Case Name: Andrew J. Sikes and another v. Elizabeth Crissman
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1876-10-24
Citations: 35 Mich. 96
Docket Number: 
Parties: Andrew J. Sikes and another v. Elizabeth Crissman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 93–93

Head Matter:
Andrew J. Sikes and another v. Elizabeth Crissman.
dase made by bill: Menial incompetence: Undue influence: Proofs. In this case, which is a bill to set aside a transfer of property on the ground of mental incompetency and undue influence, it is held that the proofs fail to make out either the mental incompetency or the undue influence charged, but, on the contrary, show that the transfer was unsolicited and was founded on substantial reasons,
Costs: Guardian: Personal charge. It appearing that the bill in this case, which was filed by the guardian of an incompetent person, was an unjustifiable one, costs of both courts were imposed upon the guardian personally.
Submitted on briefs October 11,
Decided October 24.
Appeal in Chancery from Macomb Circuit.
* Hubbard & GrocJcer, for complainants.
I). H, Lowell and A. JB. Maynard, for defendant.

Opinion:
Cooley, Ch. J.:
This is a bill by a very aged person and his guardian, to set aside a transfer of property made by him to his wife before the guardian was appointed, on the ground that the party was mentally incompetent when it was made, and that it was obtained from him by undue influence.
Neither the mental incompetency nor the undue influence is made out, and there is nothing in the ease to indicate that the arrangement was unreasonable. The children had all been suitably and liberally provided for, and the old gentleman, who is only a nominal party, testifies very clearly and satisfactorily that the transfer was unsolicited, and gives very substantial reasons for making it. The testimony is overwhelming against the case made by the bill, and the guardian, who is a son-in-law, and the children who countenance him in the suit, are much more subject to criticism on this record than the defendant is. Nothing is shown to justify in any way the charges made- against her.
The decree dismissing the bill is affirmed, with costs of both courts, against the guardian personally.