Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1927

Troy v. Johnson

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided March 8, 1927 · Brease, Cothran, Messrs, Ramage, Stabrer, Watts

137 S.E. 343; 139 S.C. 117; 1927 S.C. LEXIS 139 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Melton Belser , for appellant, cite: Non Compos Mentis not necessary to avoid contract: Storey's Eq. J., Vol. 1, 14th Ed., S. 329, P. 319; S 337, P. 325. Mental weakness and inadequacy consideration sufficient: 875 C.C., 5; 94 U.S. 506 ; 2 Mason, 378; 30 S.C. 473 ; 24 S.C. 1 ; 57 S.C. 413 ; Pom. Eq. S., 957, 946; I Story Eq., 238. Inadequacy presumption undue advantage taken: 4 Des., 697; 3 Id., 273; 90 S.C. 196 . Burden proof on beneficiary: Pom. Eq. J., Vol. 2, 4th Ed., P. 2013-17; Storey's Eq. J., Vol. 1, 14th Ed., S. 320, P. 312. Party to deed incompetent witness: 8 R.C.L., 942; 106 S.C. 410 ; 1 R.C.L., 270; 87 A.S.R., 536; 86 N.W., 503; 80 N.W., 772; 46 L.R.A., 721; 67 N.E., 729; 62 L.R.A., 790. Consideration with knowledge of weakmindedness insufficient: 42 L.R.A. (N.S.), 343; 90 S.W. 1075; 27 S.E., 994 ; 62 Miss., 440 ; 122 S.C. 203 . Lack of consideration sets aside satisfaction: 3 Jones on Mtgs., S. 966-70; 22 S.C. 339 ; 113 S.C. 390 ; 87 S.C. 1 ; 57 S.C. 413 ; 2 Sp. L., 268; 3 Strob., 552; 1 Rich. L. 80; 16 S.C. 344 ; 38 S.C. 215 . Cases distinguished: 107 S.C. 470 ; 90 S.C. 196 . Messrs. Benet, Shand McGowan , for respondents, cite: "Undue influence": 90 S.C. 214; 9 Cyc., 455; 64 S.C. 272; 118 U.S. 127 . Motives not subject of inquiry where capability of determining desires: 9 A.S.R., 158; 86 S.C. 491; 105 S.E., 329 . "Mental capacity": 22 Cyc., 1206; 4 Iredel, 443; 36 Ill., 109 ; 84 Am. Dec., 97; 66 N.W., 1115; 40 A.S.R., 468; 145 Ill., 111 ; 34 A.S.R., 86; Fed., 51; 13 Cyc., 573; 16 A. E. Enc. L., 624; 9 Id., 119; 18 Id., 624 (2nd Ed.), Ed., 123; 45 N.H. 428 ; 52 S.E., 782 ; 55 Me., 282 ; 38 W. Va., 168 ; 60 S.E., 141 ; 44 N. H., 421; 4 DeS., 520. Cases distinguished: 113 S.C. 390 ; 87 S.C. 1 ; 57 S.C. 413 . No consideration: 30 S.C. 467 ; 24 S.C. 1 . Witnesses: 106 S.C. 410 .

Opinion of the Court

March 8, 1927. The opinion of the Court was delivered by This is an appeal from a decree of Judge Townsend. We have a concurring finding of fact both by the master and Circuit Judge. This Court has decided in a number of cases that it is incumbent on the appellant to satisfy this Court that the finding of the Circuit Court is against the preponderance of the evidence. In the case at bar, this the appellant has failed to do.

Let the report and decree be reported. *Page 133

All exceptions are overruled and judgment affirmed.

MESSRS. JUSTICES BLEASE and STABLER, and MR. ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RAMAGE, concur.

MR. ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RAMAGE: I concur under the law as it now stands. The Legislature ought to put such weak-minded persons in the same class as adjudged lunatics as regards their contracts.

Dissenting Opinion

I think that this Court, in exercising its constitutional prerogative of reviewing upon appeal a decree in equity of a chancellor, both upon the law and the facts, should not be influenced by the concurrent findings of a master and Circuit Judge to any greater extent than the burden which every appellant assumes of showing error in the judgment appealed from. In determining this issue the appellant is entitled to the independent judgment of this Court upon the facts as well as the law, and in my opinion the Constitution is mandatory in this respect.

I think that the evidence, as both the master and the Circuit Judge find, shows the extreme mental weakness of Miss Troy; that the defendants took advantage of this weakness in every transaction between them; that the prices paid for the lots were grossly inadequate; that the evidence of payments is utterly insufficient, as the Circuit Judge holds "suspicious"; and the transactions complained of should be annulled as prayed for.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.