135 Ala. 332 | Ala. | 1902
By their bill complainants seek the cancellation of a conveyance of lands executed July 5, 1888,
It is alleged in the bill that the instrument “was obtained by fraud and undue influence exercised by the said grantees named in said deed.” It is also alleged in substance that Samuel Craig was the grantor’s agent in the conduct of her business and that she reposed in him great confidence, and also about ten days before his death “he visited his mother and as orators are informed requested his mother, the said Margaret Craig, to make him a deed to all of her property and that she refused to do the same, and that on his return home that day he was stricken down with paralysis, and from which time he was unconscious up to the time he died on the 7th day of July, 1888.” It is further alleged in substance that on the 5th of July the respondent, Virginia A Craig, sent for the grantor and employed a lawyer, who prepared the deed' in question and induced her to sign it without reading it to her or advising her of its contents, and that the .grantor was at that time so mentally infirm that she did not understand the character and import of the instrument. These averments are put in issue by the answer. It may he asumed as a proven fact that prior to his last illness Samuel Craig was the manager of the
As to Virginia Oraig, the other grantee, it is not alleged that she stool in any relation of confidence or possessed any peculiar influence over the grantor. That the gpantor acted by her persuasion, request or instigation, 'is-i;indicated only by testimony concerning the grantor’s, declarations, which, being -subsequent to the conveyance, are of the. class to which we have referred as being valueless as evidence to defeat the deed. The averments respecting her employment of an attorney and o|' lus conduct in obtaining the grantor’s signature to the deed without informing her of its contents are not sustained by any preponderance of the evidence. On the contrary, the evidence, in our opinion, prepon
Looking to the whole evidence, we are of the opinion that complainants have not shown themselves entitled to relief, and that the chancery court’s decree dismiss-, ing the bill should be affirmed.