Court Opinion

ID: 9842823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:19:09.13581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:54.704669
License: Public Domain

CAMERON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
One essaying to judge of a man’s intent must look inside him, — at his heart, his mind, his will, his soul. Many intangibles and subtleties are involved. The printed page is not a good medium for making those impalpables articulate.
The Judge and jury, co-laborers in the solution of this fact issue in the Court below, saw the witnesses and heard the testimony from which intent must be inferred. They were in much better position to reach a correct conclusion than we are.
Fraud is never presumed and he who would sustain it as an affirmative defense must establish it by evidence which is clear, convincing, decisive. Where, as here, fraud is charged against one whom death has robbed of the chance to speak for himself, the presumption of honesty and fair dealing is especially strong. Mr. Justice Storey expressed the idea in these words many years ago:1
“Fraud or breach of trust ought not lightly to be imputed to the living; for the legal presumption is the other way; and as to the dead, who are not here to answer for *884themselves, it would be the height of injustice and cruelty to disturb their ashes and violate the sanctity of the grave, unless the evidence of fraud be clear, beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The pattern for deciding this case is set by Cardwell v. United States, 5 Cir., 1951, 186 F.2d 382, to which, of all our cases, this one bears the greatest resemblance. In Cardwell we held that the trial Court committed error in taking the case away from the jury. Here, we are taking a much longer step. We are setting aside the fact-findings of a court and jury who were in best position to reach a just conclusion on this issue of fact. I would affirm.

. Prevost v. Gratz, 6 Wheat. 481, 496-497, 5 L.Ed. 311.