Little v. Bank of Wadesboro

• Decision Date: 22 January 1924
• Docket Number: 415.
• Citation: Little v. Bank of Wadesboro, 187 N.C. 1, 121 S.E. 185 (N.C. 1924)
• Parties: LITTLE v. BANK OF WADESBORO ET AL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

121 S.E. 185

187 N.C. 1

LITTLE v. BANK OF WADESBORO ET AL.

No. 415.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

January 22, 1924

Appeal from Superior Court, Anson County; Harding, Judge.

Action by Flossie M. Little, administratrix of William R. Little against the Bank of Wadesboro, as administrator of Walter S Little and as guardian of Olie B. Little and Julia L. Little minors, and as trustee, and Ollie B. Little, surviving widow of Walter S. Little.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.New trial.

The action instituted on August 9, 1920, is in effect to set aside a deed made in November, 1914, by original plaintiffWm. R. Little, hereinafter designated as plaintiff, conveying to Walter S. Little a large amount of property, real and personal, at a grossly inadequate price, and to charge the estate of W. S. Little, now in the hands of defendants, with the actual value of the property in favor of plaintiff and his estate, less the purchase price, etc.And there were allegations in the complaint and facts in evidence on part of plaintiff permitting the inference that John R. Little, uncle of plaintiff, died in February, 1914, leaving a last will and testament in which he devised and bequeathed to plaintiff a valuable plantation in Anson county, containing 1,222.35 acres, part of same being in a high state of cultivation, and also with much valuable timber thereon together with a full and valuable stock and equipment, machinery, and supplies; the total property being worth over $100,000 and more.That L. L. Little, father of plaintiff, was executor of the said will, and as executor and trustee for certain purposes in the management and control of the property.That said L. L. Little had always as against plaintiff manifested a marked partiality for his second son, Walter Little, which became more marked and aggravated as the years passed, and soon after the death of John R. Littlehe became obsessed with a determined purpose to make plaintiff convey said land, machinery, and other personal property bestowed on plaintiff under the will of John R. Little to said second son, and that by persistent threats, intimidation, etc., throughout the year, he so worked on plaintiff as virtually to coerce him to convey same to Walter S. Little at the grossly inadequate price of $35,000 by deed executed in November, 1914, and thereafter Walter S. Little took possession of said property as owner under said deed.That after selling off valuable timber on the property, said Walter Little subsequently sold the land for $75,000 in cash, and the proceeds of same, or much of it, is now in control of defendant bank, his administrator and guardian of his children, and a portion thereof is in possession of defendant, his surviving widow.And that the value of said proceeds, together with the personal property above referred to now in hands of defendants, with accumulated interest, amount to $122,342.67 over and above the said purchase price of $35,000.That at the death of John R. Little and before and since that time, plaintiff had been a confirmed addict to the drug and liquor habits, had been in several hospitals and sanatoriums for treatment, and during the year 1914 was emaciated in body and feeble of mind and will, and was mentally incompetent to make a deed disposing of his property, and further that owing to his weakness of mind and body he became absolutely subject to the will of said L. L. Little, and made the conveyance to Walter S. Little under the will and dictation of L. L. Little, and which plaintiff would not otherwise have done.

Defendants, averring that the property was nothing like the value claimed by plaintiff, deny that plaintiff was incompetent or that there was any undue and fraudulent influence exerted in procuring the deed, and aver that owing to plaintiff's habits of dissipation, etc., his father, realizing that he was incapable of managing wisely a property of the extent and kind conveyed in the deed, did advise and counsel a conveyance to the second son, and the payment of a proper price therefor, with a view of preventing a waste and destruction of the property and also to provide plaintiff with a means of livelihood.That the father was himself a man of large means, who made substantial provision for plaintiff in his last will and testament, and which plaintiff received and has used and enjoyed since his father's death, in addition to the $35,000 paid him for the John R. Little property.That plaintiff made the said deed of his own mind and will, and all was done with a view of providing him a competency that was within his strength and capacity.Defendants offer much evidence in support of their positions, and in addition plead the three-year statute of limitations, the ten-year statute, and the laches of plaintiff in failing to make claim in reasonable time, or during the lives of his father and brother, etc.

It appeared further that Walter S. Little died in January, 1919, L. L. Little, the father, died in September, 1920, and suit was commenced in August, 1921.That W. R. Little, as stated, died since cause was tried, and same by leave of court is being prosecuted by his administratrix.

The court charged the jury, ruling as a matter of law, among other things, that only the ten-year statute of limitations applied to plaintiff's suit, and that on the facts presented the suit was within the time allowed by the law.On issues submitted the jury rendered the following verdict:

"(1) Did the plaintiff, William R. Little, have sufficient mental capacity to make and execute the deed to Walter S. Little, dated the 21st day of November, 1914?Answer: Yes.

(2) If not, did Walter S. Little, at the time of the execution and delivery of the said deed, have notice of the want of sufficient mental capacity to make and execute the deed?Answer: _____.

(3) Was the deed from William R. Little to Walter S. Little, dated the 21st day of November, 1914, obtained by the undue influence of L. L. Little, as alleged in the complaint?Answer: Yes.

(4) If so, did Walter S. Little have notice, at the time he received the deed from William R. Little, that said deed had been executed by said William R. Little by reason of the undue influence of L. L. Little?Answer: Yes.

(5) Did L. L. Little act as the agent of Walter S. Little in procuring the deed from William R. Little?Answer: Yes.

(6) Is the plaintiff's cause of action barred by the statute of limitations, as alleged in the defendants answer?Answer: No.

(7) Did the plaintiff exercise due diligence in electing to rescind the execution of the deed to Walter S....