Daily Kennebec journal., 1907-10-31
Decree Of Justice Spear
In Deed Case.
Court Rules That Mr.. Stevens
Was Of Sound Mind
When He Made Transfer Of His
Property to the Defendants.

! equity brought by Herman H. Adams,
i qua riiian Of the late Llewellyn X.
Stevens of Belgrade versus Ernest A.
/ Cook and Minnie NJ. Cook, also of Bel
grade, ordering and decreeinG that the
plaintiffs bills he and hereby is dis
| missed with costs.
This case was begun before AS
| Sociate Justice Spear. without JURY,
| last Friday, and the arguments in the
action We're made Tuesday. Several
| witnesses testified in the case and
great deal Of interest was manifested
! in the outcome Of it.
The plaintiffs alleged that the late
| Mr.. Stevens was Of unsound mind May
| Is, 1905. when he decided his home and
| gave u bill of sale of all his personal
! property to the defendants. The
plaintiffs further alleged that the de-
! PENDANTS used undue influence on the
| late Mr.. Stevens to have him transfer
his property
f. NJ. Thompson. Esq, of Augusta
| appeared as counsel for the plaintiff
and George w. Heselton. Esq. OF
| Gardiner for the defendants.
The following is the decree Of Justice
, Spear in fun:
STATE OF MAINE.
! Kennebec. IS.
! Supreme Judicial court. In equity.
Llewcllyn X. Stevens by II. IL.
! Adams. guardian. Clinton H. Stew
! ems. administrator of the estate of
p; said I.lewellyn X. Stevens who ap-
| peared a; the October term of said
| court. 1907. vs.. Ernest A. Cook. ct
Il. No. 4OS.
October 29th. 1867.
| This cause came on to be heard this
| day and was argued by counsel. and
| thareupon in consideration thereof, it is
ordered. adjuGgCd and decreed that the
plaintiffs hill be and hereby is, dis
| missed With costs.
| A. NJ. Spear. justice. hearing the
| cause. The facts upon which the
| above decree is based are as follows:
Llewellyn X. Stevens on May Ii. 1905.
| at that time a widoWer of less than q
month, transferred all his real and
personal estate to his daughter Minnie
' and her husband. Ernest A. Cook, re-
| serving in the deed the right Of main
| tcnance payment Of doctors bills, etc,
| from the income Of the farm. The bill
| is brought to vacate these transfers
| and the sole ground upon which it is
F.. sought to be sustained is that the
2rantor on May Is, 1908. was of un-
sound mind and incapable of making Il
deed at that time. The trial occupied
| three days and the evidence admitted
| took 4 very wide range. very much Of
| it, though technically admissible, bear
| ing so remotely upon the main issue
| involved that in the end it became of
| very little value in shedding Light uron
! that issue.
| The only question involved in tho ca Sc
| as shown by the evidence and admit ted
! by counsel. is whether Llewellyn X
, Stevens on the fifteenth day of May.
neither before nor subsequent, was
possessed of sufficient mental capacity
to understand the nature and scope of
, his 2ct in executing a deed of his real
estate and bill of sale of his personal
! property and cOmprehended the rela-
ton of the persons who were or should
/ have been the objects Of his bounty:
/ in this case. two sons and daughter,
| besides the daughter Minnie
| The evidence clearly satisfies my
mind that Mr.. Stevens was entirely
competent to make deed of real es-
| tate or bill of sale of personal property
on May 10. 1907. His wife died April
! &c Of this year. ,. The uncontradicted
evidence shows that. q shCrt time PRIOR
to her death. she and her husband re-
| quested their daughter Minnie, then
| and now the wife of Mr.. Cook, the SON
| in-law, to send for her husband, who
was away, in order that they lhi-ht
| consult him together with the daugh-
| ter. with reference to their taking the
farm and the personal property in con-
! sideration Of caring for the mother and
, father during their lifetime.
Mr.. Cook did come to the Stevens
, home in response to letters from his
, wife. and with her made arrange
ments to take the farm and personal
property and care for Mr.. and Mrs
Stevens. 1t therefore appears that
, the initiative of the transaction in
| question was suggested and solicited
by Mr.. and Mrs. Stevens, themselves
and rot by the defendants: hence so
far as the act. itself. in making the
transfer of the property was con-
cerned. it was precisely in accordance
! with the pre-concoived idea originating
with Mr.. Stevens and his wife. during
: AASi AiAN ''hi'' 90 " tIlt uiSEOSdi vi tic
property and their own future mainte.
nance.
Mr. Stevens comprehension of his
act as shown by the evidence of sew
, eral witnesses. whose testimony was in
no way contradicted. and cannot by tn .
court he impuned. was as complete. it
seems to me. as would have been that
of any ordinary man in the perform
ance of the same transaction. The
evidence unequivocally shows that he
not Only knew that he had decided his
property to his daughter and son-in-
law for his support, but that he also
made provision that they. at his de-
cease. should pay to each one Of his
other children. the sum of one hundred
dollars.
Not Cnly did he make this provision.
but had sufficient comprehension of
what il reant. to inform several wit
nesses that nc had omitted to insert it
in tho deed. inasmuch as at his de-
cease the grantees of the deed might
not at that time. especially if he was
afflicted with a long sickness. be In a
fine ncial condition to at once meet