Thomas v. Jolly, 43223
| Decision Date | 18 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 43223,43223 |
| Citation | 170 So.2d 16,251 Miss. 448 |
| Parties | Naomi Jolly THOMAS et al. v. J. D. JOLLY et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
John D. Sibley, Okolona, Jeff W. Busby, Houston, for appellants.
Armis E. Hawkins, James S. Gore, Houston, for appellees.
This case is before us on appeal by Naomi Jolly Thomas and Era Jolly Finn, defendants in the court below, from a decree of the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Chickasaw County rendered in favor of J. D. Jolly, individually, and as administrator of the Estate of Mrs. Trudy Jolly, deceased, and Reuben D. Jolly, individually and as administrator of the Estate of Sam J. Jolly, deceased, complainants in the court below, ordering the cancellation of a deed of conveyance executed by Mrs. Trudy Jolly, as grantor, to Naomi Jolly Thomas and Era Jolly Finn, as grantees, on September 7, 1961, conveying to the grantees all of the grantor's interest in and to 120 acres of land situated in Chickasaw County.
The record shows that the complainants and the defendants are the children and only heirs of Sam J. Jolly and his wife, Mrs. Trudy Jolly, who acquired title to the above mentioned tract of land by warranty deed from W. J. Criddle dated December 1, 1943; that Sam J. Jolly died intestate on March 25, 1960, leaving as his only heirs at law and next of kin his wife, the above named Trudy Jolly, and the four children mentioned above; that the above named Mrs. Trudy Jolly died intestate on September 29, 1961, leaving as her only heirs at law the above named four children.
The original bill of complaint was filed in this cause by J. D. Jolly and Reuben D. Jolly on June 1, 1962. The complainants alleged in their bill that the above named Sam J. Jolly and Mrs. Trudy Jolly owned the above mentioned 120-acre tract of land during their lifetime as tenants in common, each of them owning an undivided one-half interest in the land; that Sam J. Jolly died seized and possessed of an undivided one-half interest in the 120 acres of land, and under the laws of descent and distribution the late Trudy Jolly, surviving widow, and each of the four children inherited an undivided one-fifth interest in the one-half interest owned by the late Sam J. Jolly at the time of his death, thus making the late Trudy Jolly the owner of an undivided three-fifths interest in the 120-acre tract of land, and the complainants and defendants the owners each of an undivided one-tenth interest in the 120-acre tract of land.
The complainants further alleged that, after the death of Sam J. Jolly, the widow Mrs. Trudy Jolly was in very poor health and was senile, that she was hospitalized for long periods of time, and that the defendants finally took her to the home of the defendant Naomi Jolly Thomas in the State of Alabama; that while she was in the home of the defendant Naomi Jolly Thomas in the State of Alabama, she was a completely helpless and dependent old woman and had to rely entirely upon the defendants for her daily needs.
The complainants further alleged that there was on record in the office of the Chancery Clerk of Chickasaw County, in the Town of Houston, Mississippi, what purported to be a deed of conveyance executed by Mrs. Trudy Jolly conveying her interest in the above mentioned 120 acres of land to the above named defendants, Naomi Jolly Thomas and Era Jolly Finn; that the purported deed of conveyance did not bear the true and genuine signature of the late Trudy Jolly and was therefore void; that at the time of the alleged execution of the above mentioned deed the said Mrs. Trudy Jolly was in an advanced state of senile dementia and senility; that she completely lacked the mental capacity to execute a valid deed of conveyance; that she did not understand the meaning or import of the above mentioned deed; and that the deed was void for that reason. The complainants further alleged that the above mentioned deed was executed just three weeks prior to the death of Mrs. Trudy Jolly; that the defendants occupied a fiduciary relationship to the grantor at the time of the execution of the deed; that the grantor was old and weak in mind and body and incapable of resisting the undue influence exercised over her by the defendants, who, in violation of the fiduciary relationship which existed between them and the grantor, fraudulently and wrongfully obtained the purported deed without paying any consideration whatsoever therefor. The complainants therefore charged that the purported deed was null and void, for that reason, and the complainants asked that the deed be cancelled as a cloud upon the complainants' title to their interest in the above mentioned 120 acres of land.
The defendants in their separate answers to the bill of complainant admitted that their mother, Mrs. Trudy Jolly, went to the home of Naomi Jolly Thomas in the State of Alabama after she had been hospitalized, but the defendants denied that she was completely helpless and had to rely completely upon the defendants for her daily needs and welfare. The defendants averred in their answer that Mrs. Trudy Jolly voluntarily went to the home of Naomi Jolly Thomas and remained in the home of Naomi Jolly Thomas until her death, and that she stayed there of her own free will. The defendants admitted that there was on record in the office of the Chancery Clerk of Chickasaw County a deed of conveyance of the interest of the late Trudy Jolly in and to the 120 acres of land to the defendants. But the defendants denied that the deed did not bear the true and genuine signature of the late Trudy Jolly, and denied that at the time of the execution of the deed of conveyance Mrs. Trudy Jolly was in an advanced state of senile dementia or that she lacked the mental capacity to execute a valid deed. The defendants denied that the deed was executed as a result of duress or undue influence exercised by them over the grantor, and the defendants denied that they occupied a fiduciary relationship to the grantor at the time of the execution of the deed. The defendants therefore asked that the complainants' bill be dismissed.
The case was tried at the June 1963 term of the court. Nineteen witnesses testified during the hearing. It is not necessary that we undertake to review in detail the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullins v. Ratcliff
..."independent advice" language. See McElveen v. McElveen, 233 Miss. 672, 677, 103 So.2d 439, 442 (Miss.1958); Thomas v. Jolly, 251 Miss. 448, 454, 170 So.2d 16, 20 (Miss.1964); Jones v. Jones, 246 So.2d 486, 487 (Miss.1971); Mansell v. Gross, 345 So.2d 1315, 1317 In Croft v. Alder, 237 Miss.......
-
Whitworth v. Kines
...246 So.2d 486 (Miss.1971); Jones v. Singley, 242 So.2d 430 (Miss.1970); In re Woodard's Will, 199 So.2d 243 (1967); Thomas v. Jolly, 251 Miss. 448, 170 So.2d 16 (1964); Glenn v. Macon, 249 Miss. 493, 163 So.2d 239 (1964); Wofford v. Wofford, 244 Miss. 442, 142 So.2d 188 (1962); Russell v. D......
-
Vega v. Estate of Mullen, 07-CA-59600
...Wofford v. Wofford, 244 Miss. 442, 142 So.2d 188 (1962); Croft v. Alder, 237 Miss. 713, 115 So.2d 683 (1959); Thomas v. Jolly, 251 Miss. 448, 170 So.2d 16 (1964). As we subsequently noted in Mullins v. Ratcliff, 515 So.2d 1183, 1193 (Miss.1987), the independent advice from a disconnected pe......
-
Anderson v. Burt
...a confidential relationship is shown, Leggett v. Graham, 218 So.2d 892, 895 (Miss.1969). Indeed, we have recognized in Thomas v. Jolly, 251 Miss. 448, 170 So.2d 16 (1964) A deed from a parent to a child alone and of itself raises no presumption of undue influence, since in the absence of ev......