Wright v. Cain

• Decision Date: 31 October 1885
• Citation: 93 N.C. 296
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: AMOS WRIGHT et als. v. PATRICK H. CAIN.

93 N.C. 296

AMOS WRIGHT et als.

v.PATRICK H. CAIN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October Term, 1885.

CIVIL ACTION tried before MacRae, Judge, and a jury, at Fall Term, 1884, of DAVIE Superior Court.

The action was brought by Wright and wife and Richardson and wife, against Cain, to compel him to reconvey to the feme plaintiffs a certain tract of land, which it was alleged that plaintiffs had conveyed to the defendant, with a parol trust that he would reconvey the same to them, and for damages for possession of the land.

The complaint, in substance, alleged that the feme plaintiffs were the only heirs-at-law of one W. C. Powell, who died intestate in the county of Davie in 1851. That at the time of his death said Powell was possessed of considerable personal property, and also of a tract of land containing about one hundred and twenty-five acres. That at May Term, 1852, one Wyatt C. Powell was appointed and duly qualified as administrator of the estate of said W. C. Powell, and shortly thereafter filed a petition for the sale of the land of his intestate. That the plaintiffs were at that time minors and without guardian, and at the same term at which the petition for the sale was filed, an order of sale was made, and the land sold, when the said Powell himself became purchaser. That the defendant Cain is the grand-uncle of the feme plaintiffs, and had great influence over them. That he is a man of influence and standing in the county, having been for many years a justice of the peace, and, for several years before the war, a member of the county court, and was also one of the county commissioners. That on account of his kinship to them, and also on account of his reputation in the county as a man of probity and intelligence, the feme plaintiffs consulted him about their affairs, and he had great influence over them. That about the year 1872, the said defendant Cain intimated to the feme plaintiffs that their father's administrator had not properly settled his estate, and that they could recover the land formerly belonging to their father. That the defendant Cain told the feme plaintiffs that he hated to see orphan children defrauded, and that if they would pay him something for his trouble, he would assist them in recovering the land. That the feme plaintiffs were very poor and unable to employ counsel, and were ignorant of their rights, and of the way to enforce them, and besides trusted implicitly in the good faith of the defendant, and so agreed to entrust their interest to him. That the defendant informed them that it would be best for them to make a deed to him of the land, in order that he might bring the suit in his own name, which they did, the defendant agreeing to reconvey the land to them, if he should succeed in recovering it, upon the payment to him of a just compensation for his trouble. That the defendant brought suit for the land and recovered it, but now refuses to reconvey, although the plaintiffs have demanded a reconveyance, and have offered to reimburse him for his expenses in the prosecution of the suit.

The defendant in his answer denied all the material allegations in the complaint, and alleged that he had purchased the rights of the feme plaintiffs for a full consideration. He also pleaded that the contract as set out in the complaint was champertous and illegal, and that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations.

The following issues, tendered by plaintiffs, were submitted to the jury:

1st. Did the defendant P. H. Cain take the deed described in the pleadings from the feme plaintiffs for the purpose of carrying on a suit against Holman for their benefit, with a promise to reconvey after compensation to him for his trouble and expenses?

2nd. Did P. H. Cain, before the execution of said deed, undertake to act in behalf of feme plaintiffs as their agent and confidential adviser in the expected litigation?

3rd. To what amount are plaintiffs entitled against the defendant as rents and profits?

4th. Is plaintiffs' claim to relief barred by the statute of limitations?

5th. To what amount is defendant entitled for bringing and prosecuting suit against Samuel Holman?

The defendant Cain tendered the following issues, in addition to those submitted:

1st. What is the value of the improvements made upon the land by defendant while in his possession?

2nd. Was the transaction between plaintiffs and defendant, if as alleged by plaintiffs, champertous, against the policy of the law, and such as a court of equity would not enforce?

Which issues the presiding Judge declined to submit, and the defendant excepted.

Much evidence was offered in support of the allegation of the complaint, on the one side, and of the answer on the other.

It was in evidence by plaintiffs, that the deed from plaintiffs to defendant Cain was executed on the 27th of November, 1872; that the feme plaintiff Margaret Wright was married in March, 1867, at the age of 19 years, to Amos Wright, co-plaintiff, who is still living; that her sister, Sarah D. Powell, was twenty-two years old when said deed was executed, and did not marry till she was twenty-eight years of age, in 1877; that the action prosecuted by defendant Cain against Samuel C. Holman, was terminated at Fall Term, 1877, by which Cain recovered possession of the lands in controversy; that in December, 1878, the plaintiffs Wright and Richardson, in behalf of their wives, demanded of defendant Cain a reconveyance of said land, and offered to pay any expense which he had incurred and to remunerate him for his services; that defendant Cain refused to reconvey said land as requested, and notified them that he held the land as his own; that this action was begun on 6th September, 1880.

Defendant Cain asked the following instructions, in writing:--

1. That any right that S. D. Powell and those claiming under her had, was barred by the statute of limitations, which was declined, and defendant...