Huntley v. Welsh

• Decision Date: 25 September 1901
• Citation: 39 S.E. 767,61 S.C. 566
• Parties: HUNTLEY v. WELSH.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

39 S.E. 767

61 S.C. 566

HUNTLEY v. WELSH.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

September 25, 1901

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Chesterfield county; Gage Judge.

Action by Emily Huntley against Sebra Welsh to cancel deed. From order dismissing complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

W. P Pollock and J. M. Johnson, for appellant.

Stevenson & Matheson, for respondent.

McIVER C.J.

This action was commenced on the 13th of September, 1899, for the purpose of having a paper, purporting to be a deed, conveying plaintiff's interest in a certain tract of land to the defendant, canceled and declared null and void. The grounds upon which this claim is based are that the plaintiff at the time she signed said paper was quite old and in a feeble state of health, and that by fraud and undue influence she was induced by the defendant to sign said paper; that there was no consideration, or at most a very inadequate consideration, for the said paper; and that the said paper was never delivered so as to pass the title to the defendant. An order, by consent, was passed referring it to a referee to take the testimony, and to hear and determine the issues both of fact and law. In pursuance of this order the referee took the testimony, which is fully set out in the "case," and made his report, finding that the plaintiff at the time she executed said paper was fully capable of transacting business, that no fraud or undue influence was practiced upon her, that the said paper was duly executed and delivered to the defendant and that it was based upon valuable consideration. He therefore recommended that the complaint be dismissed. To this report the plaintiff filed sundry exceptions, and the case was heard by his honor Judge Gage upon said report and exceptions, who rendered judgment confirming the report of the referee, declaring that said paper was a good and valid deed, and requiring the plaintiff to surrender the same to the clerk of the court for the defendant. From this judgment plaintiff appeals upon the several grounds set out in the record, which substantially raise but two questions: (1) Whether there was any valuable consideration for the paper claimed to be a deed, and, if so, whether the same was so grossly inadequate as to justify the conclusion that the plaintiff was induced by fraud or undue influence on the part of the defendant to sign said paper. (2) Whether said paper was ever in fact so...