Case Name: WOLF v. HARRIS
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1910-02-15
Citations: 57 Or. 276
Docket Number: 
Parties: WOLF v. HARRIS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 276–280

Head Matter:
Argued January 26,
decided February 15,
rehearing denied October 18, 1910.
WOLF v. HARRIS.
[106 Pac. 1016: 111 Pac. 54.]
Deeds — Validity—Undue Influence.
1. Where a party who was old, sick from an incurable disease, and broken in mind and body from the excessive use of stimulants, so that he was incapable of realizing the nature of the transaction, was induced to execute a deed which purported to convey the great bulk of his property to defendant H., to the exclusion of her brother and sister, whose claims were as great as her own, and the party, after his partial recovery, treated the property as his own and disposed of it by will, the deed will be set aside as obtained by fraud and undue influence.
Deeds — Evidence—Undue Influence — Fraud.
2. Where the evidence discloses that the grantor at the time of executing the deed to the defendant, was old, sick from an incurable disease, broken in mind and body from the use of stimulants, and the difficulty that he labored under to understand the English language, the secrecy with which the transaction was conducted, together with the undue haste in recording the deed after the death and prior of the burial of the grantor, held, sufficient to establish that the daughter took a fraudulent advantage of her father’s age and weakness of mind to secure the deed, and the same will be set aside.
Deeds — Evidence—Burden of Proof.
3. Considering the relation of the parties, the frequently expressed intention of deceased to provide fairly for his other relatives, the fact that he had already made a will to effectuate that intention, the unreasonableness and injustice of the conveyance, the mental and physical weakness of the deceased and the secrecy observed concerning the transaction, the burden of proof was upon the grantee to establish by clear testimony that the deed in question was the voluntary act of the grantor.
From Wasco: William L. Bradshaw, Judge.
This is a suit by Will Y. Wolf, Isaac Wolf; Abraham Wolf, Hilda Wolf, Helena Loorya, Julius Loorya, Mary Haitwitz, Arnold Sheuerman, Carrie Sheuerman, an infant, by Will Wolf, her guardian ad litem, Yetta Phillips, Sadie Loveridge and Becky Wessels, against Esther Harris, Nathan Harris, Annie Harris, Zephora Harris and Milton Harris, to set aside and declare void a certain deed made by one B. Wolf, to the defendant, Esther Harris. From a decree in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
For appellants there was a brief over -the names of Messrs. Bennett & Sinnott and Messrs. Beach & Simon, with an oral argument by Mr. Nicholas J. Sinnott.
For respondents there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Menefee & Wilson, Messrs. Long & Sweek and Messrs. Bernstein & Cohen, with oral arguments by Mr. Joel M. Long and Mr. D. Solis Cohen.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McBride
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from the decree of the circuit court of Wasco County, setting aside and declaring void a deed made by one B. Wolf to the defendant Esther Harris.
The testimony is voluminous and in many respects contradictory, but, we think, establishes clearly that the deed in question was procured by fraud and undue influence on the part of the grantee. The evidence satisfies us that, at the time of the execution of this instrument, the decedent, B. Wolf, was old, sick from an incurable disease, broken in mind and body from the excessive use of stimulants, and that he was therefore incapable of realizing the nature and quality of the transaction which resulted in his affixing his signature to the instrument in question, which purported to convey the great bulk of his property to the defendant, Esther Harris, to the exclusion of her brother and sister, whose claims were as great, or greater, than her own. The evidence shows that upon B. Wolf's recovery, or partial recovery, he treated the property as his own, and made a will bequeathing it and the income therefrom, just as any other owner of property might have done under the same circumstances, and we do not believe that he ever realized that he had conveyed it away.
These being our conclusions, it is needless to incumber the next volume of Oregon Reports with a discussion of the testimony in detail. We are of the opinion that the findings of the circuit court are in accordance with the testimony, and its decree is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.