Whitaker v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 01 May 1900
• Parties: WHITAKER v. HAMILTON et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

35 S.E. 815

126 N.C. 465

WHITAKER v. HAMILTON et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 1, 1900

Appeal from superior court, Union county; McNeill, Judge.

Action by F. H. Whitaker, as administrator of the estate of E. L Davis, deceased, against J. C. Hamilton, as administrator of Sarah L. Davis, deceased, and others, to recover personal property. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Where it is sought to set aside a transfer for personal property by reason of the transferror's lack of mental capacity, the defendant cannot complain of an instruction that a mind capable of making a contract was one that had sufficient intelligence to know what he was doing, and what property he was disposing of, and to whom he was transferring it, as it is not prejudicial.

R. B Redwine and Burwell, Walker & Cansler, for appellants.

Adams & Jerome and Armfield & Williams, for appellee.

FAIRCLOTH C.J.

This is an action by the plaintiff as administrator of E. L. Davis against the defendant, as administrator of Sarah L. Davis, to recover money notes, and personal property. The material facts are these: The said Sarah L. was the wife of said E. L Davis, and was the owner of the property sought to be recovered in this action at the time of her death, about April 8, 1896, leaving her husband surviving, who died intestate in June, 1896. By deed dated April 13, 1896, said E. L. Davis sold and conveyed to defendant J. C. Hamilton and other defendants all his right, title, and interest, as husband of said wife, in and to all of such property owned by her at her death or during coverture, with authority to take possession, and renounced his right to administer on his wife's estate. The defendant administrator took and holds possession of said property. Plaintiff demands possession and an accounting by the defendant. It is not disputed that the husband became the owner of said property as provided in Code, § 1479. The plaintiff alleges that at the time of said deed and sale the husband was mentally incapable of making a contract, and that the deed was obtained by undue influence by the defendants, and is void. This is the principal matter in controversy. Several witnesses were examined on that question. First issue: "At the time of the execution of the contract set out in the pleadings, whereby E. L. Davis purported to convey to J. C. Hamilton and others the property therein described, did the said E. L. Davis have sufficient mind to know what he was doing, and to understand the nature of the contract he was making?" The jury answered, "No." Second issue: "Was the execution of said contract procured by fraud or undue influence on the part of J. C. Hamilton, or any of the other grantees or donees named in the contract?" The jury answered, "Yes."

During the trial the plaintiff called J. D. Griffin, who testified "I have known E. L. Davis 55 or 60 years. Have lived about 6 miles from him for the last several years. Frequent visits were exchanged between us. I visited him during his last sickness, and was there the day his wife was buried, and assisted him to get to her grave, which was about one week prior to the date of the contract mentioned in the complaint, and I talked with him for some time. I also visited him a week or ten days after the contract was executed. I have had opportunities of forming an opinion of the mental condition of E. L. Davis at the time of the making of the contract, and I have formed an opinion." Here the plaintiff asked this question: "From your observation, conversation, and association with E. L. Davis, what, in your opinion, was his mental capacity, with reference to making contracts or disposing of his property, after his wife's death?" The defendants' objection was overruled, and they excepted. The witness proceeded: "I do not think he was capable of making a contract or disposing of his property after his wife's death. Mr. Davis was 84 years of age, and was very greatly grieved at his wife's death. Two or three weeks after her death he asked me what day of the week it was, and said he could not recollect anything. He did not have anything to do with his business, but left it all to his wife. His mind was such that he could have been...