Case Name: PATTERSON v. CAUSEY
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1922-01-25
Citations: 119 S.C. 12
Docket Number: 10823
Parties: PATTERSON v. CAUSEY
Judges: Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 12–19

Head Matter:
10823
PATTERSON v. CAUSEY
(111 S. E. 725)
1. Partition — Plaintiff May Attack Deed Introduced by Defendants. — Defendants in partition having pleaded title and introduced deeds and proof of execution thereof, plaintiff could, after they were in, attack them by evidence of grantor’s mental incapacity, as well as on the grounds of fraud and their nondelivery.
2. Deeds — Where More Than One Inference Can' be Drawn From Evidence, Question of Delivery for Jury.. — The question of delivery of deeds is for the jury where under the evidence more than one inference can be drawn.
3. Vendor and Purchaser. — Purchaser Acquires no Title if Deed to His Grantors Was Not Delivered or Their Grantor Was Incapacitated. — A purchaser acquires no . title as an innocent purchaser if his deed to his grantors was not delivered or if their grantor was mentally incompetent.
Before Bowman, J., Hampton, October,-1919.
Reversed and remanded.
Action by Catherine E. Patterson against E. M. Causey et al. From directed verdict for defendants the plaintiff appeals.
The third exception was as follows:
“Because his Honor, the presiding Judge, erred in holding and deciding that Thos. J. Ayer and John E. Fuller were the owners of the parcels described in their respective deeds, and that the testimony conclusively showed this to be a fact, it being respectfully submitted that they could only have such title as their grantors (Eavinia D. Zeal and E. M. Causey) had, and their grantors, never having had a deed to the property delivered to them by Thos. A. Causey, had no title, and his Honor should so have held.”
Messrs. George Warren and W. D. Connor, for appellant,
cite: Delivery of a deed: 95 S. C., 328; 1 Devlin Deeds, par. 279, 279a; 3 Strob. Eq., Ill; 2 Hill Eq., 411; 23 S. C., 89; 44 S. C., 372; 108 S. E., 168; 66 Me., 316; 11 Am. Rep., 592. Delivery is question for jury: 95 S. C., 328; 81 S. C., 340; 16 Cent. Dig., “Deeds,” par. 633; 7 Dec. Dig., par. 66; 2nd Dec. Dig., par. 66. Adverse possession against tenants in common: 15 S. C., 365; 3 Rich., 418; 1 Bail., 192; 71 S. C., 522; 26 S. C., 185.
Messrs. L. D. Lide and Randolph Murdaugh, for respondents,
cite: Where objection to evidence is specific no other ground of objection will be considered: 38 Cyc., 1397; 10 S. E. , 991. Delivery of Deed: 30 Pac., 541; 18 C. J., 440. Delivery to third person good where no control is reserved by grantor: 13 Cyc., 569; 93 S. C., 450; 82 S. C., 264; 95 S. C„ 328; 108 S. E-, 168. Innocent purchasers: 83 S. C., 329; 14 S. C., 312.
January 25, 1922.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This was an. action for partition. Certain defendants claimed title. Appellants proved title in Thos. A. Causey and to his children. Contesting defendants offered seven deeds from Thomas A. Causey dated in May, 1906, and recorded the same year, after the grantor's death, to all of which objection was made that there was no proof of delivery. On motion his Honor directed a verdict for the defendants. Appellants appeal and by five exceptions impute error.
The first exception imputes error in holding that the plaintiff could not offer testimony to show mental capacity of the grantor to make deeds, introduced by the defendants after said deeds had been introduced in evidence, and in excluding the evidence of witnesses to prove grantor's mental incapacity to make said deeds; it being contended that his Honor should have held such evidence competent, and should have allowed it. This exception must. be sustained: the deeds could not be attacked until they were in. Defendants had pleaded title and introduced certain deeds, and proved the execution of the same by witness. The appellants then had the right to attack them on the ground of fraud, mental incapacity, or nondelivery, and his Honor was in error in excluding the evidence.
Exceptions 2, 4, and 5 raise, the same questions that his Honor erred in finding under the testimony that the deeds had been delivered and in directing a verdict for the defendants. These exceptions are sustained. Under the evidence the question of delivery should have been submitted to the jury for their determination, as under it more than one inference could be drawn.
Exception 3 is sustained, for, if the deeds were not delivered, or the grantor was incapacitated and could not make them, Ayer and Fuller could not have any more title than their grantors had, and that issue should have been submitted to the jury.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur.