Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-01-19

under the power of another If there is inadeouacv
q price OF clear ground Of influence that eoni-
dence rePosed had been abused or aslvantars has
oeen taken q Ileompetency, weakness 81 Under
standing, or clouded o. enieebled faculties.
1t Is not necessary that the influence should be
due to antecedent or extraueous circurasiaress r.
may nave arisen in the course Of the same tansae-
ton in which it was exerted IL IS enourI ~ snow
such condition Of dependency from whatever
cause as to RAISE the presumption that the party
was unable to protect himself and to Justify tie il
terlereHce Of the law to protect him.
A conveyance made by man Of weak mind and
IN necessi0us circumstance for an uadeuuate con
sideration. has been set aside. and when man un-
acquainted with business and of feeble character.
was induced 20 sell legacy Of $4,000 for $500.
by means OF the influence acquired over bis gno-
rance Of affairs and eagerness to Obtain the aioney
at once to lead him to believe that the legacy was
not worth large sum in hand, and might not be
paul Tor many years, the sale was set aside.
Contracts made by persons under the influence Of
liquor without being completely intoxicated. are
governed by the same principles which apply in
other cases, where one party IS in position to ex
pose hln to the exercise Of an improper influence
by the other.
If carried SO far that the reasoning power IS de-
stroyed the contract is void but when it falls short
Of this, the contract win not be avoided unless I'M
due advantage has been taken by one party Of the
condition Of the other.
II a party has been led into hard and disadvan-
I
avoids IT, AID the same rule applies to persons
whose minds are enfeebed by habitual intoxicatOn,
although not actually intoxicated
But It seems contract viii not be set aside on the
sFOuhu OF undue influence, apart from fraud, when
proper in Itself and for the advantage of the marty
who seeks to avoid it as for instance. q convey
ance by man habitually incorporate but not actu-
ally drunk, OF all his property in trust for his wife
ana children, Chesterfield vs.. johnson, and notes;
waite and Tudor 40, 42l, Hugnenen vs.. Boseley,
and notes. White and Tudor 65. "A
These principles are decisive Of this case. We
are satisfied this conveyance was obtained in trust
| for eomplainant's wife and children and upon no
other condition can 1t be allowed to stand The ST.
OOO IN notes were merely intended to put complain
ant on until the estate could be settled and proDertv
secured to his wife and children and not intended
to be paid, but to be restored and the estate fixed
on them Defendant knew he could not readily sell
such notes nor his share in the notes 50 enanged;
and II ne did sell the notes. he could still save some
| thing for his wife and children We are moreover
satisfied from this record. that defendant in haste
and before administration or complainant had time
to know the debts or value of the estate managed
to become his adviser and friend, as to the DISPOSE
ton OF his share IN the estate-tO save t-nOt from
his eredltOrsfoF we doubtifhe had any credit-but
from himself and his habits, and for his family and
| children. IT so, his conduct was laudable. Why so
anxious as to his brothers share. even before his
/ fathers DEATH and after his death TO keep off a
sale to others2 And in this view the satisfaction ex
PAS~1SeA Cum VIII lLc dEfGugGuleLL
SO much relied on by the defendant has no force.
The attempt now to hold the property by defendant
mus be regarded as an after-thOught.
The transaction with Price is not in the way, for
he disclaims all interest in the notes. and complain
/ ant has them to surrender to defendant.
The Chancellor rejected the TOst material Of de-
! tendant's proof upon the ground Of incompetency
and Illegally, and refused to reject certain Of com
palnants dispositions as to character, and which are
not deemed very material but we have not thought
1t worth while to 90 into this. since think if we
allow defendants proof 50 rejected and reject the
compliments so excepted TO- the result is the same
| The wife and children of complainant are not par
ties, but the bill sets up the trust il their favor ana
without considering whether complainant might file
bill for the specific execution Of the contract bsJ5eeE
hl and defendant and to set up the trust in their be
| halt, it is enough that we have power to remand
| the case, that they may become parties Code sec
| 3I7O
! The decree of the Chancellor viii be reversed
the $1,000 in notes surrendered to defendant John
| Z. BirdsOng, and a trust of compliments entire
share in his fathers estate established in favor Of
| his wife and children
| The cause viii be remanded to the Cllancery
/ Court at Jackson, and the proper parties be made
| and that an account Of the compliments share il
the estate Of his father be had in which viii be en-
braced. the increase since his fathers Death. heirs
| rents and interests, making defendant all Just and
| proper allowances; and in the account an inquiry
! will be had as to the Announcements, and further
proof taken on that subject; and to this matter
! this Court now makes no decision
! Decree reversed. WRIGHT
! Test: N. D. WEIGH, Clerk