Tomlins Ex Rel. Ledbetter v. Cranford

Barnhill, J. The record states that the case was called at a time counsel for defendants was not in court and the court denied a motion to continue for that reason. Nothing further is made to appear. Hence the disposition of the motion was within the discretion of the presiding judge. But see Moore v. Dickson, 74 N. C., 423. The defendants, it is true, set forth in their brief certain facts, controverted in part by plaintiff, leading up to and causing the absence of counsel at the time the ease was unexpectedly reached for trial. But the Supreme, Court can judicially know only what appears of record. S. v. DeJournette, 214 N. C., 575, 199 S. E., 920; Utilities Com. v. Kinston, 221 N. C., 359, 20 S. E. (2d), 322; S. v. Morgan, 225 N. C., 549. Perhaps defendants may draw some consolation from the provisions of G. S., 1-220. At least the procedure therein provided is still open to them. The motion to dismiss as in case of nonsuit was made for the first time at the conclusion of all the evidence. Hence the exception thereto brings up no question for review. Even so, under the circumstances, we have reviewed the testimony and find therein evidence sufficient to require the submission of appropriate issues to the jury. “When insanity is once shown to exist, there is a presumption that it continues.” Beard v. R. R., 143 N. C., 137; Wood v. Sawyer, 61 N. C., 251 (277); In re Craven, 169 N. C., 561, 86 S. E., 587. Furthermore *326 there was evidence, other than the adjudication, that plaintiff did not have sufficient mental capacity to know and understand what she was about when she signed the deed. A deed executed by a person who has been adjudged to be insane, sans proof of restoration of sanity, is void. Wadford v. Gillette, 193 N. C., 413, 137 S. E., 314. For this reason, perhaps, defendants’ knowledge or want of knowledge of plaintiff’s mental condition was immaterial. This we need not decide, for the jury found, on competent evidence coming from defendants, that they had notice of plaintiff’s insanity. But defendants contend that this evidence of notice related only to the male defendant, that the feme defendant is the grantee, and there is no evidence she had any knowledge thereof. This contention is supported by the record, but it will not avail them. All the evidence tends to show that the male defendant, in procuring the deed, was acting as agent for his wife. Notice to him was notice to her. She now ratifies his acts and claims the fruits of his efforts. She cannot claim the one and escape the other. Defendants plead the right to a return of the purchase price and to compensation for improvements or betterments in the event the annulment of the deed is decreed, and pray judgment therefor. "While the court submitted an issue as to the value of the alleged improvements it gave no charge thereon and the issue was not answered by the jury. The court, after verdict, rendered no decree in respect thereto. Hence the cause must remain on the docket, at the election of the defendants, for the determination of this plea as to which we express no opinion. The other exceptions entered by the defendants likewise fail to disclose error. Hence, on this record, the judgment must be affirmed. No error.