Martin v. Buffaloe

• Citation: 27 S.E. 995,121 N.C. 34
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 12 October 1897
• Parties: MARTIN et al. v. BUFFALOE et al.

27 S.E. 995

121 N.C. 34

MARTIN et al.

v.BUFFALOE et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 12, 1897.

Fraudulent Conveyances — Transactions between Relatives—Alteration of Deed—Burden of Proof.

1. An instruction that "transactions between mere relatives, no one else being present, are always viewed with suspicion, and their evidence must be received with many grains of allowance; but, if it is of such a nature as to carry convection to your minds that said witnesses are telling the truth, then it is entitled to as much weight as that of any other witness, " is correct.

2. An alteration in a deed to trustees for the benefit of creditors, made after it was signed and delivered, with the consent of the parties, by filling in a blank with the name of the attorney employed to defend the conveyance, and his charge for services, does not invalidate the instrument.

3. The burden is on the grantee to show the grantor's consent to the alteration.

Appeal from superior court, Northampton county; Graham, Judge.

Action by B. F. Martin and others against W. H. Buffaloe and others for the conversion of personal property. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The attorney whose name was inserted in the deed mentioned In the opinion was employed to defend the conveyance.

R. B. Peebles, for appellants.

MacRae & Day, for appellees.

FAIRCLOTH, C. J. We will reserve the first exception at present. The other exceptions to the evidence are untenable. His honor charged the jury that "transactions between mere relatives, no one else being present, are always viewed with suspicion, and their evidence must be received with many grains of allowance; but, if it is of such a nature as to carry conviction to your minds that said witnesses are telling thetruth, then It is entitled to as much weight as that of any other witness." This charge is not only according to the precedents and authorities, but is founded in reason, and the defendants' exception must be overruled.

An argument was made that the deed was incompetent evidence, because it was probated before the trustee, who was a justice of the peace. The record fails to show such to be the fact.

The first and main exception was to the introduction of the deed of C. P. Putrell to Martin and Flythe, as trustees for the makers, creditors. The deed was signed and sealed, and given to Martin with instructions to take it to the town of Jackson, employ an attorney, agree on his charges, insert the same in the deed, and have it recorded, which was done; the insertion being, "S. J. Calvert, attorney of Jackson, N. C, for professional services, $50." The objection was that it was not C. P. Putrell's deed, because of said addition after he had signed and sealed it, and made in his...