Case Name: McDOWELL v. LANDRUM ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1918-07-06
Citations: 110 S.C. 405
Docket Number: 10019
Parties: McDOWELL v. LANDRUM ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 405–407

Head Matter:
10019.
McDOWELL v. LANDRUM ET AL.
(96 S. E. 991.)
Before Peurifoy, J., Spartanburg,, Spring term, 1916.
Reversed.
Action to set aside a deed and mortgage given by plaintiff to defendants, and to restore the status quo ante of the parties.
The issues raised by the pleadings and set out in the case (fol. 27) are three in number, as follows:
“1. Senile decay, mental and physical weakness in the appellant.
2. Inadequacy of consideration and advantage taken of appellant.
3. Circumvention, artifice, fraud, cunning and undue influence and imposition on the part of the respondents.”
Prom a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Messrs. Gwynn & Hannon, for appellants,
cite: As to the protection given by Courts of equiy to the weak-minded, and the scrutiny they will give to the acts and contracts of persons of weak understanding: 24 S. C., p. 1; 4 DeSaussure 650; 90 S. C. 215; Story Eq. Jur., par. 221; 94 U. S. 506; 3 DeS. 271; 94 S. C. 386; 2d Hill 126; 9 S. W. 620; 106 S. C. 328. As to the character of the alleged misrepresentations: 2d Pomeroy, 3d Ed., par. 878, p. 1564. As to alleged ratification by plaintiff: 1 McC. 391; 4 DeS. 708-713.
' Messrs. Nicholls & Nicholls and Sanders & DePass, for respondent,
cite: As to mental capacity of grantor: 1 Black on Rescission and Cancellation of Contracts, sec. 262; 14 R. C. L., p. 590; 90 S. C. 207; 103 S. C. 450; 64 S. C. 272. As to undue influence: 1 Black on Rescission and Cancellation of Written Contracts, secs. 237, 241, 242, 245; 90 S. C. 215; 16 S. C. 344; 5 Strob. 190; 9th Cor. Jur. 1180. As to fraud and misrepresentations: 16 S. C. 344; 5 Strob. 190; 1 Black on Res. and Can. Written Contracts, sec. 68; 1 Black on Res. and Can. of Contracts, sec. 76; 2d Bail. 269; Rich. 101; 1st Black on Res. and Can. of Cont., sections 110 and 121; 1st Rich., pp. 105-106; 9 S. C. 35; 101 S. C. 221; 12 R. C. L., p. 255; sec. 109, p. 363; sec. 117; 20 Cyc. 39; 1 Black on Res. and Can. of Con., sections 169, 170, p. 447; secs. 170, 172, 173, 175; 21 S. C. 270; 1 Elliott on Contracts, sec. 209, sec. 210; 103 S. C. 538; 2 Black on Res. and Can. of Contracts, sections 610 and 614; 3 Elliott on Contracts, sections 2429 and 2430; 1 Strob. 400; 88 S. C. 160; 192 U. S. 242; 4 R. C. L., p. 513; 6 Cyc., p. 312; 2 Black Res. and Can. Con., sections 617 and 630. This Court has time and again sustained the Circuit Judge where he has overruled the master’s report: 64 S. C. 256; 57 S. C. 218; 103 S. C. 450.
July 6, 1918.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
This is an action to set aside a deed and mortgage. The facts are stated in the report of the master which was in favor of the plaintiff, but was overruled by his Honor, the Circuit Judge; and the plaintiff has appealed.
The issues are discussed at length, both by his Honor, the Circuit Judge, and the master, who differ in their findings upon all the material questions of fact. This Court has reached the conclusion, that the preponderance of the testimony is against the findings of fact by the Circuit Judge, and that he erred in overruling the report of the master.
Reversed.