Smith v. Beatty

• Decision Date: 30 June 1843
• Citation: 37 N.C. 456,40 Am.Dec. 435,2 Ired.Eq. 456
• Parties: JAMES SMITH v. SAMUEL BEATTY.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

2 Ired.Eq. 456

37 N.C. 456

40 Am.Dec. 435

JAMES SMITH

v.SAMUEL BEATTY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1843.

Weakness of mind alone, without fraud, is not a sufficient ground on which to invalidate an instrument.

Nor will old age alone, without fraud, have that effect.

But excessive old age, combined with weakness of mind, may constitute a ground for setting aside a conveyance.

A vendee, who knows there is a gold mine on the land for which he is contracting, is not compelled to disclose that fact to the vendor: But, if he is interrogated as to his knowledge of a mine, and denies the knowledge of which he is possessed, this denial will make the transaction fraudulent.

This was an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Court of Equity of Lincoln county, at Spring Term, 1843, his Honor Judge DICK presiding, directing the injunction which had been obtained in the case to be continued until the hearing.

The plaintiff charged in his bill, that he was a very old man--seventy years of age--and unable to make a contract; that he was addicted to drinking ardent spirits to excess; and that the defendant, well knowing his infirmities, and that there was a valuable gold mine on the plaintiff's land, of which the plaintiff was ignorant, plied him with spirits, in the absence of his son with whom he lived, and who usually took care of him and advised him in his affairs, and under these circumstances obtained from him a lease of his land for a term of five years from the month of August, 1842, at a rent of one tenth of the gold that should be made on the land. The plaintiff further stated, that the defendant pretended to him, that he was only about to make an effort to discover, whether there was gold on the land, when in truth and in fact he had, at several times before, picked up considerable quantities of gold on the surface of the said land; and that, when he was interrogated on the subject, he denied that he had ever found gold on the land, and he was doubtful whether any could be there procured. The plaintiff further averred, that the rent of the land is worth one third of the gold made on it. The bill prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendant from working the land, (which was granted by a Judge out of court,) and that the lease be decreed to be surrendered, as having been obtained by fraud.

The defendant, in his answer, admits the lease, but denies that the plaintiff was incapable to make a contract from old age or any other cause--denies that he was under the influence of ardent spirits, when the lease was made--denies that he decoyed him from his son's to his own house to procure the lease, or that he used any means to intoxicate him, or that he was then intoxicated. He admits that he had, before the date of the lease, found between ten and twenty pennyweights of gold on the land; and says he told the plaintiff he had found a place on his land where he thought gold could be procured. He states that they then agreed upon the lease set forth in the bill, and it was attested by two respectable neighbors. He admits that ...