Case ID: ala_39/html/0063-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "R. W. WALKER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PHILLIPS’ ADM’R vs. PHILLIPS.
    ¿BU,!. IN EQUITY FOR CANCELLATION OR GIFT, ON GROUND OF FRAUD UNDUE INFLUENCE, AC.]
    1, Revision of chancellor’s decree on question of fact. — The appellate court will not reverse the decision of the chancellor on' a question of fact, unless satisfied that there was a decided preponderance of the evidence against the conclusion attained hy him.
    Appeal from the Chancery Court at Troy.
    Heard before the Hon. M. J. Saffold.
    The bill in this case was filed, on the 28th March, 1855, "by William G. Phillips, as the administrator of the estate of William Phillips, deceased, against Tabitha Phillips, who was the daughter of said decedent, and William Phillips, jr., and Greenberry Phillips, who were the illegitimate children of said Tabitha ; and sought to cancel and set aside, on the grounds of. fraud, undue influence, and mental incapacity, three deeds of gift, by which said decedent, a few months before his death, conveyed to his said grandsons certain lands, slaves, and other property. Answers were filed by Tabitha Phillips and the guardian ad litem of the other defendants, denying the charges of fraud, undue influence, <fcc., and insisting on the validity of the deeds of gift. On final hearing, on pleadings and proof, the chancellor dismissed the bill; and his decree is now assigned as error.
    MaetxN, Baldwin & Sayre, for appellant.
    Pugh & Bullook, contra.
    
   R. W. WALKER, J.

Appellate courts are wisely reluctant to disturb the decisions of a chancellor upon mere questions of fact. In the present case, the onus was upon the complainant to establish the charges of the bill; and we would be unwilling to reverse the decree of the chancellor, unless satisfied that there was a decided preponderance of tbe evidence against tbe conclusions adopted by him. As is not unusual in cases of this sort, tbe conflict in tbe evidence is considerable. Undoubtedly, there is a good deal of testimony which tends strongly to establish the donor’s mental incapacity ; but no inconsiderable portion of this proceeds from witnesses whose credit has been successfully impeached. Oh the other hand, quite a number of witnesses sustain the capacity of the donor, and the testimony of some of them is very emphatic and satisfactory. On the whole, we are not so well convinced that the chancellor erred in his decision upon the question of fact submitted to him, that we are willing to reverse his decree; and it must, therefore, be affirmed.