Case ID: mich_115/html/0014-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Moore, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TROMBLEY v. HOFFMANN.
    Appeal — Cancellation of Deed — Sufficiency of Evidence.
    A decree dismissing a bill to set aside a deed for undue influence and mental incompetency was affirmed; the record not disclosing such a condition of affairs surrounding the execution and delivery of the deed as would justify its cancellation.
    Appeal from Wayne; Eldredge, J., presiding.
    Submitted October 8, 1897.
    Decided November 17, 1897.
    Bill by Elmer Trombley, an infant, by Nicholas Lang, his next friend, against George Hoffmann and Lotta Hoffmann, to set aside a deed. On the death of complainant, the suit was revived in the names of Nicholas Lang, administrator, and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      Morse Rohnert, for complainants.
    
      William Look and Ira G. Humphrey, for defendants.
   Moore, J.

In the early part of 1893, Richard Trombley married Annie Hoffmann, a widow. Richard Trombley and Annie Trombley are now both dead. The complainants are heirs at law of Richard Trombley. The defendants are the heirs at law of Annie Trombley. April 25, 1893, Richard Trombley deeded to his wife, Annie Trombley, certain real estate in Detroit. Mr. Trombley died May 1, 1893. This proceeding is brought to set aside that deed upon the ground that i.t was procured by the undue influence of the wife, and also upon the ground that Mr. Trombley was not competent to make the deed when it was made. The circuit judge found that complainants had failed to sustain their case, and dismissed the bill of complaint.

The questions involved are purely questions of fact. It would not profit any one to discuss these questions at length. It will be sufficient to say that a careful reading of the record does not disclose such a condition of affairs surrounding the execution and delivery of the deed as would justify any court in annulling it.

Decree is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.