Grant v. Toatley
Decision Date | 19 September 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 95,95 |
Citation | 94 S.E.2d 305,244 N.C. 463 |
Parties | Florence E. GRANT, allas Toatley, v. Theodore TOATLEY. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
I. C. Crawford and L. C. Stoker, Asheville, for respondent-appellant.
Harold T. Epps, Asheville, for petitionerappellee.
Defendant assigns as error the charge of the court, insisting that the court should have charged the jury if they found defendant intended that the beneficial owners of the property were to be Theodore R. Toatley or Theodore R. Toatley and Lovey Toatley, the jury should answer the issue submitted in the negative.
Defendant does not contend that the name of Florence Toatley was not intentionally and deliberately put in the deed. He does not say that plaintiff is not the person named in the deed as Florence Toatley. He merely contends 'that petitioner's name was used merely for the transaction of business because respondent's wife was insane.'
The designation of plaintiff as 'and wife,' cannot, on the facts here disclosed, affect plaintiff's title. Freeman v. Rose, 192 N.C. 732, 135 S.E. 870; Hodgson v Dorsey, 230 Iowa 730, 298 N.W. 895, 137 A.L.R. 456; 26 C.J.S., Deeds, § 99 f, p. 355.
There is no suggestion that plaintiff intended to make a gift of the land to defendant or to defendant and 'his lawful wife.' If, as the jury has found, the plaintiff contributed at least half the purchase money, a resulting trust would have arisen in her favor if defendant had, without her knowledge and consent, procured the deed to be executed naming him only as the grantee.
It is said in Creech v. Creech, 222 N.C. 656, 24 S.E.2d 642, 646:
Murchison v. Fogleman, 165 N.C. 397, 81 S.E. 627; Tyndall v. Tyndall, 186 N.C. 272, 119 S.E. 354; Carlisle v. Carlisle, 225 N.C. 462, 35 S.E.2d 418.
The court charged the jury:
'If two persons who are not married to each other purchase property jointly, they become tenants in common, nothing else appearing, and they would be joint owners one-half to each in their interest in the property.
'The Court further says that if two people are under the misapprehension of being married and purchase property as an estate by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Daniel Boone Complex, Inc. v. Furst
...by operation of law and attaches to the subject of the purchase. Vinson v. Smith, 259 N.C. 95, 130 S.E.2d 45 (1963); Grant v. Toatley, 244 N.C. 463, 94 S.E.2d 305 (1956); Summers v. Moore, 113 N.C. 394, 18 S.E. 712 (1893); Accord, Campbell v. Freeman, 99 Cal. 546, 34 P. 113 (1893). To the e......
-
Glaspy v. Glaspy
...presumed they acquire it as tenants in common and not tenants by the entirety because the unity of person is lacking. Grant v. Toatley, 244 N.C. 463, 94 S.E.2d 305 (1956). In McIver v. McIver, this Court held that property acquired during cohabitation is not marital property, even though th......
-
Pierce v. Hall
...346; Singleton v. Cushman, 1947, 117 Ind.App. 183, 70 N.E.2d 642; Bell v. Little, 1922, 204 App.Div. 235, 197 N.Y.S. 674; Grant v. Toatley, 1956, 244 N.C. 463, 94 S.E2d 305; McKee v. Bevins, 1917, 138 Tenn. 249, 197 S.W. 563. But cf., Danes v. Smith, 1954, 30 N.J.Super. 292, 104 A.2d 455; P......
-
Hoffman v. Mozeley, 305
...113 N.C. 394, 18 S.E. 712; Waddell v. Carson, 245 N.C. 669, 97 S.E.2d 222; Paul v. Neece, 244 N.C. 565, 94 S.E.2d 596; Grant v. Toatley, 244 N.C. 463, 94 S.E.2d 305. The jury found the plaintiffs did not accept the deed in settlement of all claims and differences between the parties. That f......