Forbes v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 03 June 1921
• Docket Number: 17.
• Parties: FORBES ET AL. v. HARRISON ET AL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

107 S.E. 447

181 N.C. 461

FORBES ET AL. v. HARRISON ET AL.

No. 17.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

June 3, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, Camden County; Calvert, Judge.

Action by Henrietta Forbes and husband against W. B. Harrison and another. From judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. No error.

Stacy J., dissenting.

In an action by heirs of a decedent to set aside as procured by fraud their conveyance of their quarter interest to defendants, the administrator and others, action of the trial court in stopping plaintiffs' counsel at the instance of defendants' counsel when reading a portion of the Supreme Court's opinion in a prior case growing out of the same administration held a proper exercise of the court's discretion in preventing injustice to defendants and prejudicing defendants on the findings of fact without curtailing counsel's privilege under the statute to argue the law.

On the 12th day of September, 1917, John G. Gray died domiciled in Camden county and intestate, leaving an estate of land and personal property worth, as defendants contended, about $12,000. Defendant Harrison qualified as administrator. About September 20th the defendants approached the plaintiffs and asked them what they would take for their interest in the estate. Plaintiffs asked about the personal property and were told there were two notes of $800 each and $600 in cash. The plaintiffs knew as much as, or more than, the defendants about the other personal property which did not amount to more than $200. The plaintiffs had lived on part of the land for several years, and had cultivated it, before the death of Gray, and knew the other tracts. They conferred and agreed to take $3,000 for their interest in the estate, and agreed with defendants to give them time to arrange about getting the money. When they separated, it was agreed that as soon as arrangements were made for the money defendants would notify plaintiffs, which they did in about a week. The plaintiffs then went to the home of defendant Gregory and remained all night, and next day, September 20th, went to the courthouse had a deed drawn and executed, and deposited with the register of deeds, and then went to Elizabeth City to get the money. They failed to get it but went back next day and received the $3,000.

The deed was acknowledged before W. M. Forbes, justice of the peace, who was also register of deeds. It seems that the husband of the feme plaintiff was not out of the room at the time the deed was acknowledged, but the room was of a good size, 16X16 feet, and the husband was in the opposite corner he and wife having their backs turned to each other. The feme plaintiff testified that she signed the deed of her own free will and accord, without fear or compulsion of any one, and that she intended it as a deed conveying all her interest in the estate of John G. Gray for $3,000. The defendants contended that the estate was not worth at the time of purchase over $12,000, and the plaintiffs that their interest conveyed by them was worth $4,000 or $5,000. The plaintiffs charged that the deed to the defendants was obtained by fraud.

John G. Gray left surviving him, as his heirs at law, a sister, Mrs. Susan Harrison, mother of defendants, and Mrs. Henrietta Forbes and her mother, and A. B. Bell, who were the children and heirs at law of G. G. Bell, half-brother of John G. Gray. This made plaintiff, Henrietta Forbes, the owner of an undivided one-fourth of the estate. At the time he qualified as administrator (September 17) defendant Harrison filed an affidavit in which he valued the personal estate at $1,300.

Two issues were submitted to the jury, as follows:

"Was the paper writing in form of a deed from plaintiffs to defendants, dated September 20, 1917, and recorded in Deed Book 10, page 276, obtained from plaintiffs by fraud of the defendants, or either of them, as alleged? Answer: No.

Was the private examination of Henrietta Forbes to said paper writing, in the form of a deed, taken as required by law? Answer: Yes."

The court gave full instructions to the jury upon all the questions at issue, and they returned a verdict for defendants as above. Judgment on the verdict, and plaintiffs appealed.

Ehringhaus & Small, of Elizabeth City, and D. H. Tillitt, of Camden, for appellants.

Aydlett & Simpson, of Elizabeth City, for appellees.

WALKER J.

There was sharp controversy between the parties as to the value of the estate in question, but that was a matter for the jury which was properly submitted to them. We cannot agree that, though there was a difference in the value, the price given for the property was so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience of men and induce them to exclaim, "Why, he got it for nothing." His honor...