Pye v. Pye
| Decision Date | 14 August 1909 |
| Citation | 65 S.E. 424,133 Ga. 246 |
| Parties | PYE v. PYE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the pleadings and evidence in this case, the jury would have been authorized to set aside the deed, if there was great inadequacy of consideration in the contract, joined with great disparity of mental ability between the grantor and the grantee; and where the court charged: "Great inadequacy in price, joined with great disparity of mental ability in the contracting of a bargain, may justify equity in setting aside a contract"--it was error to add thereto "Provided the jury from such facts and all of the proven facts in the case conclude there was fraud practiced by wrong and undue influence on the maker of the deed by the grantee thereby causing him to do what does not express his real wish, but the wish of the grantee."
The evidence and the pleadings carried to the jury issues other than the one involving the question as to whether or not the maker of the deed had mental capacity to make it, and it was error for the court to so charge as to impress the jury with the idea that the issue as to such mental capacity was the only one involved.
A complaint that the judge erred in not explaining to the jury the meaning of the words "fraud" and "undue influence," as used by him in his charge, is without merit; there being no request that such explanation be made.
Error from Superior Court, Jasper County; H. G. Lewis, Judge.
Action by Charles A. Pye, by next friend, J. E. Pye, against T. W Pye. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Charles A. Pye, by his next friend, J. E. Pye, brought suit against T. W. Pye to cancel a deed to the defendant dated January 2 1906, to 100 acres of land, on the ground that the maker, Charles A. Pye, at the time of the execution of the deed, was non compos mentis, and, in the language of the petition, that "he did not possess then, nor does he possess now, the mental capacity to make a deed." The consideration expressed in the deed was $500, which the petition alleged "was entirely fictitious, and that in truth and in fact the said instrument was entirely without any consideration whatsoever." The petition further alleged that, if the deed was supported by any consideration, "even the expressed consideration therein is utterly and entirely inadequate, said tract or parcel of land being well worth in the open market the sum of $2,000, all of which was well known to the said T. W. Pye." An amendment was offered, wherein it was alleged: "Petitioner further to the court shows: That, for years previous to the date of the said above-mentioned deed, the said Charles A. Pye resided at the home of the said T. W. Pye; that the said T. W. Pye had assumed charge of the business, affairs, land, and person of the said Charles A. Pye, had enlisted his affections, obtained his confidence, styled himself the agent of the said Charles A., and took advantage of this fiduciary relation and weak mind of the said Charles A., by then and there unduly and fraudulently inducing the said Charles A. to sign said instrument in writing, and convey to him in fee simple, without any limitations or conditions, all the property owned by said Charles A., without any consideration whatsoever or at best a consideration totally inadequate." The defendant, in his answer, admitted that Charles A. Pye executed to him a deed to the land, but denied all the other material allegations in the petition. Charles A. Pye also filed an instrument in writing, stating that he was then, and at the time of the execution of the deed, which was valid, of sound mind and desired the case dismissed. Upon the trial of the case a verdict was rendered for the defendant, and to the order of the court overruling the plaintiff's motion for a new trial exceptions were filed.
The only evidence in behalf of the plaintiff necessary to set out was substantially as follows: Charles A. Pye has never been married, and is 63 years of age. When his mother died, 23 years ago, the property belonging to him and his brothers and sister was divided, and the land involved in the suit was assigned to Charles A. Pye. It was agreed between the defendant his brothers and sister that "whoever took Charlie to live with them would have the use of his land for his support and board and for his care." After the death of his mother, his brother John took charge of him, and he lived with the latter two years or more. He has since been living with his other brother, the defendant, about 15 years. The land is worth $1,500 to $2,000. It rents for about 4 bales of cotton. He has been doing light work at the home of the defendant. The plaintiff also introduced testimony to the effect that Charles A. Pye was not a man of sound mind.
The only evidence offered by the defendant necessary to be set out is as follows: Defendant introduced Charles A. Pye as a witness who said that he had the deed made and wanted it to stand as valid. The defendant testified, among other things, to the following: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial