Page images
PDF
EPUB

(No. 27.)

By the heirs of a deceased grantor, of weak understanding, to vacate a deed of real estate obtained by undue influence and without sufficient consideration.

Title of the Cause.

The above named plaintiffs, complaining of the above named defendants, allege the following facts, constituting their cause of action:

That all the above named plaintiffs are the children and constitute all the heirs at law of A. B., late of, &c., deceased.

That said A. B. died on or about the

intestate.

That on or about the

day of

day of, the said A. B. was seized and possessed of the following described lands and tenements, situate, &c.: [Describing them.]

That being so seized and possessed, the said A. B., on or about the day last mentioned, was induced and persuaded, as hereinafter set forth, to execute, acknowledge and deliver to the defendant a deed of a portion of said premises, to wit, a house and lot, situate, &c.: [Describing the premises.]

That said premises so conveyed, as plaintiffs are informed and believe, are worth the sum of $3,000.

That the consideration mentioned in said deed is the sum of $1,000, and that, as plaintiffs are further informed and believe, but a very inconsiderable part of such consideration was actually paid or rendered said A. B., that is to say, not more than $50 in money, in small sums from time to time, as his necessities might require, and the value of not exceeding $100 more in boarding the said A. B. for a period of about six months immediately preceding his death.

That said A. B., at the time of the execution of said conveyance, was about seventy-eight years of age.

That his mental faculties had become considerably impaired by reason of sickness and old age, and had been so for several years prior to his death, and to such a degree as to render him incapable of guarding himself from imposition, or of the prudent and proper management of his affairs.

That for more than ten years prior to the month of — last, the said A. B. resided in said house, so conveyed, with said A. D. B., his son, and one of the plaintiffs in this action, where he was suitably provided with everything necessary for his comfortable maintenance, and where he was treated with the utmost kindness and attention by said A. D. B. and the members of his family.

That in said month of last, he left the house of said plaintiff, A. D. B., without assigning any cause therefor, and in opposition to the remonstrances and pursuasions of said A. D. B., and went to reside with the defendant, at his dwelling, about a mile distant from the residence of said A. D. B.

That, as plaintiffs are informed and believe, he was induced to do so by the persuasions of said defendant, made with the intention and design, as plaintiffs believe, of improperly obtaining from said A. B. a portion of his property.

That said A. B. continued to reside with said defendant from the time he left the residence of said A. D. B., up to the time of his death, and during that period never visited the said A. D. B. or any other member of the family, although he was frequently and kindly requested so to do, but seemed, on every occasion, when spoken to by them, to desire to shun all intercourse and conversation with any member of his family, and very rarely left the premises of the defendant.

And the plaintiffs allege, upon their information and belief, that said defendant, contriving and intending to defraud said A. B. of his property, or a portion thereof, attempted to, and did, without cause, prejudice the mind of said A. B. against the members of his own family, and by means of false representations and improper and undue influence, aided by the weakness of understanding of the said A. B., did prevail upon him to execute, acknowledge and deliver the above mentioned conveyance of said premises, and for no other consideration, whatever, than as hereinbefore mentioned.

That said deed was recorded in the clerk's office of county, on the, &c., and said defendant has not attempted to convey said premises.

Wherefore the plaintiffs demand judgment, that the said deed may be declared null and void, and may be canceled and discharged of record, and that the title of the plaintiffs in and to said premises, and every part thereof, may be confirmed and established, as against said defendant and all persons claiming through or under him, or for such other, &c. [as in No. 1].

(No. 28.)

By the grantor, to set aside and declare void his own deed, for fraud and undue influence, and on account of his mental incapacity.

SUPREME COURT-SCHOHARIE COUNTY.

John Walker
agt.

Ira Hubbard, as administrator, Elizabeth M. Spencer, widow and administratrix, Orlando Spencer, as administrator and heir, and William M. Spencer and Jared Spencer, heirs of Chancellor Spencer, deceased.'

The complaint of John Walker, the plaintiff in this suit, respectfully shows, that he will be 83 years old on the 23d day of September, 1849, and has, for above 40 years, last past, resided in the town of Broome, Schoharie county.

That he has a wife and six children, now living (one son and five daughters); that another son of said plaintiff died on or about the 15th of December, 1846, leaving a widow and seven children, all residents of said county.

That the plaintiff, in December, 1846, had a severe attack of fever, which confined him to his house, and most of the time to his bed, till the month of April, 1847.

That the mind of said plaintiff, from the effects of such sickness, added to the infirmities of age and physical debility, became so impaired as to render him wholly inca

1 The conveyance sought to be set aside is in the nature of a lease during the life of the plaintiff, with remainder to the heirs of the lessee and grantee, in fee; the grantee having died before the termination of the lease, his administrators, as well as his heirs, are made parties defendant. [See, post, 145.]

pable of transacting his own business, and to make him wholly dependent upon others for the management of his affairs, and that the said plaintiff has ever since remained, and is now, weak in body and mind, and incapable of managing his business affairs with adequate discretion.

That one Chancellor Spencer (now deceased), who was the son-in-law of the said plaintiff, had acted as the counselor and adviser of said plaintiff, in most of his business transactions, for a long time previous to such sickness; and that during such sickness, possessing the entire confidence of said plaintiff, he, the said Chancellor, acted as the attorney and general agent of said plaintiff, in all of his business transactions, and exercised entire and exclusive control over the same.

That the said plaintiff, on the 19th day of April, 1847, and for a long time previous thereto, was the owner in fee of a certain farm at his said place of residence, worth, at least, $3,500, which constituted his whole property, except a small amount of personal property, not exceeding enough to pay the demands against him.

That the said Chancellor, designedly, to obtain the property aforesaid of said plaintiff for little or no consideration, knowing the influence he already possessed over said plaintiff, with the design aforesaid, and the better to enable him to accomplish his purposes, appeared to take an unusual interest in the welfare of the said plaintiff, and by flattery and various other devices, as the confidant, adviser and attorney of said plaintiff, acquired such an undue influence over him as to obtain and exercise entire control of the mind and business matters of the said plaintiff.

That said plaintiff, still being so enfeebled and weak in mind, and incompetent, and under the influence of the said Chancellor, was induced and influenced by the said

« PreviousContinue »