Rutherford County NcArchives Court.....Martha Hay, Mary Jane Suttles V. 1847 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Connie Ardrey n/a January 31, 2010, 9:59 am Source: Nc Reports Written: 1847 Mary Jane Suttles & Al vs. Martha Hay & Al, 1847 Neither weakness of mind nor old age is, of itself, a sufficient ground to invalidate an instrument. To have that effect, there must be some fraud in the transaction, either expressly proved or inferred from the circumstances. Cause removed by consent from the Court of Equity of Rutherford County, at the Fall Term, 1847. This Bill was filed in the Court of Equity of Rutherford County, by Mary Jane Suttles and Sarah Ann Suttles, infants, by their next friend George Suttles, against Martha Hay and George Hay, alias George Wesson, and stated, that George Hay, the elder, died in the year 1840, leaving the plaintiffs, in right of their mother, Sarah Suttles, deceased, and George Hay, the younger, his only heirs at law and next of kin; that George Hay, senior, was about ninety years of age at the time of his death, and was, at that time, and had been for many years before, a very weak mind, incapable of trnsacting business and easy to be imposed upon; that his son George Hay, junior, lived with him, and, some years before his death, brought the defendant, Martha, to his house, and lived with her in adultery, until she bore a son, the defendant George Hay, alias George Wesson, and married her; that the said George Hay, junior, and the defendant Martha, obtained and exercised great influence over the said George Hay, senior, by means of which they, for several years, endeavored to procure from him a conveyance to the said George, junior, of a tract of land, which he then owned, of the value of about $2,500, and that, at last, by threatening to institute vexatious suits against him and by divers other artifices, false suggestions and undue influence, they procured the said George Hay, senior, to execute a deed, bearing date the 8th of August 1838, to his son, the said George, junior, for the tract of land aforesaid, upon the pretended consideration, that the said George, junior, was to support his father during his life. The bill charges, that the said deed was procured by fraud and undue influence practised upon an old man of very imbecile mind and was therefore void. The bill then states, that the said George Hay, junior, after the death of his father, took possession of the said tract of land and claimed it as his own, and, on the 23rd day of November 1840, duly made and published his last will in writing, and therein devised the said tract of land to his wife, the defendant Martha, for life, with the remainder in fee to her son, the defendant George Hay, alias Wesson, and soon thereafter died; that the said Martha thereupon took possession of the said land and claimed it under the said devise. The prayer of the bill is, that the deed for the said tract of land should be delivered up and cancelled, and that the plaintiffs should be let into possession of the said land, as tenants in common with the defendants. The answer of Martha Hay admits all the material allegations of the bill, expecting those relating to the fraud and undue influence exercised over George Hay, senior, by herself and her husband, and to the manner in which the deed to her husband was executed by his father. With regard to these it denies expressly, that the defendant Martha, or her husband, George Hay, junior, acquired any influence over the said George Hay, senior, except what resulted naturally from their kind and dutiful attentions to him, and denies also, that the said deed was procured by the means alleged in the bill. On the contrary, it avers, that the said deed was executed by the said George, senior, freely and fairly, to carry out a long settled purpose of conveying the said land to his son George, who was his favorite child, and was manifested by his having willed to his said son the same tract of land in 1834; that the said George, senior, was at the time in his proper mind, and free from any undue influence whatever, and that, in consideration of said conveyance, the said George, junior, executed to his father an instrument, by which he bound himself to support his father during his life, and that he had faithfully performed the obligation. The answer of George Hay, alias George Wesson, who is an infant, is merely formal. Replications were put in to the answers, proofs were taken on both sides, and the cause was set up for hearing, and transmitted by consent to this Court. Baxter for the plaintiffs Gaither for the defendants [NC Supreme Court] Battle, J. ...Upon a consideration of the whole case, we think that the plaintiffs have altogether failed to establish their allegation, that the deed in question was procured from the grantor by the fraudulent exercise of undue influence over him by the grantee and his wife. The inadequacy of price, relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiffs, can have no claim as creditors or purchasers, and because the transaction between the parties to the deed was not a purchase, but was substantially, and so intended to be, a gift from a father to a son, for whom he was under a moral obligation to provide. The bill must be dismissed. Per Curiam Decree accordingly [See court case for Judge Battle's complete findings] File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/rutherford/court/marthaha1304wl.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/ File size: 5.8 Kb