Case Name: Caulk v. Burt
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1917-03
Citations: 114 Miss. 487
Docket Number: 
Parties: Caulk v. Burt.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 487–490

Head Matter:
Caulk v. Burt.
[75 South. 369—73 South. 618,
In Banc.]
Deeds. Cancellation. Inequitable advantage of grantee.
Where an aged inebriate, a pensioner on the charities of the public and threatened with the loss of his annuity, was induced by a shrewd business man, the self appointed custodian of two wills under which property was devised to such inebriate, to deed him the property so devised him, for a grossly inadequate consideration, in such case the court will cancel such deed on the ground that an inequitable advantage was taken of the grantor.
Appeal from the chancery court of'Bolivar county.
Hon. Joe May, Chancellor.
On suggestion of error. For former opinion see 112 Miss. 660.
Tim E. Cooper, B. J. Semmes and Somerville S Somerville, for appellant.
Fontaine Jones, and Green & Green, for appellee.

Opinion:
Cook, P. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was affirmed by Division B. of this court some time since, and the opinion then rendered may be found reported in 73 So. 618.- It is again before the court upon suggestion of error, and there being a division of opinion between the judges, the case is now considered by the court as a whole. A careful consideration of the record has convinced a majority of. the court that Division B erred in its former disposition of this appeal.
The record discloses that appellant was an aged inebriate, a pensioner upon the State, and that, by the conveyance he seeks to have canceled, he conveyed to appellee his entire patrimony for a grossly inadequate consideration. The appellee, on the other hand, was a much younger man, and had a decided advantage of appellant.
Two wills figured in the trade, one of which appellant never saw, and both of which were in the possession of appellee. We do not think it is important whether or not appellee ivas a trustee of the two wills. He was, without question, the custodian of the wills; he had employed lawyers, and he knew exactly what he wanted, and in the end obtained the property at a grossly inadequate price. While it is said that appellant also took legal advice before he executed the conveyances, we believe that the record shows that he did not.
On the side of the appellant in this case, we find an aged inebriate, a pensioner on the charities of the public, threatened with the loss of his annuity, followed by a consequent drouth. On the other side, we see a shrewd business man, in the possession of all his faculties, also the self-elected custodian of the two .wills so important to appellant, and fortified by expert advice — in a word, appellee had the whip hand and used it. It is quite clear that Burt was the mental superior of Caulk; that he had every advantage and exact knowledge of the true state of affairs, and taking the record as a whole there can be no doubt that Caulk was in no condition to take care of himself. The gross inadequacy of consideration alone might not justify a cancellation of the conveyances, but this in connection with Caulk's forlorn situation — his pauperism, his age, and his thirst for alcoholic stimulants — convinces us that Burt has gained an inequitable advantage, not to be approved by courts of justice.
Reversed and remanded.