The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1897-04-14
THE MARKIi LIE CASE.
Decree for Compliments. Setting Deed
Aside-Opinion of the Court.


In the case George Markillie ct al.
heirs of the late William Markillie,
against Wealthy Markillie, widow OF
the deceased, ct al 81, wherein bill was
filed To set aside deed made by the
deceased To his wife, not long prior tn
his death, Judge Buck, on Monday last,
authorized decree in favor of com
plainants. Following is copy of the
opinion of the court:
"Complainants filed their bill OF COM
plant in this court praying Tor a decree
setting aside and declaring void GER
tain deed executed by one William
Markille, now deceased, in his life
time, to the defendant, Wealthy Mar
killie.
The testimony taken and offered
upon the hearing is quite voluminous
and il would be OF no possible use OF
advantage To any one to attempt to
classify it or discuss the bearing or
weight of any particular portion OF it.
A few general observations as TO the
weight and effect of the testimony as a
whole, is all that will be attempted.
"At the time of the execution of the
deed in question, William Markillie was
quite an aged man and it Is almost be-
yond question that he was in "A cOnsid-
erably advanced stage of senile demen-
tia. The witnesses differ radically AS
To whether his mind was SO far impair
ed as to render him incompetent To
execute the deed. After a careful con
sideration of all the testimony upon
that point, the court is of the opinion
that there is fair preponderance OF
the evidence i'm favor of the theory OF
the complainants that he was not men
tally competent to execute the deed.
1T is also claimed by the complain.
ants that the deed in question was not
the voluntary act of the grantor, but
was obtained by undue influence. In
deciding this question, regard must be
had to the age of the grantor, his men
tai and physical condition and his sur
roundings Ii the testimony as TO what
took place on the Sunday before the
deed was made and on the evening on
which il WAS executed were wanting,
there would not be sufficient evidence
to support the contention of the COM
plain ants. But think that the proofs
show quite clearly that the grantOr, if
left to himself, would have given life
lease and not a deed 10 his wife, and
that he was cOerced into giving the
latter by the implied threat of Allen
ODell that if the grantor would not
give the deed his wife would leave him
In his feeble condition of both mind
and body, this threat was not only cal.
cuated To, but doubtless did have the
effect of depriving the grantor of his
freedom of will and vii tually compel
ling him to execute deed instead of a
life lease.
"And while it is very true that, 'intlu-
ence obtained by modest persuasion and
arguments addressed to the understand
ing, or by mere appeal TO the affec-
tions, cannot be properly termed un-
due influence in any legal sense it
is also true that Influence obtained by
flattery, importantly, superiority of
will or character, or by what art soever
that human thought, ingenuity or cum
ming may employ, which would give
dominion of the will of the (grantor)
to such an extent as to destroy free
agency, or to constrain him to do
against his will what he would refuse,
is such an influence as the law con
dennis as undue, when exercised by
anyone over the tact in question:
whether by direction or indirection, or
obtained at one time or another
Schofield VS.. Walker, 50 Mich. 96-106
1T was very strongly urged by coun-
sci for defendants, upon the argument,
that the giving of the deed in question
was in pursuance of an ante-nuptial
promise made by William MarkilIie to
the defendant, Wealthy Markillie, and
that the proofs show that the former
did no more for the latter in conveying
the land to her than was suitable as a
recognition of the kindness shown by
her to him during their married life
The court has given due weight to
these facts, but they cannot avail To in.
vest the grantor with mental capacity
and freedom of will which were want
ing when the deed was executed, and
without which it could be of no valid
ity; and the proofs in the case show
that the defendant, Wealthy Markillie,
was not left by her husband wholly
without compensation for her labor and
care bestowed on him in the latter days
of his life.
"A decree may be entered according
to the prayer of the bill with costs.
GEORGE Nj. BUCK,