Godwin v. Parker

• Citation: 68 S.E. 208,152 N.C. 672
• Parties: GODWIN v. PARKER.
• Decision Date: 27 May 1910
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

68 S.E. 208

152 N.C. 672

GODWIN v. PARKER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 27, 1910

Appeal from Superior Court, Harnett County; W. R. Allen, Judge.

Action by H. L. Godwin against T. A. Parker, as guardian of Bud Tart, to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. From a judgment for plaintiff, but requiring him to pay a certain sum for improvement on the land and imposing a lien thereon for the amount, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Where after plaintiff obtained a contract for the sale of real estate from an adjudicated insane person, he entered into possession and placed improvements on the land of the value of $475, and remained in possession for nearly eight years receiving the rental value of the land, which was $100 per year, the insane person, on obtaining a decree vacating the contract, was not liable for the improvements; plaintiff not being required to account for prior rents and profits received nor entitled to charge defendant with taxes assessed, etc.

The plaintiff brought this action to compel specific performance of the following contract:

"North Carolina, Harnett County.

"I Bud Tart, of said county and state, have this day given to H. L. Godwin the privilege of erecting a store building on my lot in Dunn, N. C., the same being lot No. 11 in the subdivision of the original lot No. 3 in block R in the blueprint, plan of town of Dunn, N.C. The said H. L. Godwin has the privilege of remaining in possession of said lot for three years from the date of this contract, and he is required to keep the taxes paid on said lot. And it is agreed and understood, and I do hereby bind myself, my heirs, executors and administrators to make a good and lawful deed to H. L. Godwin, his heirs or assigns, upon the receipt of the sum of $360, which must be paid indefinitely (immediately) upon the expiration of this contract, or at any time before it expires.

"This June 17, 1902.

"Bud his X mark Tart. [Seal.]

"H. L. Godwin. [Seal.]"

His honor submitted the following issues to the jury, which were responded to as set out: "(1) Did the plaintiff and the defendant Bud Tart execute the contract set out in the complaint? Answer: Yes. (2) Did Bud Tart, at the time of executing the said contract have sufficient mental capacity to make same? Answer: No. (3) If not, did the plaintiff have notice of said mental incapacity? Answer: Yes. (4) What was the value of said lot on the 17th day of June, 1902? Answer: $360. (5) What was the value of the improvements put on said land by H. L. Godwin? Answer: $1,000. (6) What was the annual rental value of the lands before the improvements were put upon it by the plaintiff? Answer: Nothing. (7) What was the annual rental value after the improvements were put upon it by the plaintiff? Answer: $100."

Upon the verdict, his honor rendered the following judgment "This cause came on for trial at the November term, 1909, of the superior court of Harnett county, before W. R. Allen, judge, and a jury, and the jury having returned their verdict, as appears in the record, it is, upon said verdict and the admissions in the pleadings, considered and adjudged that the defendant Bud Tart is the owner in fee of the lot described in the complaint, and that he is entitled to recover possession thereof of the plaintiff, H. L. Godwin, upon the payment to him of the sum of one thousand dollars, the value of the improvements placed on said land by the plaintiff. And it further appearing to the court that the defendants still refuse to perform the contract referred to in the issue, and that they demand possession of said lot, it is further considered and adjudged that said sum of one thousand dollars is due to the plaintiff, H. L. Godwin, and the same is a lien on said lot, and, upon failure to pay the same within ninety days, it is ordered that the said lot be sold for the satisfaction thereof by N. A. Townsend and E. F. Young, now appointed commissioners for that purpose, who shall report their proceedings to this court. It is further ordered that each party pay his costs. Let the pleadings be amended, if so advised." The plaintiff testified, over the objection of the defendant, that he had been in possession of the lot since June, 1902; that he knew Bud Tart had been in the asylum; that he returned to the asylum at Raleigh; that the building put by him on the lot cost him $475, not exceeding $500; that its rental value was $100 per year; that he had received the rents; that he had tendered the amount he was to pay to defendant Parker, as guardian of Bud Tart, and demanded a deed from him; that Parker declined to make the deed. Another witness for plaintiff testified that Bud Tart, at times, looked dangerous. The summons showed service on Dr. James McKee, superintendent of the State's Hospital at Raleigh, N. C., where Bud Tart was confined; the service was made June 17, 1905. There was evidence that the unimproved lot was...