Coker v. Virginia-Carolina Joint-Stock Land Bank, Inc.

ClabKsoN, J. Tbe question presented: Does N. C. Code 1931 (Micbie), see. 4103, authorize a married woman under tbe age of 21 years to convey ber interest in tbe borne site as defined in said statute? We think not. It is alleged in tbe complaint tbat tbe land in controversy contained fifty-five acres, and it being tbe only borne and all tbe land owned by plaintiffs. Tbat at tbe time of tbe execution of tbe deed of trust to tbe Southern Trust Company, trustee for tbe Yirginia-Carolina Joint-Stock Land Bank, Inc., Eutb Coker was 16 years of age. “And tbat sbe has not, since becoming of age, by word, act, or deed confirmed tbe signing of said deed of trust, and tbat it has not been three years since sbe became 21 years old.” *44 N. C. Code 1931 (Michie), sec. 4103, is as follows: “No deed or other conveyance, except to secure purchase money, made by the owner of a home site, which shall include the residence and other buildings, together with the particular lot or tract of land upon which the residence is situated, whether actually occupied by said owner or not, shall be valid to pass possession or title during the lifetime of the wife without the voluntary signature and assent of his wife, signified on her private examination according to law: Provided, the wife does not commit adultery, or has not and does not abandon the husband and live separate and apart from him.” Sections 997, 4102, and 4103 (a) (b), are separate and distinct statutes and have no application to the facts in the present case. In regard to the “home site” so far as the rights of the wife are concerned, the statute is mandatory. The language is that “no deed or other conveyance, except to secure purchase money . . . shall be valid to pass possession, or title, during the lifetime of the wife,” etc. This whole matter was thoroughly discussed in Boyd v. Brooks, 197 N. C., 644, and the act held constitutional. In that case the wife did not join in the conveyance of the “home site” as required by the statute. In the present case she joined in the conveyance of the “home site,” but was an infant under 21 years of age, and from the complaint has never ratified the conveyance within three years after she became of age. The general rule is that contracts of an infant are voidable at the option of the infant, and when avoided the contract is null and void ab initio. Pippen v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co., 130 N. C., 23; Morris Plan Co. v. Palmer, 185 N. C., 109; Collins v. Norfleet-Bagg's, 197 N. C., 659. To the general rule there are exceptions, such as necessities and certain statutory exceptions. N. C. Code (Michie), secs. 220 (i); 994; 4103 (b), supra; 5181 (Building and Loan Association), and perhaps others. For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is Affirmed.