Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1911

Dubose v. Kell

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided December 19, 1911 · No. 8064 · Gary

71 S.E. 371; 90 S.C. 196; 1911 S.C. LEXIS 172 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Halcott P. Green, Henry McLure and A.L. Gaston , for appellant. Mr. Green cites: Transactions between husband and wife should be carefully scrutinized: 70 S.C. 240 ; 43 S.C. 476 ; 55 S.C. 290 ; 56 S.C. 193 . Mental capacity necessary to make a valid deed: 50 S.C. 105 ; 7 Rich. 479; 18 Ency. 624; 9 Ency. 122; 44 N.H. 531 . The deed was obtained by undue influence: 30 S.C. 468 ; 12 S. M. 369; 71 Mo. 651 ; 79 Mo. 147 ; 104 Mo. 158; 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 202. And should be set aside whether the grantee carried out his verbal promise to support grantee or not: 24 S.C. 1 ; 48 Mo. 497 . Undue influence will be inferred from the relation of the parties: 27 Ency. 454, 456; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., sec. 955; 94 U.S. 506 ; 113 U.S. 89 ; 101 U.S. 133 ; 24 S.C. 1 ; 29 Ency. 124-9; 5 Rich. Eq. 470; 31 Am. R. 342; 44 N.J. Eq. 372 ; 69 L.R.A. 393; 61 S.C. 501 ; 87 S.C. 1 ; 57 S.C. 413 ; 30 S.C. 473 ; 61 S.C. 501 . If consideration is inadequate, deed should be set aside: 87 S.C. 1 ; 5 Rich. Eq. 450; 68 Mich. 232 ; 130 Cal. 352 ; 24 S.C. 1 ; 112 Ga. 487 ; 157 Mo. 402 . So where there is lack of independent advise: 47 N.J. Eq. 122 ; 32 Minn. 25 ; 72 Mo. 669 ; 8 L.R.A. 261; 13 Cyc. 589. And where transaction is secret and deed not recorded: 29 Ency. 113-4; 53 Ala. 89 . Messrs. Henry McLure cite: Greater intelligence required to make a deed than a will: 50 S.C. 106 ; 65 S.C. 558 . When undue influence presumed: 57 S.C. 417 . Unconscionable low price: 4 Dess. 697. Weak mind: 50 S. S. 474; 24 S.C. 12 ; 1 Story Eq. Jur. 221, 235, 238; Wharton v. Stiles , Med. Jur. 77. Messrs. J.H. Marion, Glenn McFadden and R.B. Caldwell , contra. Mr. Marion cites: Plaintiff has no interest in Fishing Creek Place by way of resulting trust: 52 S.C. 288 ; 15 Ency. 1142-6, 1150-65; 46 S.C. 193 ; 51 S.C. 37 ; 52 S.C. 472 ; 32 S.C. 590 , 595 ; 27 S.C. 39 ; 23 S.C. 257 ; 19 S.C. 26 ; 65 S.C. 102 ; 1 Strob. Eq. 103; 4 DeS. 516. Plaintiff is estopped by McMurray deed: 11 Ency. 403, 405, 415; 16 Cyc. 689, 710, 716, 718; 35 S.C. 536 ; 21 S.C. 55 , 68 ; 19 S.C. 9 ; 17 S.C. 592 ; 3 McC. 411; 5 Rich. Eq. 434; 1 Rich. Eq. 71; 38 S.C. 393 . Relation of parent and child overturns presumption of undue influence from confidential relationship: 44 N.E. 9; 50 N.E. 389; 64 S.C. 256 . Mr. R.B. Caldwell cites: No abuse of discretion in denying motion to amend: 50 S.C. 459 ; 51 S.C. 412 . What facts establish resulting trust: 52 S.C. 391 . Plaintiff is estopped by warranty in McMurray deed: 11 Ency. 403, 405, 415; 35 S.C. 550 ; 35 S.C. 536 ; 38 S.C. 397 ; 21 S.C. 69 ; 3 McC. 412; 5 Rich. 8; Dud. 25. Contracts of weak-minded persons: 64 S.C. 272 ; 55 Me. 282 ; 86 Fed.R. 51; 29 Ency. 102. Undue influence: 118 U.S. 135 ; 116 Ill. 240 ; 5 Strob. 192. The opinion in this case was filed on May 23, 1911, but remittitur held up on petition for rehearing until

Opinion of the Court

The opinion im this oase was filed on May 23, 1911, but remittitur hcldi up om petition far rehearing- until

The opinion of the Court was- delivered by

*229 Mr. Justice Gary.

This is an action to set aside a deed for fraud, anidi fur other relief.

The facts, are fully stated, in the decree of his Honor, special Judge Ernest Moore, which, together with appellant’s exceptions', will be incorporated in the report of the case. .

5 The first question that will be considered, is whether there was error on the part of the presiding Judge, in refusing the motion to allow the plaintiff, to amend the complaint in tine particular mentioned in 'the first exception. Amendments -are within, the discretion, of the presiding Judge, and .an order refusing a motion to amend, is not appealable, unless, there was an abuse' of discretion, which does not appear in this case.

We do not deem it necessary, to consider the other exceptions, specifically, as we are satisfied with the Circuit Judge’s findings of fact, and the reasons assigned by him for his conclusions of law.

Affirmed.

6 Petition for rehearing refused by formal order filed December 19, 1911.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.