Mason v. Pelletier

• Decision Date: 31 January 1880
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JEMIMA MASON v. J. J. PELLETIER.

82 N.C. 40

JEMIMA MASON

v.J. J. PELLETIER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1880.

CIVIL

ACTION for Cancellation of a Deed, tried at Fall Term, 1876, of CARTERET Superior Court, before McKoy, J.

The facts are reported in Hill v. Mason, 7 Jones, 551; Mason v. Pelletier, 77 N. C., 52, and 80 N. C., 66. Judgment below in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.

Messrs. Green & Stevenson and Gilliam & Gatling, for plaintiff .

Messrs. H. R. Bryan and A. G. Hubbard, for defendant .

DILLARD, J.

This was an action for the cancellation of a deed made by the plaintiff to defendant, and for a reconveyance of the land therein described on the ground of its procurement by the false and fraudulent representations by the defendant of a fact in regard to the final result of a suit by Edward Hill under whom defendant claims against Matthew Mason under whom the plaintiff claims. From the judgment in the superior court, an appeal was taken to this court, and on consideration of the same here, the judgment of the court below was reversed and a new trial ordered as reported in 77 N. C., 52.

Subsequently to the reversal of the judgment aforesaid, a petition was presented to rehear the judgment of this court on the error assigned that the new trial was granted because there was no proof of the falsity of the representations made by the defendant, whereas the decision of the case of Hill v. Mason was averred in the complaint and admitted in the answer to have been in favor of Mason, and on the hearing of said petition the judgment of this court was set aside and the cause ordered to be reinstated on the docket of this court to be heard as on the original appeal. See Mason v. Pelletier, 80 N. C., 66. And now the cause comes on to be heard on the error assigned on the record proper and the accompanying case sent up to this court.

The case made by the complaint filed is that many years ago Edward Hill sued Matthew Mason for a tract of land, of which that in controversy in the present action is a part, and at or just before the final determination of the suit they both died, the said Mason having devised the land in litigation to the plaintiff who was his widow, and the said Hill having contracted to convey the same tract to the defendant in case he should establish his title. That the suit was prosecuted to a final decision in the supreme court, wherein it was settled that the land in dispute was the property of Matthew Mason. See Hill v. Mason, 7 Jones, 551. That after the determination in this court and when both Mason and Hill were dead, the defendant falsely and fraudulently represented to the plaintiff that the result of the action was in favor of Hill, and that he was entitled to the land under him, and threatened her with a suit to turn her out, but would compromise and finally adjust the whole matter by conveying to plaintiff and thereby confirming her title to a part of the tract provided she would convey to him a certain other prescribed part of the same land.

The complaint avers that the plaintiff being old and infirm and ignorant of any decision made of the suit between Hill and her husband, and confiding in the truth of the representations of the defendant, who was a near neighbor and regarded as a friend of the family, assented to the proposition made to her, and she accordingly accepted a deed from the defendant for that part of her own land called the Marsh Lands, and conveyed to defendant her right and title to another part of her own lands which forms the subject matter of the present action.

Upon the trial in the court below, His Honor submitted to the jury the issue,--“was the deed, executed by Jemima Mason to J. J. Pelletier on the 1st day of January, 1869, procured by fraud and by fraudulent representations made by the defendant,” and the jury, on the evidence introduced, and under the charge of the court as to the law, responded in the affirmative, and from the judgment on the verdict and the other facts admitted and not denied in the answer, providing for a cancellation of the deed of plaintiff to defendant and a reconveyance of the title, the appeal is taken.

It is a general rule that equity never takes jurisdiction to grant relief against a transaction or contract executed, except on the ground of accident, mistake or fraud. 1 Story Eq., §§ 161, 439. Under the head of a mistake of fact, the rule is that an act done or carried on, though not tainted with illegality or fraud, in ignorance or mistake of facts material to its operation will be set aside in a court of equity. Adams Eq. 188, and 1 Story Eq. § 140 et seq.

In this case the ignorance of the plaintiff of how the suit of Hill v. Mason had been decided is alleged and not denied by the defendant, and besides is self-evident from the nature of the transaction itself. It is impossible to believe that plaintiff knew that the decision of the suit had been in favor of Mason, her husband. If she had known that the settlement of the...