Case Name: DOUGLASS v. LONGCOR
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1904-10-18
Citations: 138 Mich. 69
Docket Number: Docket No. 46
Parties: DOUGLASS v. LONGCOR.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 69–70

Head Matter:
DOUGLASS v. LONGCOR.
Deeds —Suit to Annul —Undue Ineluence — Delivery — Evidence—Appeal.
Where, on a bill to annul certain deeds on the ground of undue influence, failure to understand them, and lack of delivery, complainant’s testimony is freer from bitterness than that of defendant’s brothers and sisters, and the circumstances shown lead to its credit, a decree for complainant will be affirmed, though defendant and two other witnesses testify to delivery of the deeds, and complainant fails to show ignorance of their purport.
Appeal from Van Burén; Carr, J.
Submitted October 7, 1904.
(Docket No. 46.)
Decided October 18, 1904.
Bill by Celina L. Douglass against Mary E. Longcor to annul certain deeds. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Barnard & Lewis, for complainant.
David Anderson, for defendant.

Opinion:
Hooker, J.
This complainant, a woman past 87 years of age, filed the bill in this cause to annul certain deeds, which purport to convey from herself to the defendant lands which she received from her husband, upon which they lived many years. It is claimed that she was induced to make them by undue influence, and without understanding them, and that she never delivered them, and that they were taken and put on record without her consent. From a decree in favor of the complainant, the defendant has appealed.
The testimony is conflicting, and in such cases absolute certainty of justice is out of the question. The testimony of the complainant seems more free from bitterness than that of defendant's brothers and sisters, and there are circumstances shown which lead us to credit it, though denied by the defendant and two other witnesses in relation to the circumstance of delivery. We therefore concur in the view taken by the circuit judge to the extent of holding that the deeds were obtained through undue influence, and were never delivered. We cannot be so sure that the complainant was ignorant of their purport.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.
The other Justices concurred.