Penland v. . Wells

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Penland v. . Wells

159 S.E. 423, 201 N.C. 173, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 205

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 27, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 159 S.E. 423 (Penland v. . Wells) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Penland v. . Wells, 159 S.E. 423, 201 N.C. 173, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 205 (N.C. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

BeogdeN, J.

Can á father compel bis daughter to reconvey land conveyed by him to tbe daughter for tbe purpose of defeating threatened litigation and thereby preserving bis property for bis own use and benefit %

Tbe principles of law applicable to tbe facts have been discussed in many cases in this jurisdiction, notably: Pinckston v. Brown, 56 N. C., 494; Turner v. Eford, 58 N. C., 106; York v. Merritt, 77 N. C., 213 (80 N. C., 285); Harrell v. Wilson, 108 N. C., 97; Bank v. Adrian, 116 N. C., 538; Pierce v. Cobb, 161 N. C., 300. See, also, Annotation 4 A. L. R., 144. In York v. Merritt, supra, tbe Court said: “Where both parties have united in a transaction to defraud another, or others, *176 or the public, or the due administration of the law, or which is against public policy, or contra¡ bonos mores, the courts will not enforce it in favor of either party.” The entire doctrine is based upon the “clean hands” concept of equity. The plaintiff alleges “that prompt action was necessary in order to defeat such litigation and thereby preserve his property for his own use and benefit.” While the plaintiff denies that there was any merit in the threatened litigation, it is quite obvious that he was attempting to get his fodder out of the field before the storm broke.

Moreover, the law condemns, in proper cases, the tying of a parol trust for the benefit of the grantor, to an absolute conveyance of property. Gaylord v. Gaylord, 150 N. C., 222; Williams v. McRackan, 186 N. C., 381.

The plaintiff has stated a cause of action for the item of $400. If he gave $400 to his daughter, the defendant, to give to her mother, which she declined and refused to do, then she has in her possession $400 that belongs to the plaintiff, and the trial judge was correct in overruling the demurrer to the $400 item.

The ruling of the trial judge upon the $1,060 item was correct for the reason that if plaintiff’s wife had $1,060 at her death which had been wrongfully converted by a third party, then the cause of action for the recovery of such property vested in the personal representatives of the wife.

The Court concludes upon the record that the trial judge should have sustained the demurrer to the cause of action for the reconveyance of the land; overruled it upon the $400 item; and sustained it upon the $1,060 item.

Affirmed in part.

Reversed in part.

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

BeogdeN, J.

Can á father compel bis daughter to reconvey land conveyed by him to tbe daughter for tbe purpose of defeating threatened litigation and thereby preserving bis property for bis own use and benefit %

Tbe principles of law applicable to tbe facts have been discussed in many cases in this jurisdiction, notably: Pinckston v. Brown, 56 N. C., 494; Turner v. Eford, 58 N. C., 106; York v. Merritt, 77 N. C., 213 (80 N. C., 285); Harrell v. Wilson, 108 N. C., 97; Bank v. Adrian, 116 N. C., 538; Pierce v. Cobb, 161 N. C., 300. See, also, Annotation 4 A. L. R., 144. In York v. Merritt, supra, tbe Court said: “Where both parties have united in a transaction to defraud another, or others, *176 or the public, or the due administration of the law, or which is against public policy, or contra¡ bonos mores, the courts will not enforce it in favor of either party.” The entire doctrine is based upon the “clean hands” concept of equity. The plaintiff alleges “that prompt action was necessary in order to defeat such litigation and thereby preserve his property for his own use and benefit.” While the plaintiff denies that there was any merit in the threatened litigation, it is quite obvious that he was attempting to get his fodder out of the field before the storm broke.

Moreover, the law condemns, in proper cases, the tying of a parol trust for the benefit of the grantor, to an absolute conveyance of property. Gaylord v. Gaylord, 150 N. C., 222; Williams v. McRackan, 186 N. C., 381.

The plaintiff has stated a cause of action for the item of $400. If he gave $400 to his daughter, the defendant, to give to her mother, which she declined and refused to do, then she has in her possession $400 that belongs to the plaintiff, and the trial judge was correct in overruling the demurrer to the $400 item.

The ruling of the trial judge upon the $1,060 item was correct for the reason that if plaintiff’s wife had $1,060 at her death which had been wrongfully converted by a third party, then the cause of action for the recovery of such property vested in the personal representatives of the wife.

The Court concludes upon the record that the trial judge should have sustained the demurrer to the cause of action for the reconveyance of the land; overruled it upon the $400 item; and sustained it upon the $1,060 item.

Affirmed in part.

Reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.E. 423, 201 N.C. 173, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penland-v-wells-nc-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack