Court Opinion

ID: 9808357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:35:31.656326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:38.168808
License: Public Domain

MacRae, J.
(dissenting): I am constrained to dissent from the conclusion reached by a majority of the Court, and to concur in the view taken by the learned Judge who tried the case below. It seems to me that the responses to the two issues are so inconsistent and illogical that they cannot stand together, and as the Court could not select either one as against the other,both should be rejected.- The response to the first issue necessarily negatives the second, for if the defendant procured the deed from Alexander Robinson by undue influence or false representation as to the 150-acre tract, it was physi*319cally impossible that he should have inserted the calls of this tract in the deed after its execution. If, on the other hand, the defendant, fraudulently and without the knowledge and consent of Alexander Robinson, inserted in said deed the 150-acre tract, it was equally impossible that he should have procured the deed from Robinson by undue influence and fraudulent representation as to the 150 acres. So that, by the verdict, we have, in effect, an affirmative and a negative response to each issue.