, under executions against him, to the defendant Peter Mitchell, who purchased with full notice of the title of the plaintiffs, and that said Christmas held as their trustee, and that therefore said defendant holds them in trust, for their use and benefit. It states, further, that Peter Mitchell has sold one of the said negroes by the name of Tom, to persons who have carried him out of the State, and that he received for him $800, and that their mother, Betsy C. Christmas, is dead, and that Thomas C. Christmas is dead, insolvent, and intestate, and that no one has or will administer to him. It prays, that the defendant, Mitchell, may be decreed to convey to the plaintiffs the negroes so conveyed to him, with their increase, and account with them for their hires; and also to account with them for the value of Tom. It alleges further, that Leonidas Christmas is a lunatic of unsound memory. Peter Mitchell, in his answer, alleges that he purchased the negroes mentioned in the bill, at public auction, in the town of Warrenton, of Thomas H. Christmas, and gave for them a full and fair consideration, in the year 1827, and immediately took them into his possession, and has so held them ever since, except Tom, whom he sold; that, at the time of his purchase and before, he had understood that the negroes had been in the possession of Buckner Davis, and, after his death, that they came with the rest of his property, into the hands of Peter R. and Stephen Davis, his executors.--From general rumor he had understood, that Buckner Davis, by his will, had given all his property to his executors, and left his children entirely dependent on them. But of the will itself he had no knowledge; he had never seen it, or heard it read, nor had he any knowledge of its contents, and he denies any knowledge of the title of Buckner Davis to the negroes. He admits that, before his purchase, he knew that the executors had delivered the said negro slaves to Thomas H. Christmas, and that he was in possession of them as his own property; but he did not know, nor had he any information of the consideration, upon which the said delivery had been made, or whether the transfer had been made in writing, or by manuel delivery, or in what other mode. He had understood, that the whole of the negroes of the testator had been given to the executors, and he did not doubt, that in their character, as such executors, they had, by law, full power to dispose of the same; and that he was confirmed in this belief, by the fact, that the executor, Peter R. Davis, was present at the sale, and persuaded him to purchase them. He denies that he had any notice of the plaintiffs, equity, unless, in the opinion of the court, the facts above set forth amount to such notice, which he is advised they do not, and he therefore insists that he is a purchaser for the full and valuable consideration paid, without any knowledge or notice of the equity of the plaintiffs, and he claims the benefit thereof, as if the same were specially pleaded in law. The defendant further insists, that, if the transfer or conveyance by the executors to Thomas H. Christmas was a violation of their duty as trustees, it is one for which they are personally liable, and which does not at law or in equity affect his title. The answer admits the sale of Tom at the price set forth, but alleges that the sale was made in Richmond by an agent, and that if held to account for his value, he ought to be allowed the expenses of the sale. The answer denies that Leonidas Christmas, one of the plaintiffs, is a lunatic, or of unsound mind, but that at and before the time of his coming of age, he was in the possession of a sound and reasonable understanding. The defendant denies that this is an amended bill, but affirms that it is in its nature an original bill, as to him, and does not relate to any time previous to the actual exhibition thereof. He therefore claims the benefit of the statutes limiting the time within which actions should be brought, and for quieting...