Day v. Day
| Decision Date | 31 January 1881 |
| Citation | 84 N.C. 408 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STEPHEN DAY and others v. JAMES R. DAY and others. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
CIVIL ACTION to correct a deed tried at Fall Term, 1880, of PERSON Superior Court, before Eure, J.
Judgment upon the was rendered in favor of plaintiff, from which the defendant trustee Briggs appealed.
Messrs. Graham & Ruffin, for plaintiff .
Messrs. Reade, Busbee & Busbee, for defendant .
On September 4th, 1876, the plaintiff, Stephen S. Day, then advanced in age, deaf and reposing implicit confidence in his son, the defendant, James R. Day, his wife joining with him in the act, conveyed to the said James R. Day, for no valuable consideration, the tract of land described in the complaint. The deed therefore was prepared by direction of the son and under an agreement between them that it should be so drawn as to reserve a life estate in the land to the plaintiff, and he supposed when the deed was executed that it contained such provision. It was not read over to the plaintiff, nor did he require this to be done, fully relying upon the integrity and business capacity of the son to carry out their common understanding and intent in the form of the instrument to be executed. Nor did the plaintiff know of the omitted reservation.
On December 31st, 1879, the defendant, Day, being insolvent, conveyed all his estate, real and personal, including the land thus acquired, except the exemptions allowed him by law, to the defendant, P. M. Briggs, in trust to secure his various creditors; the latter having no notice at the time of any mistake or omission in the plaintiff's deed, nor of any equity vested in him for a reformation of any of its provisions. Upon these facts, admitted by counsel of both parties, the court was of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to have the deed corrected and reformed so as to carry out the purpose contemplated in its execution and secure to the plaintiff an estate in the land for his life; and to this end adjudged that the defendant, Briggs, re-convey and assure such life estate therein to the plaintiff, and that the costs of this action be a lien upon the reversionary interest remaining in the trustee.
The cases cited for the plaintiff in the brief of his counsel abundantly support the general proposition that contracts executory and executed under a mutual mistake, when the proof is full and clear, will be relieved against and reformed in a court of equity, so as to effectuate the real intent of the parties.-- Newsom v. Bufferlow, 1 Dev. Eq., 379; Pugh v. Brittain, 2 Dev. Eq., 34; Brady v. Parker, 4 Ired. Eq., 430; McKay v. Simpson, 6 Ired. Eq., 452; Clemmons v. Drew, 2 Jones Eq., 314; Mason v. Pelletier, 82 N. C., 40.
The jurisdiction to reform deeds is not exercised, however, unless the transaction is based on a valuable or meritorious consideration. Hunt v. Frazier, 6 Jones Eq., 90.
The extension of this equitable doctrine to the present case was not disputed upon the hearing, but it was contended that the defendant, Briggs, is a purchaser of the land for a valuable consideration, and without notice of any infirmity in the deed, and takes the estate free from the plaintiff's equity. For this is cited Potts v. Blackwell, 3 Jones Eq., 449, and the same case re-heard and reported in 4 Jones Eq., 58, as well as other cases.
This case does sustain the proposition that a trustee or mortgagee of land conveyed to secure pre-existing debts is “a purchaser for a valuable consideration within the provisions of the 13th and 27th of Elizabeth;” but it is at the same time declared that “they take subject to any equity that attached to the property in the hands of the debtor, and cannot discharge themselves from it on the ground of being purchasers without notice, in like manner as a purchaser at execution sale takes subject to any equity against the debtor, without reference to the question of notice.”
The same doctrine is announced by the same eminent judge in Small v. Small, 74 N. C., 16, thus: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkerson v. Wann
...50 N.W. 681; Meeks v. Stillwell (Ohio), 44 N.E. 267; Else v. Kennedy, 25 N.W. (Iowa) 290; McGraw v. Muma, 129 N.W. (Mich.) 20; Day v. Day, 84 N.C. 408; Wilson v. Land Co., 77 N.C. 445. (4) A court of equity will not reform a voluntary conveyance at the instance of the grantee. Only deeds ba......
-
Sykes v. Everett
..." as said by Justice Shepherd in Wallace v. Cohen, supra. See, also, Potts v. Black-well, 56 N. C. 449; Small v. Small, 74 N. C. 16; Day v. Day, 84 N. C. 408; Brem v. Lock-hart, 93 N. C. 191; and Southerland v. Fremont, 107 N. C. 565, 12 S. E. 237. It may be added that plaintiffs acquired t......
- M. Sigbert Awes Company, a Corp. v. Haslam
-
Sykes v. Everett
...as said by Justice Shepherd in Wallace v. Cohen, supra. See, also, Potts v. Blackwell, 56 N.C. 449; Small v. Small, 74 N.C. 16; Day v. Day, 84 N.C. 408; Brem v. Lockhart, 93 N.C. 191; and v. Fremont, 107 N.C. 565, 12 S.E. 237. It may be added that plaintiffs acquired the notes by the assign......