Court Opinion

ID: 9808185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:29:52.770734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:46.339420
License: Public Domain

CoNNOR, J.,
dissenting: The exception to his Honor’s refusal to submit the issue tendered by plaintiff is based upon a misconception of defendants’ answer. In the first answer filed the feme defendant alleged that she was induced to sign the contract by the false and fraudulent representations off plaintiff’s agent. This answer, by permission of the Court,, was amended and the charge of fraud expressly withdrawn.. *347Tbis was, in the light of the evidence, proper. I do not find any evidence of fraud on the part of any one connected with the transaction. I have no doubt that the contract was made by the husband to sell the land, and that it was fairly and correctly read, in the manner and under the circumstances testified to. It is entirely natural that the feme defendant did not hear it, or at least did not do so understandingly; that, knowing her husband was selling to a lumber company, she supposed the sale was of the timber only, and that “she did not feel deeply interested about it.” It is but common justice to so interpret the conduct of all parties. His Honor correctly interpreted the answer, wherein the feme defendant says “that she never legally consented to the conveyance of the land itself, nor acknowledged the execution of said option, as required by law. She further insists that, in equity, she ought not .and cannot be compelled to specifically perform a contract for the conveyance of land which she signed with the belief that it was a contract for the conveyance of timber on the land alone, which she repudiated as soon as informed that it- did purport to concern the land, and which she never acknowledged, as required by the law governing the contracts and conveyances of married women.” Her defense is substantially a plea of non est factum. It may be conceded that if she were mi Juris her failure to read the deed, or give proper attention to its contents when read in her presence, coupled with the fact that there was no mistake on the part of the plaintiff, would bar her of any equitable relief for rescission or reformation. If sid juris, signing and delivery, in the absence of fraud or mutual mistake, would have made a completed contract valid at law, and, for the reasons stated, beyond, the power of a court of equity to rescind or reform. She contends, however, that .before the last and essential act was done which bound her she gave notice of her dissent, and the reasons therefor. The question thus presented is, in an important respect, different from the cases cited in the *348opinion, wherein a married woman, with knowledge of tbe act and its legal effect upon her property rights, acknowledges the execution of the deed, free from the control or undue influence of her husband and all other persons', and thereafter seeks to avoid it by averring that her acknowledgment was not true; that, notwithstanding her solemn statement to the contrary, she was coerced, etc. In such cases she attacks the certificate for fraud alleged to have been practiced upon her by her husband or some other person. It was formerly held that she was estopped by the certificate, and could have relief only in equity. Woodbourne v. Gorrell, 66 N. C., 82. The statute in this respect has been changed, as pointed out in Jones v. Cohen, 82 N. C., 15, and other cases. The ease with which this charge could be made, the difficulty of successfully meeting it, and the frequency with which it was made endangered titles to land in the hands of bona fide grantees and purchasers for value, without notice of such alleged fraud. To meet the evil the General Assembly wisely enacted, at its session of 1889, a statute (now section 956 of the Kevisal) protecting innocent grantees and purchasers. While the answer to the first issue is in accordance with the weight of the testimony, it is not decisive of the case, but, followed by the answer to the second issue, sustains the defendant’s contention in regard to the manner in which the acknowledgment was taken. The principal question for decision, therefore, is presented by the plaintiff’s exception to the charge. His Honor, upon the second issue, told the jury, if they found, the burden of proof being upon the defendant, that “at the time of taking her acknowledgment she did say that she signed the contract thinking it was only for the sale of timber, they will answer the second issue. ‘No.’ ” It is too elementary to require the citation of authority that a married woman can convey her real estate or interest therein only in the manner and by complying with the essential requisites prescribed by law. Unless she does so, her signature *349and delivery of a deed or contract concerning ber land is absolutely void, both at law and in equity. Scott v. Battle, 85 N. C., 184, and numerous other cases in onr reports. Acknowledgment and private examination by some one of the officers named in the statutes, and in the manner pointed out, is necessary to the valid execution of a deed or contract to convey. Until the last act in the proceeding lias been done, and the matter has passed beyond the control of the' officer, the contract is incomplete, and she may retract her signature; hence it is that she must not only acknowledge that she signed it freely, voluntarily, etc., but, what is equally essential, she must declare that “she still assents thereto.” So long as it is the policy of the Legislature to restrict the power of married women to dispose of their real estate and place around them the protective provisions found in our statutes, it is our duty to enforce the law in accordance with its spirit. The Legislature, to meet new conditions, has enlarged the number of officers having jurisdiction to take these examinations, and removed many of the strict requirements which were formerly found in the statute. The law still requires that she acknowledge the due execution of the deed, etc. There is great wisdom in the observations of Judge Ruffin in regard to the manner in which this duty should be performed. In Burgess v. Wilson, 13 N. C., 306, he says: “After confession in open court, she is then to be examined, where, in privacy and with self-collection, which a timid female in the presence of a crowd and overawed by the authority of her husband might not be able to command in public, that she may have an opportunity of retracting her deed after her interests have been weighed by her and her rights explained by an intelligent and upright judicial officer.” While the law has in some respects been changed, it would be well for clerks and other officers having probate jurisdiction to read and observe the language of this great and wise Judge. To permit the wife to be bound by a contract to release her dower, when she, in *350the presence of the plaintiff’s agent, the witness to the deed, and the officer taking the probate, coupled her statement that she signed the paper freely, etc., with the declaration that when she did so she thought it was a contract for the sale of the timber, it seems to ns, would be trifling with the statutory protection thrown around her by the Legislature. There is no substantial difference in the testimony. Plaintiff’s witness, Harper, and the justice corroborate Mrs. Leonard. There is, as we have said, no fraud charged or proven on the part of any one. She simply did not execute the contract as the law requires. If notice to the plaintiff of what occurred wás necessary, it is shown by the evidence that Captain Alston, the agent of plaintiff, was present, heard and saw what occurred — in fact, took part in the conversation. The case does not come within the language or the spirit of section 956 of the Revisal. While it may be that the officer taking an acknowledgment of a married woman is not required to understand and explain to her all of the provisions of the deed, if, before he has completed the examination and affixed his certificate, he has good reason to think that she does not fully understand its contents and its legal effect upon her rights, common prudence and fairness to her suggest, if they do not demand, that he withhold his certificate. In McCaskill v. McKinnon, 121 N. C., 214, the Judge instructed the jury that it was the duty of the officer taking the examination to explain the deed to her, etc. This instruction was approved by this Court. It must be conceded that language is found in the opinion in Benedict v. Jones, 129 N. C., 470, difficult to reconcile with what is said in McCaskill v. McKinnon, supra. In Benedict v. Jones the wife simply said that she signed it freely, etc., but “she did not know what the paper was.”
Without calling into question the correctness of the decision in that case, I think the language of the wife here was much more positive and free from ambiguity. While it is *351true that the exact language of the statute may not be required, it is equally true that, if, notwithstanding the formal use of its exact language, it is apparent to the’ officer taking the examination that the mind of the wife does not assent to the act, or that she does not understand it, he should not “stick in the -bark” by contenting himself with formal answers to questions, but look to the substance of the judicial procedure in which he is engaged, .and refuse to proceed until satisfied that the feme covert understands what she is doing. The verdict was in accordance with the evidence. Counsel for defendants earnestly insist that, if the admitted facts were insufficient to sustain the plea of non esb factum, they disclose a case in which the Court will refuse specific performance, and leave the plaintiff to work out its remedy by an action for damages. There is much force in the position, and, in view of the fact that the plaintiff is not out of pocket any money, nor has otherwise changed its position by reason of the conduct of the feme defendant, and the contract was unilateral, plaintiff assuming no liability whatever, I should hesitate to decree specific performance compelling the wife to release her inchoate dower. While much has been said by writers on equity jurisprudence and by chancellors regarding the rules by which courts are governed in decreeing specific performance, I have not found any statement of the doctrine more satisfactory than that in Leigh v. Crump, 36 N. C., 299 : “Even though the contract of which specific performance is sought be valid at law, and, if it had been executed by the parties, could not be set aside because of any vice in its nature, yet, if its strict performance be, under the circumstances, harsh and inequitable, a court of equity will not decree such performance, but leave the party claiming it to his legal remedy.” Pendleton v. Dalton, 92 N. C., 185. The contract should be fair, just, certain and understood by and between the parties. Tillery v. Land, 136 N. C., 546.