Fox v. Starbuck

West Virginia Supreme Court

Fox v. Starbuck

174 S.E. 484, 115 W. Va. 39, 1934 W. Va. LEXIS 8

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 8, 1934

Docket7790

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 174 S.E. 484 (Fox v. Starbuck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fox v. Starbuck, 174 S.E. 484, 115 W. Va. 39, 1934 W. Va. LEXIS 8 (W. Va. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Litz, Judge:

This suit was instituted in August, 1932, by E. B. Fox, sheriff of Summers 'County, and, as such, committee of Peter Cales, a mental defective, to cancel a deed dated August 4, 1931, from Peter Cales and A. V. Cales, his wife, to defendant, Josie Starbuck, conveying valuable real and personal estate in consideration of the grantee agreeing to support the grantors during their natural., lives and to provide a decent burial for .them after death. The alleged mental incapacity of Peter Cales and fraud practiced upon him by the grantee at the time of the execution of the conveyance constitute .the basis for' relief.

Petér Cales was adjudged a mental defective November 17, 1931, The circuit court entered a consent decree, *40 January 18, 1933, confirming the deed and dismissing the bill, upon the admission of plaintiff that Peter Cales was, at the time of making the deed mentally competent and had not been induced by deception or undue influence on the part of the grantee to execute the instrument. August 17, 1933, Peter Cales died, and, thirteen days later the suit was revived in the names of his heirs at law, as plaintiffs, in contemplation of an application by them for an appeal from the consent decree to this court.

The question presented is whether the committee of a mental defective as plaintiff in a suit may, by consent, waive or release the alleged rights of his charge. The answer must be in the negative. The. committee in such situation may no doubt have the suit dismissed, without prejudice, when he reaches an honest conclusion that it is not maintainable, but he cannot “waive or admit away any substantial rights of, or consent to anything which may be substantially prejudicial to, his ward.” 32 C. J. 777; Clark v. Knight, (Fla.) 94 So. 671; Calloway v. Dinsmore, 83 Va. 309, 2 S. E. 517. Tested by this rule, the decree complained of is clearly erroneous. It will, therefore, be set aside and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Litz, Judge:

This suit was instituted in August, 1932, by E. B. Fox, sheriff of Summers 'County, and, as such, committee of Peter Cales, a mental defective, to cancel a deed dated August 4, 1931, from Peter Cales and A. V. Cales, his wife, to defendant, Josie Starbuck, conveying valuable real and personal estate in consideration of the grantee agreeing to support the grantors during their natural., lives and to provide a decent burial for .them after death. The alleged mental incapacity of Peter Cales and fraud practiced upon him by the grantee at the time of the execution of the conveyance constitute .the basis for' relief.

Petér Cales was adjudged a mental defective November 17, 1931, The circuit court entered a consent decree, *40 January 18, 1933, confirming the deed and dismissing the bill, upon the admission of plaintiff that Peter Cales was, at the time of making the deed mentally competent and had not been induced by deception or undue influence on the part of the grantee to execute the instrument. August 17, 1933, Peter Cales died, and, thirteen days later the suit was revived in the names of his heirs at law, as plaintiffs, in contemplation of an application by them for an appeal from the consent decree to this court.

The question presented is whether the committee of a mental defective as plaintiff in a suit may, by consent, waive or release the alleged rights of his charge. The answer must be in the negative. The. committee in such situation may no doubt have the suit dismissed, without prejudice, when he reaches an honest conclusion that it is not maintainable, but he cannot “waive or admit away any substantial rights of, or consent to anything which may be substantially prejudicial to, his ward.” 32 C. J. 777; Clark v. Knight, (Fla.) 94 So. 671; Calloway v. Dinsmore, 83 Va. 309, 2 S. E. 517. Tested by this rule, the decree complained of is clearly erroneous. It will, therefore, be set aside and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.E. 484, 115 W. Va. 39, 1934 W. Va. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-starbuck-wva-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack