Glisson v. Hill

• Decision Date: 31 December 1855
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE W. GLISSON v. BUCKNER L. HILL AND OTHERS.

2 Jones Eq. 256

55 N.C. 256

GEORGE W. GLISSON

v.BUCKNER L. HILL AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1855.

To convert a purchaser who takes a deed absolute on its face into a trustee for another, and to convert the conveyance into a mere security for money loaned or advanced, it must be alleged and proved that the clause of redemption was omitted by reason of ignorance, mistake, fraud or undue advantage, and the intention must be established by facts dehors the deed of conveyance, which are inconsistent with an absolute conveyance.

CAUSE removed from the Court of Equity of Duplin County.

The plaintiff, in 1839, was seised in fee of a tract of land lying in the county of Duplin, containing about 460 acres. An execution was issued on a judgment against the plaintiff, and the land was sold by the sheriff to the defendant Buckner L. Hill, for the price of $200. Hill afterwards sold it to the defendant Smith for $300, and he to the defendant Herring for $500.

The plaintiff alleges that shortly before the sale of this property, he went to the defendant Hill and “desired him to bid off the land, pay off the entire sum claimed by the execution, and hold it until the plaintiff could redeem the same.” As a further inducement, he proposed to the defendant Hill, that he, plaintiff, would secure to him, out of the land, a certain debt which a brother of plaintiff owed him (Hill) of about $50. These terms, he says, were agreed to by the said Hill. He says that the land was worth $1000 or $1200, and that it was knocked off to Hill on the first bid, no one bidding against him, because it was understood that he was acting as the friend of the plaintiff. He further alleges, that Hill took a deed from the sheriff for the land, but that plaintiff, in pursuance of the contract to redeem, remained in possession of it for one year after the sale, when he, Hill, sold it, at plaintiff's request, to the defendant Geo. Smith, who agreed to take it, the more effectually to befriend plaintiff than was convenient for the defendant Hill to do, as he wanted his money. He says it was expressly agreed that Smith should hold the title to the land till plaintiff could find a purchaser, and he was then to take back his principal and interest and let it go to such purchaser; that in violation of his agreement, he (Smith) shortly thereafter sold the land to the defendant Herring; but neither Hill, nor Smith, in the deeds which they made, would warrant the title of the premises. He alleges that both Smith and Herring had knowledge of the trust under which Hill purchased and held the land for the plaintiff, and that Herring had knowledge of the trust on which the land was transferred to Smith. The prayer is for a re-conveyance and an account; also for general relief.

The defendants severally answered the bill, and each denied that he purchased the land in question upon any such trust as is set up by the plaintiff. The defendant Hill, in his answer, admits that the request was made by the plaintiff for him to buy the land and let plaintiff redeem, and as an inducement for him to do so, he did propose, that on redeeming the same, he would pay a certain debt of $50, which he, plaintiff, had undertaken before that time to pay for one Dennis Glisson, (plaintiff's brother) out of certain dues which he had to collect for his brother; but he denies that he acceded to any such propositions. He says his main object in making the purchase was to save the debt of $50; that after the sale, on being importuned by plaintiff, he told him if he could get a purchaser to take the land off his hands, he would re-convey and let him have all that might be raised over the amount paid by him for the land, and the fifty dollars due on account of Dennis Glisson; and further to favor him, he agreed that he might remain on the land for an indefinite length of time. He did let him remain in possession for a year after the sale, but being pressed for the money by the plaintiff in the execution, (who had taken his note), and learning from the defendant Smith, that he was about to lose by the plaintiff, and was anxious to save himself out of the land, he let him have the land at $300. He says that Glisson was cognizant of this transfer, and consented to it under the hope, as he said, that Smith would give...