The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-12-17

speculative basis therein set forth. To |
that admission and to other estimates,
may, as counsel for defendant earnestly
and Justly insists, properly be applied
the caution Of conscious effort in the
estimate of the value of the property
to exclude from the mind the effect of
great increase of value following the
sale.'' Sullivan VS.. Pierce, 125 Fed
104. However, the trial court found
that the stock was worth 5000, and
that any sum from $62,500, the book
value, to $4,000 might have been con-
sidered to be the value of the stock III
January, 1900, by person fitted to
make an estimate. Counsel for plaintiff
contends, with much show of reason,
that, upon a fair construction Of the
record and testimony of defendants
own witnesses, the value Of plaintiff IS
interest was from $12,503.90 to 1885,
2S5.24. We are Of the opinion that the
evidence conclusively shows the consld-
GRAFTON to have been so grossly made.
quate and to lave resulted, in so great
and unequal an advantage to the ven.
dee as to entitle plaintiff to the relief
he seeks In Allore VS.. Jewell, 81 U. S.
500, the court said: "lt is not neeesc
sary, in order to secure the aid Of
equity, to prove that the deceased was
at the time insane or in such state of
mental imbeciGty as to render her en-
tirely incapable of executing valid
deed It is sufficient to show that, from
her sickness and infirmities, she was at
the time in a condition of great mental
weakness, and that there was gross in
adequacy of consideration for the con-
veyance.
although inadequacy of considera-
ton in and of itself is not a distinct
ground of equitable relief, and while,
when standing alone, it is ordinarily en-
titled to but little weight as evidence
Of fraud, yet when it is coupled with
oppression, or it appears that undue IN
fuence was asserted over the grantor or
mental incapacity the grantor did not
fully comprehend his acts or when by
the suppression of material facts or
through surprise or stress Of financial
circumstances he is led into an improyl-
dent bargain, equitable relief Will be
granted. " And see Hardy vs.: pya va
pointed out that in Fox VS.. Machreth,
Lead. Cas-. Eq. Vol. 1, PIT. l, p. 1873, the
estate was purchased for $4,000 pounds
as against a possible. but at the same
time very doubtful maximum of .5O,5O0
pounds, making the purchase price, at
the most, a possible discount OF about
20 per cent from the extreme maximum
value of the ESTATE eoo In n BiiF;dsong s VS. IS
was at most $1,000. In More VS.. More,
ST 900 out Of a possible $4,000. In
Hardy VS.. Dyas (Ill.), 81 N. F. S52, the
defendant bought property for $2,o001,
which the court concluded to, be worth
mony ranged from $4,000 to $1,000
In Kilgore VS.. Cross, l Fed. 57S, the
discrepancy was at most a few hundred
dollars. In Huguenin vs. Basely, Ia
Yes. Jr. 273, the property conveyed was
a leasehold, and in Bibson VS.. Jeyes
6 Yes. 266, it was an annuity; in neither
case was there any market or positive
each case the purchase>was made at the
} request of the vendor, but the court
Iord Elden) held that the relation II
the Basely case that of Rector and Par
ishioner, and in the Jeyes case that OF
retired solicitor (who had not acted TO-
plaintiff for many years., raised pre-
} sumption of invalidity in grounds o:
| from deriving" any profit from the trans
; actions and required their RECESSION. lr
} Tate vs. Williamson, L. r. 2 Oh. app
Cas- SIS; the plaintiff to whom relief wa:
granted parted with property WORT
) $4,000 pounds for 1000 pounds, part IL
cash and part in deferred payments:
} The final question here to be deter
mined is whether or not the trial cour
was justified in finding, as. it did, tina
"after the date on which the contrac
) was signed and before this action wa
,, commenced the plaintiff, when mental
L ly sound and fully competent and wit
full and accurate knowledge of all tn
facts relative thereto, in all things ar
!, proved, confirmed and ratified the sal
of said stock to defendant, and tn
9 contract evidencing it, For presen
ha HaH
] finding of conclusion of ultimate facts
. rather than a conclusion of law fro1
facts which are not found. 1t is to b
. noted, however, that it is conspicuous
wanting in any designation of speclfi
time of, and in any detail Of conduc
D constituting, ratification. It is not SUI
e tanned by the record.
: l. When was Edwin mentally SCUM
= and fully competent to ratify tn
1 when the contract was executed, an
e December s. 1903, when this action wa
t brought, there were times when h
n mind approached normal state an
= there were other times when, accort
e ing to the answer Of defendant, accep
I. ed for present purposes, he was in a
Il stages Of inebriation, from mere stiml
: lation to temporary insanity. 10 whlc
n of these times did the court refer? Tn
WuOlo VI Gue year I3oo IluSt NC CASltt'
9 ed, partly because Of his mental di
turbances and partly because in the la
IL ter part of it Edwin was preparing fc
: the present law suit.
T. Oct. IA, 1903. for the first time, az
! cording, to plaintiff s. testimony, b
II learned that he had a right to questio
u the stock transaction of Jan. Is. l9Ol
!; The action was commenced on Dec.
. 1908. Plaintiff s case was prepared du
y ing the interim. The defendant 8 coui
! sci insists that the testimony at TIL
|. time shows "that Thomas H. Shevlin
= conduct toward and treatment of h
J. brother during all this time at Buffal
:. and Dansville and at Lake Geneva wa
: in. every way kind and considerat
l. 4 Edwin G.. Shevlin had the
s. and during all the time Of this tria
>. had in mind an insane delusion in r.
! gard to his brother Thomas, and a pc
: sistent, and most unreasonable enmit
q toward him. y Out of the bite
IT feelings of hostility thus started VIZ
! the ground for this lawsuit Accor'
, ingly, the period during which Edwi
u was competent, according to the court
% finding, must have been subsequent
! Jan. Is. 1900, and anterior to Januar
- 1905. During this period Edwin w;
); some time in Minneapolis. in Californ
T. and abroad, and for some months ira
ls1 eled with his wife and with Mr.. ar
D. Mrs. Thomas Shevlin; during none of
Fl was he engaged in any occupation ar
g according to the answer was IN sue
:, a state that no stranger would ha,
q, retained him in any employment.
10 The details of the testimony as to h
~ conditions in these wanderings ha'