Lamb v. Perry
| Decision Date | 15 September 1915 |
| Docket Number | 17. |
| Citation | 86 S.E. 179,169 N.C. 436 |
| Parties | LAMB v. PERRY ET AL. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Perquimans County; Justice, Judge.
Action by Ageron Lamb, by next friend, against E. V. Perry and another. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
The court on motion for nonsuit must consider the evidence as a whole without passing on its weight or probative force.
This action was brought to set aside two deeds for three tracts of land: (1) The B. F. Lamb home place, containing 30 acres; (2) the swamp land, containing 210 acres; and (3) the Pocosin land, containing 110 acres. The deeds were made by the plaintiff to the defendants for one-fourth interest in the said lands, which plaintiff inherited from his father. It was alleged in the complaint that the deeds were void by reason (1) Of the mental incapacity of the plaintiff; and (2) undue influence exerted by the defendants before and at the time of their execution. There was evidence that the lands were worth from $8,000 to $35,000; the witnesses greatly varying in their estimates between those two figures. It also appeared if the evidence is to be believed, that the plaintiff has always been weak in mind and body, having suffered from paralysis in his youth, and that his body and mind have been since greatly impaired by the habitual use of narcotics or "dope." The fourth interest of the plaintiff in the lands are worth from $2,000 to $8,750, and defendants gave only $1,000 for it, and that amount was payable by installments of $15 per month, and without any security except the personal promise of the vendees, who are insolvent. At the close of the testimony, the court entered judgment of nonsuit, holding, of course, that there was no evidence to sustain either of the causes of action. It becomes necessary, therefore, to state somewhat fully the important facts which the evidence tended to prove, and this cannot be better done than by reproducing some of the language used by the witnesses.
E. G. Simpson, witness for the plaintiff, testified:
"I know the three tracts of land in the two deeds; one is called 'the swamp tract'; one the 'home tract'; and one the 'Pocosin tract.' I have lived all my life about one mile from Belvidere. I knew Dr. Lamb, and I know his children. They are Ageron, the plaintiff, Theyle, Ben, and Galen. Dr. Lamb is not living. I lived at the home place three or four years. The three tracts of land, the Pocosin and the home place and the swamp tract, are worth $8,000 or $10,000. I talked with Mr. Perry, and he told me what he paid. I came to town on one first Monday, and saw Mr. Perry at the hotel piazza, and he said: 'I have been waiting for you.' I said: 'The bell has rung, and I have to go to the courthouse, but go ahead, and I will hear what you have to say.' He said: 'I have been talking of buying Ageron Charles Lamb's interest in the Dr. B. F. Lamb estate, and I would not buy it until I saw you, knowing you were Lamb's agent.' I told him that he had better not buy it; that Ageron Lamb was not competent to sell anything. I told him that he knew that he was not competent to sell anything, and that if he bought the place he would buy a lawsuit, and he said that if that was the case he was not going to buy it. About three weeks or a month after I saw Mr. Perry, the defendant, again on the courthouse grounds, and he told me he had bought his, Ageron's interest. I asked him what he paid. He told me he was to give him $1,000 in monthly installments of $15 per month. I said: 'Did you give him any security?' He said: 'No.' I remarked to him: He replied to me that he (Ageron) was not competent to take care of it, and he thought he had better pay it so he could have it monthly; he remarked that to me. He gave no security whatever for the purchase money--no note, no lien on the land. I told him he would be sued. I wrote to Mr. Theyle Lamb, his brother, next day, that he might take up the matter and bring suit. The next news I got was from Judge Ward, who wrote me a letter that he was wanted to bring suit, and that the court had appointed me to bring suit, as next friend of Ageron. I then talked with Ageron, and he told me to bring suit. I have been agent for Theyle Lamb, I suppose, something like eight or ten years, or longer, and for his father before him. None of them have lived here in a good long time, except Ageron. I lived at the old home place two or three years before Dr. Lamb died, and I looked after it for Ageron and the others. Have known Ageron all my life; he is some forty or more. His mental capacity was weak to begin with, and has grown weaker. He has never had a bright mind, in my opinion, and has grown weaker from the use of dope. He has taken morphine and laudanum in large quantities. He has been an habitual user of morphine and laudanum for eight years, to my knowledge. He had affliction when he was a child, suffered with a stroke of paralysis, and one leg is a little shorter than the other, and one arm a little shorter than the other, and it affected his whole side. He does not seem to have any regard for the value of anything; he will sell anything for one-half its value, or less; he does not seem to know the value of things. I knew him to sell a horse worth $150 for $15. It put me to some trouble to get it back. I sent the man word that I would get out claim and delivery papers, and he sent me the horse; and many other things he would sell that way. I knew him to sell a cow and calf for $3. I got the cow and calf back. I knew him to sell a good cow for $5. He has been living at the Lamb place for eight years or more; he is there now; has been there ever since his father died; been fed and clothed by his relatives, at the instance of his brother. A Mr. Chappell is in charge there now, taking care of him. Geo. Hunter was there before. He stayed there when Mr. Wooten lived there--four, or five, or six years. He has stayed and subsisted at the home place a large part of his life. He does not work any; he has been taken care of by his folks all the time. He has been married twice, to my knowledge, and divorced both times. Both of his wives were women of the 'underworld.' I knew him about the time he made these deeds. I do not think he had any reasonable judgment of value. I do not think he has ever been competent to sell or transact any business. By the Court: Do you mean in his life? A. Never since I have known him, and he has been worse for the last eight years than he was before. He would know that he owned a piece of land. Q. What would you say as to whether or not he had mental capacity enough to know if he made a deed, or when he made the deed in question, what would you say as to whether or not he knew what he had, what land he was conveying, to whom he was conveying it, and the scope and effect of the deed of conveyance? I ask you what would you say as to whether or not he would have any reasonable judgment as to what he was doing? A. No, sir."
W. N. Wooten, witness for the plaintiff, testified:
"I have known Ageron Charles Lamb since his birth until to-day. I have lived where he was. I have had him under my control for five years, or nearly so. Dr. Lamb, his father, married a lady in Pittsburg. At that time he had all the children with him except Ageron. After his marriage he came back to fix his business the condition he wanted it, and he came to me and wanted me to run his place, the old homestead, where Ageron now lives, and he got after me to lease his place for five years, that he had married away and was going to rent it, and we bargained and wrote it in the lease that I was to board Ageron at so much per month. He also stated that as to Ageron's condition he could not control him in the city, and he had to leave him in the country where he could have some one to look after him, and he stayed with me nearly five years. During that five years he married once. was divorced, and has married since and divorced again. He stayed with me a part of the time, and part of the time he loafed about. His father directed that he was to go to school. He went a while, and finally quit. I could not prevail with him to go. I do not consider he has any mind at all for any business; there is no business capacity about him; he is not competent to do any business. Q. What do you say as to whether he had any reasonable judgment of things then? A. He never had. Q. In what way did he manifest this imbecility? A. He seemed to have no reason and no judgment; you couldn't tell him anything. Q. Couldn't he comprehend? A. No, sir; I have observed him of late years. I see him sometimes every day. I know nothing of his moral habits than what he told me. When he lived with me he did not use it [[morphine]. I never could tell the difference; didn't know when he was using and when he wasn't. He came to me to borrow $2, and I told him I didn't have any money to lend, and he said his brother hadn't sent any that week; 'reckon he thinks I have a bad practice.' I asked him how much money it would take to keep him in morphine a week. Q. What would you say about him now, last year, at the time he made these deeds, whether or not he had mind enough to know the scope and effect of what he was doing? A. I would not say he did. Q. You would say he didn't? A. Yes; I would. Q. What would you say about whether he had any judgment of things, prices and value? A. I say he is not able to judge anything. Q. What would you say about whether he had mind enough to know what he had, if he was making a deed, what he was putting in the deed, to whom he was making the deed, and the general scope and effect of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial