Sparks v. Sparks

• Decision Date: 28 February 1886
• Citation: 94 N.C. 527
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: OLLY SPARKS v. S. B. SPARKS et al.

94 N.C. 527

OLLY SPARKS

v.S. B. SPARKS et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February Term, 1886.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

CIVIL ACTION, tried before Graves, Judge, and a jury, at Fall Term, 1883, of the Superior Court of YANCEY county.

During the progress of a suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant, for a severance of the marital relations subsisting between them, a compromise arrangement was entered into between them of the following import: “Whereas, the said Olly Sparks, being the wife of said Samuel B. Sparks, has brought suit against the said Samuel B. Sparks, for divorce and alimony and the recovery of certain lands belonging to the said Olly, feme plaintiff, which suit is now pending in the Superior Court of Madison county in said State; And whereas the said party defendant, Samuel B. Sparks, is tenant by the curtesy, and holds such interest in the lands claimed by said Olly in said action: Now, in consideration that the said Samuel B. Sparks has relinquished his interest, as such tenant by the curtesy, of, in and to a certain portion of land owned by said Olly, and has joined in a conveyance to Batis Randolph, son of said Olly Sparks the feme plaintiff, the said Olly Sparks agrees by these presents, to enter a nol. pros. in said suit, without costs to the said Samuel B. Sparks, and release him from all claims to dower, alimony or any other claim or right which may have accrued to her, in consequence of her marriage with the said Samuel B. Sparks. In testimony whereof, the said Olly Sparks and Samuel B. Sparks have hereunto set their hands and seals. And the said Samuel B. Sparks binds himself that he will not attempt to exercise any control over the person or property of the said Olly Sparks, either which she now owns or may hereafter acquire, sealed with our seals.

S. B. SPARKS, (Seal.)

OLIVE SPARKS, (Seal.)

Test: G. B. MOODY.

This instrument was duly acknowledged before the Judge of probate, and the private examination of the feme taken, upon whose certificate it was, on April 25, 1874, admitted to registration.

At the time of its execution, and just afterwards, the parties executed a deed, conveying a certain other tract of land, belonging to the feme plaintiff, estimated to contain fifty acres, and within special boundaries, for a recited consideration of three hundred dollars, to R. H. Penland, one of the defendants, who let the defendant into possession of the premises, and he has since received the rents and profits thereof.

The defendant, after the execution of the agreement first mentioned, in an action against the plaintiff, prosecuted in the Superior Court of Mitchell county, obtained a judgment, divorcing him from the plaintiff, and annulling their marital relations.

The plaintiff avers that no consideration of any kind was paid or received for the conveyance to Penland, and that in the transaction in which she participated, she was unduly influenced by her husband, and the financial difficulties brought on, in her effort to get rid of his tyranny and selfish conduct. The demand is, that the agreement, as involving a contract for separation, be declared void, and also the deed to said Penland, executed in carrying it into effect, and the latter be declared a trustee for the plaintiff.

The defendant in his answer, admits the execution of the agreement and deed set out in the complaint, and says that all was done at the solicitation of the plaintiff, her friends, relations and advisers; that at the time of their intermarriage in 1860, the plaintiff had two children by a former husband, one of whom soon died, and the other, the said Batis Randolph, still survives, and one child, Zebulon V. Sparks, has been born to them since; that soon after the birth of this child, the defendant entered into the service of the Confederate States, and was absent some eighteen months; that upon his return, he found that the plaintiff, about seventeen months after he had left, had given birth to another and an illegitimate child, and her affections had been withdrawn from himself; that after his own child was born, as he then had an estate for life in his wife's lands, he put valuable improvements upon them, in the expectation of reaping the benefits thereof in possession and use; that the arrangement detailed in the complaint was brought about through the said Batis, after he had arrived at full age, her uncle, B. S. L. Dayton, and others, from whom came the suggestion of the compromise, which was to this effect:

The plaintiff and defendant were to unite in a deed to said Batis, for about sixty acres of the land owned by her, including the dwelling house and improvements, and the plaintiff was to release her estate to the defendant in the remainder of the tract, consisting of about fifty acres. This agreement was carried out in the execution of the first mentioned instrument, of the deed to Batis, and of that to Penland, who received the title in trust for the defendant, and to convey to him.

The defendant further denies all imputations upon his conduct and good faith in all that occurred. Batis Randolph was made a party plaintiff in the action, and thereupon a jury was empanelled to pass upon the following issues, and rendered their verdict upon each as follows:

“I. Was the plaintiff induced by force of the defendants, or either of them, to join in the execution of the deed to the defendant Penland? Answer, No.

II. Was it a part of the consideration which induced the execution of the deed to Penland, that the defendant Sparks and his wife should thereafter live separate from each other? Answer, Yes.

III. Was the consideration, or any part of it, which induced the defendant Sparks to execute the deed to the plaintiff ...