Williams v. . Williams

85 N.C. 313

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: October 5, 1881
• Status: Published

Opinion

Ashe, J.,

after stating the facts. The bill seems to be filed in the alternative with a double aspect, either to have the deeds made by the sheriff of Iredell to the defendant surrendered and cancelled, or to have the defendant declared a trustee for the plaintiffs and decreed to make title to them for a ratable portion of the lands in controversy, according to the stipulations in the bond given by the defendant to S. B. Williams, Russel Shoemaker and wife and L. B. Williams ; for the prayer of the bill is that the sheriff’s deeds .to the said James W. Williams be cancelled, or that he be decreed to reconvey the said land to the plaintiffs and the defendants according to their respective interests therein.

In the view we take.of the case, it is immaterial whether the sale of the land and the purchase by the defendant was bona fide, or affected by a fraudulent contrivance. If he obtained a title to the land by fraud, as the jury have found that he had done, it would be against equity and good conscience for him to hold the land ; and if, on the other hand, there was no fraud, and by his purchase he had acquired á good title, he is bound by his agreement with S. B. Williams A. L. Williams and Russel Shoemaker and wife, to make title to each of the plaintiffs, W. A. Williams, O. G. Williams, Melvin Williams and Milton Williams, for their several shares in the lands in proportion to the number of heirs, there being eight of them- at the- death of O. Williams the intestate.

It is in proof by the- testimony of the defendant, Shoemaker,, that the defendant, J. W. Williams, proposed that if the heirs of Offa Williams would pay a debt of the estate of three hundred and forty dollars,, he would make them su title for the land,, and that he, A. L-. Williams and S. R. Williams,, the only heirs of Offa Williams, who were-at the-time of lawful age, executed their notes to the said James-W. Williams, each for one hundred and thirteen dollars, and he executed a bond to them to make title to them, for portions of the landeq,u-alto their sharesrand'to> make title to-the minor heirs for their shares.- The defendant, James W. Williams, in his answer admits- be gave such-a bond, and; in one of his depositions he says he- did make a bond conditioned to make title to- said land to A. K Williams, S-. Bv Williams,, and either to Russel Shoemaker or his wife, “ E do not recollect which, and. to W. A. Williams, O’. Gr. Williams, M. E. Williams, and M. O. Williams,, be thought these were the parties to whom title was to- be made, when the youngest child became of age.”

In another deposition be- says that be did agree with A. L. Williams, Russel Shoemaker and wife and S. B.. Williams, that if they would pay him about three hundred and thirty-nine dollars, he. -would convey to them a part of the-land, and give to W. A. Williams-, O. G. Williams, M. E, Williams and M. 0. Williams the balance of the land without any consideration. This agreement vías made at the time the bond was given, and that the parties above named executed to him their three several bonds for one hundred and thirteen dollars each, and he says when he lifted the bond he- did make deeds to Russel Shoemaker and A. E, Williams for what he considered their share of the land at the time he took up-the bond.

There was other evidence in the case tending to show the ■agreement of the parties.

From all the evidence we think it is established, that the defendant James W. Williams did agree with Russel Shoemaker and wife, A. L. Williams and S. B. Williams, the ■only heirs of age at the time, that if they would pay him three hundred and thirty-nine 'dollars, a debt which the •estate owed to one Hugh Williams, and for which he was surety, that he would give them his bond to make title to' them for certain portions of the land equal to their sháres, and make title to the infant heirs of their shares as they severally became of age, and that the said Shoemaker, A. L. and S. B. Williams executed their notes each for the amount he had agreed to pay, and the bond for title was executed according to the agreement. It was one entire transaction, a contract made upon a valuable consideration, and is binding upon the defendant.

The defendant now seeks to avoid that part of the contract stipulating to make title to the minor heirs, by saying, it was without consideration as to them. But.it was an entire transaction, a contract made upon a valuable consideration, no matter by which of the parties paid, and the stipulation to make title to the minor heirs was as much a part of the contract as that to make title t-o the others.

Shoemaker has paid his note and received his deed for the part of the land agreed to be conveyed to him. A. L. Williams also received a deed for his share and resold it to the defendant for $250, in which we must presume his note was settled. The note given by S. B. Williams does not appear to have -been paid, nor does it appear that ho ever received a-deed for his portion.

In the view we have taken-of the case, we think it is Unnecessary to make any further inquiry in regard to the administration of the personal estate of the intestate, as the reference for an account seems to have been made mainly with the view of aiding the court in determining upon the question of fraud.

We are of the opinion the defendant must be declared to be a trustee for W. A. Williams, 0- G. Williams, M. E. Williams, and M. 0. Williams, and that he shall make a deed in fee simple to each of them'for one undivided eighth part oftall the lands purchased by him at the sheriff’s sale under his execution against the heirs of Offa Williams, deceased. And inasmuch as the note of one hundred and thirteen dollars given by S. B. Williams to the defendant James W. Williams has not been paid, and that he is dead and his interest in the land, to-wit, the portion agreed to be conveyed to him by the defendant, has descended to his brothers and sisters and the heirs of A. L. Williams', it is declared that the said debt shall be a charge on the interest so descended, and if upon sale thereof, it shall be sufficient to satisfy said debt with interest thereon, then it shall be a lien on the land herein decreed to be conveyed to the plaintiffs, W. A. Williams, 0. G. Williams, M. E. Williams, and M. 0. Williams, and it is adjudged the defendant James W. Williams, be taxed with the costs.

The suit is retained for further directions..

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly. ’