The Canton mail. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 18??-1882, 1876-02-12
FaOrEsn En- Thompson et al, VS.
William Va. SsriclxI u nd Ell al.

Opinion of the Court by i5IMRAEL, }.
This suit was begun originally by Thoma
III. Hudson and wife, and Morgan Ii
! Thompson. The latter has ceased to have
any interest in it, and it is now prosecuted
by Hudson and wife. The facts are these
1 james NJ. Thompson died in 1S4S, leaving
la large estate, in real and personal property
Mrs. Hudson. Morgan Ii Thomp son and
Mis- Strickland (wiie OF Nm. M Strck-
Iandl were his devi5ees. Strickland was
| appointed guardian for Mrs. Hudson. then
unmarried and a minor, and Morgan H.
Thompson, also a minOr.' The testa-
tor provided in his will, that the property
saould be kept together until the oungest
Child was OF age.
During the minority of his wards Strick-
land, without adequate consideration, in :
duced them to sell aud convey certain prop
erty situated in Holly Springs to him. In
1857, they were indHced to join Strickland
land to one Wall, and In ls5s, istiIhsbeing
under age and wards of Strickland, at the
suggestion of the latter, they executed an
agreement for a Partition of a large tract
of the lands descended from their father,
which was cOnsummated, and deeds in sew
crafty made. 1t this partition Mrs. SGrick-
land received the most valuable share.
Mrs. Hudson attained her majority inFeb-
ruary, 1861. And I'M 1866 she filed bill in
equity to vacate these conveyances. There
was a decree insthe Chancery Court in favor
of the defendants. -,.,;s.:...zx -. .
On appeal to the SUPP eme Court the only
question discussed and considered by the
Court was, whether Mrs. Hudson had lost
her right to disafiirm these acts because OF
her delay in asserting her rights in Court.
Held.
L. These transactions between the guar
dian and his wards in view of7ilis Influence
over them aud their confidence in him.
tirely fair, and unequivocally ratified by
them after attaining their majority.
II. There may be waiver ora right or the
confirmation of voidable act by acquies-
cence and an election TO abide by the act may
be Inferred from an unreasonable delay.
Reasonable diligence in taking steps to
avoid the act is required p E1r ~
HI. 1t is impossible to lay down a gener-
al rule as to- what. constitutes unreasonable
delay. each case must be determined by its
own peculiar circumstances t.f --
tV. In the case atsbar,y the delay in COM
nlen cling suit to- vacate- the sconveyances in
Kl49H of the attending events and circum-
STAGES. cannot be regarded as nnreasona-
be inferred from her failure during the pc
Rod from 1861 to 1866, to. assert her rights |
1nsa court OF justice, In January, 1861, |
theordinance of secession was passed; du- |
rihg the same year laws staying the collec-
ton of debts wereenacieds aud during part |
ct ibis period Holly SpItaRsa WAS occupied |
by khe Federal forces The war tecfmicallyt
cloSe ID April 2,,1ss6. During ali this period I
litfle attention was paid to private interests. !
Ia view of all these circumstances, Mrs. /
Hudson has not lost her right to disaffirm |
these acts by her delay in bringing suit.
V. 1t follows that the complainant is en-
titled to have these conveyances vacated,
and to be restored to her original rights as
joint owner; Strickland TO account for
rents for the town property, and for the |
other tract of land so far as ithas been pro-
ductive to him. .a.E -aes
(NoTE.-Because of the uncertainty OF
the title to the tract, conveyed to Wall, the |
Heed to him will not be disturbed Re-
persed and renadnded.