Waddy v. Grimes

• Decision Date: 23 June 1930
• Parties: WADDY et al. v. GRIMES.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

153 S.E. 807

WADDY et al.

v.GRIMES.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 23, 1930.

Code 1919, § 6246, provides that any court in which a chancery case is pending may direct an issue to be tried in such court or in any circuit or corporation court.

As result of toxaemia, resulting from disease aggravated by exposure, lack of attention, nourishment, and medical treatment, grantor was rendered mentally incompetent to attend to business during October and November, and, because of such condition, was adjudged non compos mentis in November. There was evidence that when deed was executed in March, he was competent.

The grantor after becoming ill and helpless in October, was taken to his nephew's home where he was cared for until his death the following April. The actual consideration was the promise of the nephew and his wife to care for him, but through mistake of the draftsman it recited a consideration of $50, the approximate amount of two debts, which the nephew had promised to pay. The property was subsequently sold for $1,200, its approximate value.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lancaster County.

Suit by Priscilla Grimes against Annie Waddy and others. From the decree for complainant, defendants appeal.

Reversed and bill dismissed.

R. O. Norris, Jr., of Lively, and C. Harding Walker, of Heathsville, for appellants.

Wm. B. Sanders, of White Stone, and Frank G. Newbill, of Irvington, for appellee.

EPES, J.

This is a chancery suit brought in April, 1927, in the circuit court of Lancaster county, Va., by Priscilla Grimes, the daughter and one of the heirs-at-law of Fielding Grimes, deceased, against Annie Waddy and Robert Waddy, her husband, St. Paul Carter, and Inez Carter, his wife, and Matthew Waddy, trustee.

The object of this suit is to set aside the following three deeds, all conveying a tract of land in Lancaster county, Va., containing 14³/₄ acres of land, to wit: A deed from Fielding Grimes to Annie Waddy, dated March 6, 1920; a deed from Annie Waddy and Robert Waddy, her husband, to St. Paul Carter, dated July 26, 1926; and a purchase-money deed of trust from St. Paul Carter and wife to Matthew Waddy, trustee, dated July 26, 1926.

The grounds upon which these deeds are attacked are that the deed from Fielding Grimes to Annie Waddy was executed on March 6, 1926, when Fielding Grimes was insane and in a state of almost physical and mental imbecility from physical disease, and after he had been adjudged non compos mentis by an order of the circuit court of Lancaster county, Va., entered on November 20, 1925, appointing Robert Waddy, the husband of Annie Waddy, his committee, to which office Robert Waddy had qualified and in which he was acting when said deed was exe-cuted; and that the consideration paid therefor was grossly inadequate and said deed was procured by the fraud and undue influence of Annie Waddy and Robert Waddy.

All the defendants, except Matthew Waddy, trustee, answered the bill denying that Fielding Grimes was non compos mentis when he executed said deed, and that said deed was procured by fraud or undue influence. The bill was taken for confessed as to Matthew Waddy, trustee.

On motion of the responding defendants the court directed an issue out of chancery and submitted to a jury the question: "Was Fielding M. Grimes on March 6, 1926, at the time he executed the deed to Annie Waddy, of sufficient mind and understanding to fully understand the nature and the legal effect of his act in executing said deed?"

The jury was unable to agree upon the question submitted to it. The complainant thereupon moved the court to revoke its order directing an issue out of chancery; and by its decree entered July 16, 1928, the court (to use the language of the decree) "being of the opinion that no matter what would have been the verdict of the jury on this issue that it would have decided that Fielding Grimes was incompetent to make and execute said deed, " revoked its order submitting said issue to the jury, and revoked and annulled all three said deeds. From said decree all the defendants appeal, making four assignments of error.

The second assignment of error relates to an instruction which the court refused to give to the jury. The third assignment relates to the refusal of the court, upon the failure of the jury to agree as to the mental capacity of Fielding Grimes, to impanel another jury and resubmit said issue to it. It is useless to discuss these two assignments of error; for in this case all the evidence presented to the trial court and the jury is certified and final decree must be here entered.

This is not a case in which any party was entitled as of right by any statute or rule of law to have an issue out of chancery submitted to a jury, as in a case involving the validity of a will (section 5295, Code Va.); but the submission of such an issue to a jury in a case like this rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and the purpose of such submission is to inform the conscience of the court. Section 6246, Code Va.; Flshburne v. Ferguson's Heirs, 84 Va. 87, 4 S. E. 575; Catron v. Norton Hardware Co., 123 Va. 380, 96 S. E. 853.

The first assignment of error is that the court erred in sotting aside and annulling the deed from Fielding Grimes to Annie Waddy.

The court in its decree sets forth the grounds, upon which it revoked and annulled said deed, as follows:

"The court being of the opinion that Fielding Grimes was on the 6th day of March 1926, at the time that he executed the deed to Annie Waddy, mentally incompetent to execute said deed, that the consideration paid therefor was grossly inadequate, that Robert Waddy, a duly appointed and qualified committee for Fielding Grimes, was the real beneficiary In said deed, and for these reasons that the said deed was voidable."

Fielding Grimes was a negro man between fifty and sixty years old at the time here in question. He was of rather low mentality and always had been somewhat peculiar; but certainly up to a comparatively few months before he executed said deed to Annie Waddy he was legally capable of transacting business and looking after his own affairs. He had acquired, many years before 1925, the tract of land on Corrottoman river in Lancaster county, Va., containing 14 3/4 acres, upon which he lived, which is the subject of this controversy. He also had at the time here in question 3-³/₁₀ acres of excellent oyster ground very near the natural rock, and had his shore full of oysters.

For some years prior to the fall of 1925, he had lived alone on said tract of land. His wife had been long dead, and he had only two children, a son, and a daughter, Priscilla Grimes. The son had not been heard from by his father for many years. His daughter, Priscilla, lived in Baltimore and seems to have paid little attention to her father. In August, 1925, she came to Lancaster county to attend the revival meetings, but though she knew that her father was sick she left him sick and alone and went back to Baltimore. In November, 1925, while he was ill at the home of Robert Waddy, his nephew, Priscilla Grimes came to see him but stayed only about thirty minutes. She did, however, send a message to Doctor Norris asking him to go to see her father. Beyond this there is no evidence of her having shown him any attention or affection or done anything for him, or having arranged to have any one else do anything for him, except the letter written to Robert Waddy soon afterwards; and she was not present at his funeral, which in the case of the Virginia negro is not without significance.

Fielding Grimes had been, for some unknown length of time, suffering from chronic nephritis (Bright's disease); and, in the spring of 1925, he had a slight stroke of paralysis.

According to the testimony of Robert and Annie Waddy, in June, 1925, Fielding Grimes went over to their home and spent the night While there he told them that his children did not help him or pay any attention to him and that he had nearly died the winter before from lack of attention; and that if Robert and Annie Waddy would let him come thereand live with them and take care of him as long as he lived he would deed his place to them. They told him they would do this, but he said that he did not want to come until in the fall.

On or about October 22, 1925, Mr. Brent, a justice of the peace in the neighborhood, heard that Fielding Grimes was in bad shape and lying helpless in the woods. He went to see about him and found him lying just outside his yard, apparently in a stupor; and called Dr. Oldham to attend him.

Dr. Oldham testifies that when he got there he found Fielding Grimes in a terribly dirty condition and ill from exposure and lack of nourishment; that he was suffering from chronic nephritis (Bright's disease); had had a slight stroke of paralysis, and was semiconscious.

Having nowhere else to take him, Mr. Brent and Dr. Oldham took him to the county jail, and discussed having a commission of lunacy convened the next day if they found it necessary. The next day Mr. Brent arranged to hold a commission of lunacy over him and requested Dr. Oldham and Dr. Pierce to attend upon it; but Dr. Oldham advised Mr. Brent that Grimes was not insane but suffering from exposure, lack of attention and nourishment, chronic nephritis, and a slight stroke of paralysis, and the commission was not held.

Dr. Oldham testifies that at this time Fielding's mind was dull and confused, and he did not have the mental capacity to transact business, and that his mind was affected by the uremic poison in his system.

The morning after Fielding was taken from his home to jail, Dr. Oldham told his nephew, Robert Waddy, about Fielding's condition, and asked Robert to take him to his home and look after him. Robert came to the courthouse that day, saw Mr. Brent and Dr. Oldham, and agreed to take Fielding to his (Robert's) home and care for him. Mr. Brent says that the understanding was that Robert would be paid for his trouble,...