Mullins v. Barrett Et At, 16262.

• Decision Date: 13 July 1948
• Docket Number: No. 16262.,16262.
• Citation: 48 S.E.2d 842
• Parties: MULLINS. v. BARRETT et at.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 S.E.2d 842

MULLINS.

v.BARRETT et at.

No. 16262.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 13, 1948.

Syllabus by the Court.++++

The petition alleging mental weakness such as would prevent the grantor from understanding the nature of his act at the time the deed was executed, together with undue and controlling influence on the part of the grantee, who occupied a confidential relationship with the grantor, was sufficient as against general demurrer to set forth a cause of action for cancellation.

(a) Such action was not barred by the statute of limitations, since the petition alleged that the grantor did not have the mental capacity to transact any business during the time in question.

(b) The allegations of the petition in reference to intimidation as set forth in the corresponding division of this opinion, were subject to special demurrer, on the ground that the allegations do not show that any of the defendants had anything to do with the petitioner's wife being declared insane. Error from Superior Court, Cherokee County; J. H. Hawkins, Judge.

Suit by Walter Crafton Mullins, by guardian ad litem, against E. M. Barrett and others for cancellation of a deed, injunctive relief, receivership, accounting and damages. To review an adversed judgment, the plaintiff brings error.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Walter Crafton Mullins, by his brother as guardian ad litem, O. F. Mullins, filed in Cherokee Superior Court, against E. M. Barrett and six other persons, a petition which as amended alleged substantially the following: The petitioner is the owner of a described tract of land containing 105 acres on which there are 8 dwellings. The property was purchased by the petitioner's father, W. L. Mullins, now deceased, under an order of Cherokee Superior Court, out of proceeds which the petitioner, while a minor, recovered in a tort action, for serious, painful, and permanent injuries he received in a railroad accident. Since being injured the petitioner has never had the mental capacity to understand simple subjects, and he was never able to study and learn anything in school from his books, and does not now have the mental capacity to-understand any of the transactions hereinafter set out; nor does he understand the full meaning of what takes place when he signs a deed, and has not mental capacity to transact any business or make any decision in his own behalf. Because of the injury it was necessary that the frontal lobe and temporal lobe be removed from the left cavity of the petitioner's cranium, and consequently he has never had the brain to function and control his thoughts. The above condition was at all times known to each of the defendants; and it was general knowledge in the community wherein the defendants and the petitioner lived. About the latter part of 1922 the petitioner's father moved from Cherokee County to Atlanta, and thereupon named the defendant, Barrett, trustee of the petitioner's lands, directing him to collect rents, make repairs, and do any other act necessary to protect the property. The petitioner's father and Barrett knew that the petitioner's injury had left him without the mental capacity to look after his property. Barrett accepted the trust, and the property was turned over to him. On January 18, 1930, shortly before the petitioner reached his 19th birthday, he returned to Cherokee County, married Frances Wheeler, and moved with her into one of the houses on his land. Prior thereto he did not attend school regularly, reached only the fourth grade in grammar school, has never been able to read or write except his name, and he usually signed his name by making a mark. At all times since the petitioner was injured he has had torely upon relatives and friends, including Barrett, because he is not skilled in selling and buying merchandise and real estate, and does not fully understand all of the angles to a real estate transaction. When the petitioner reached his 21st birthday Barrett told him he was now old enough to vote, and requested him to sign a paper which the petitioner believed was to indicate his support of Barrett to some elective office. The petitioner did not read the paper, and could not have understood it had he been capable of reading it, and the paper was not read to him, but he relied wholly upon the representations of Barrett that it was to assure him of the petitioner's support to some office. The petitioner signed the paper which he has since learned was a warranty deed to his land. The relationship which existed between the petitioner and Barrett was fiduciary and confidential. Barrett knew that the petitioner had never had the mental capacity to transact business in his own behalf, and perpetrated a fraud in advising the petitioner to sign a deed purporting to convey title to his lands. All of the conveyances out of the petitioner were made on the advice of Barrett; and, because of such confidential relationship, all of the transactions relative to the petitioner's property are fraudulent. Shortly after the deed purporting to convey the petitioner's property was signed, Barrett moved tenants into the house, thereby forcing the petitioner to move. Barrett has never paid to the petitioner any money or other consideration for the lands, nor has he ever accounted for the rents collected therefrom or for any other of the petitioner's property which has been entrusted to him. On two occasions during the time Barrett held the property as trustee he caused the timber to be removed and converted...