Carman v. Page, 59 N.C. 37, 6 Jones Eq. 37 (1860)

Dec. 1860 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

59 N.C. 37, 6 Jones Eq. 37

TERESA CARMAN against STEPHEN PAGE.

"Where both parties t© a trade for the sale o-f slaves had full time for deliberation, and the deeds were executed without secrecy, and attested by a respectable witness, and there was no evidence of mental incapacity, and no sufficient proof of a-gross, inadequacy of price, it yrasheld that the transaction should be sustained.

Gross inadequacy of-price is not sufficient, in itself, to -set aside a deed, although it is a strong-circumstance, .tending with others, to make out a case of fraud or imposition.

Cause removed from the Court -of Equity of Carteret ■county.

The bill seeks to have a conveyance of certain land and ■slaves set aside, on the ground of fraud practised in procuring it. It alleges that the plaintiff was joint-owner with her sister, one Mary Heath, -of a remainder in a valuable lot of slaves, dependant upon a life-estate in one Edmund Heath, which slaves, it alleges, were worth ten or twelve thousand dollars. The bill further alleges, that in the summer of 1857, «defendant applied to plaintiff to purchase her interest in said slaves, having several times before importuned her to sell them to him, and informed her that he was the owner of the interest that had before belonged to Mary Heath, and offered $1000 for plaintiff's interest, which offer, was declined; that some days after this conversation, defendant again called and informed her that he had been informed by a gentleman of the bar, that -there was some doubt about the title to the remainder in -these slaves, after the death ef Edmund Heath, and proposed that they should compromise with the children of Edmund Heath, who were, as he alleged, the claimants of the slaves, and would bring suit for them when the life-estate determined; that some time after this last interview the plaintiff was taken sick, and that while prostrated by disease, she yielded to entreaties of the plaintiff, and signed the deed in question, which was not even read to- her and of the contents’ of which she was entirely ignorant, and that the price mentioned in said deed, was only $1100.

The answer denies that the defendant importuned the plaintiff, but alleges that plaintiff, on several occasions, sent for him and offered to sell her interest in the slaves at the price ©f $1500, and that on the occasion when the deed was made, he called on her by her request; that the terms of the sale were proposed by the plaintiff herself, and were,, that defendant should pay her 100 dollars down, and the balance-in one, two-, three, four and five years, with good security, without interest, and that this was a fair price, as Edmund Heath, though a man in advanced life, being between, seventy and eighty years of age, was, nevertheless, of robust constitution, and had promise- of a long life.

Elizabeth Pearce deposed that she was acquainted with tire plaintiff in- 1857; that Just before the- execution of the deed in question, plaintiff sent for her, and desired her to seethe defendant and request him to- call and see her, that she-might sell him her interest in the slaves ; that she informed defendant of plaintiff’s request, and was at plaintiff’s house when defendant called ; that the former offered the property for the price of $1500, which the latter refused to giver, but offered her $1000, but that they did not conclude a bargain. Witness further testified, that the plaintiff after-wards sent for her again, and desired her to- request defendant to call again, which she did; that she was present at this, interview, and that plaintiff still asked $1500, which defendant still refused to-give;, that the plaintiff then offered to take-12100, payable, as alleged in the- answer, and that these terms were accepted by the defendant; that he then, inform-ed the plaintiff, that he would have the notes and the bill of sale drawn, and thereupon left the house ; that he afterwards returned with one O’Leary; that Mrs. Carman was sitting on the bed ; that O’Leary took a seat near her and read the bill of sale to her and afterwards read the notes ; that the $100 was then paid and O’Leary left, and that Mrs. Carman seemed satisfied, and that her mind, at these interviews, was as good as she ever saw it; that she afterwards had many conversations with her, and that she always seemed perfectly satisfied with the whole transaction.

A number of witnesses testified that they considered the plaintiff a woman of sound mind, capable of transacting ordinary business, and also that $1000 was a fair price for the remainder in the property dependant on the life-estate of Edmund Heath.

James A. Perry, a son-in-law of the plaintiff, testified that he had managed her business for her for some years, and that her mind was weak, and that she was easily influenced.

Dr. O. W. Hughes testified, that the plaintiff sent for him in the year 1857, in regard to these negroes, 'and asked him $1200 for them; and gave as a reason for desiring to sell them, that she was on bad terms with her son-in-law, and wanted to realise means to live on.

Daniel O’Leary testified, that he drew the bill of sale and the notes at the request of the defendant, and went with him to the house of Mrs. Carman, and read them over to her twice or three times, and that she remarked that they were according to the contract. This witness attested the bill of sale.

The cause being set for hearing upon the bill, answer, exhib its and proofs, was transferred to this Court by consent.

J. W. JSrycm, for the plaintiff.

MeSae, for the defendant.

PeabsoN, C. J.

The allegations of the bill are not sustained by the proof. It is not proved that the plaintiff was of unsound mind at the time of the dealing mentioned in the pleadings. There is no proof that any fraud or artifice was. resorted to, for the purpose of inducing her to sell. Both parties had full time for deliberation, and the deeds were executed without secrecy, and attested by a respectable witness. So, the plaintiff has no ground to stand on, except the allegation of gross inadequacy of the price, which is not sufficient to set aside a deed, although it is a strong circumstance, tending with others, to make out a case of fraud or imposition.

The price, in this case, does not appear to have been grossly inadequate. The plaintiff offered several times to sell at $1-500, and the difference between that sum and $1100, can hardly be treated as enough to make out the imputation of fraud. Upon the whole, we are satisfied that the plaintiff had made up her mind that “ a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush,” and having some fear that the title might be drawn into question, and having no particular wish to retain property, of which she -could not have the enjoyment, except as a fund to bestow upon her nephews and nieces, who were the parties by whom she apprehended her title might be disputed, was willing to sell at a “ low figure.” And the defendant did no more than avail himself of what he considered a chance “ for a speculation.” Such dealings, though not encouraged by the courts, are not forbidden by law.

The plaintiff having failed to establish any equity, the bill will be dismissed.

Pee Cukxam, Bill dismissed.