Dresden enterprise and Sharon tribune. (Dresden, Tenn.) 1907-1997, 1916-03-17
able. But in the abence


party resisting or repudiating it,
then the presumption becomes
conclusive.
In Stamper VS.. Venable, Gates, 500,
the court says:
1t is also said that, even il it
was deed it was Void for want'of
consideration. Whether there,was
consideration or not, yet, as the
chancery court Of appeals find that
Mrs. Bays, atthe time she executed
the deeds, was OF sound mind that
she knew what she was doing, that
she knew her property and what
she wanted to do with it and that
she disposed OF it in the way she
desired it to 60, the lack Of con-
sideration cannotlbe used by COM
plainants to defeat this instrument.
While there are cases which hold
that inadequacy may be gross, UNI
explained, or coupled with facts
inequitable in character as to
raise the presumption OF fraud, SO
as to avoid the instrument, this
presumption OF fraud win never
prevail when it is clearly shown
that the grantor intelligently and
deliberately disposed Of his proper
ty inamanner to satisfy himself y
In Talbot VS.. Maynard, LOG Tenn,
go, the court says:
tRecissions OF an executed sale
Of land will not be granted the
vendor for mere inadequacy Of con-
sideration, unless it be so great as
to shock the conscience and afford,
per Sc, evidence OF fraud. And
even in such case, it may be ex-
planned by showing that the
transaction was entered into in
tentionally and with full knowl-
edge, by the parties having legal
capacity, and without fraud or
imposition on the part OF the
vendee."
Applying the foregoing law to the
facts OF this case | do not think that it
can be commended that the defendant
practiced any fraud or imposition on
the deceased, Of that he occupied any
tiduciary relation to him; or that he
practiced any deceit on him. The
record shows that Esq. Rachels, with
full knowledge, Intentionally entered
into this contract, went into possess
sion Of the property. expressed him-
self IS being pleased, and occupied
the property about four years without
I have already held that
deceased had legal capacity to con-
tract. This being true, the contract is
valid, even though the consideration
ID grossly inadequate.
MY opinion is that this was not an
advantageous exchange purely from q
monetary standpoint. think it is
always a mistake from this viewpoint
to exchange farm land for town prop
erty as a general proposition; but this
is a TACT, however that people have to
ascertain by experience. In other
words, had you put both pieces of
on the market in August,
1910, | think the farm would have
brought the most, for the reason that
there was better demand for that
kind Of property. But while this is
likely true it is quite likely that the
town property was worth more to or
suited Esq, Rachels better than the
farm property, considering everything;
and that is the reason the courts will
not interfere when the parties are COM
petent to contract, know what they are
doing and there is no deception or i'm
position,
But | do not think this monetary
differenceis so great as to shock the
conscience Of the court. "A large ma
jority Of the witnesses and those who
are land owners and experienced in
buying and selling real estate, valve
this town property from 81, 500 to SIS 900.
they put the farm at from $4,000 to
$4,000. Add to the value OF the farm
the value Of the personal property and
add to the town property the 81, 45O
cash and note and four months rent,
amounting to 500, and there is very
little difference in the trade.
Or take it from an income produce
ing stondpoint, A majority Of the
witnesses who are not interested or re-
lated, put the rental value Of the farm
at less than $500, and the proof shows
the town property rents for about the
same. Say the timber and the per-
sonal property was worth So, O99. Esq.
Rachels got 81, 45O in money and note
and 500 in rents, making a difference
Of $3.50, which, at 6 per cent, would be
S27, the difference in income per am
mum.
Judging from my own experience
and observation, | think the town
very reasonable ar $500.
You could not build three such hous-
81 a.. ~. Z. I;lrn ~ "a \; 49,.