71 P. 870 | Utah | 1903
after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
We have made a thorough and critical examination of the record in this case, and fail to- find any evidence that even tends to support the findings that plaintiff was induced to
Counsel both for plaintiff and defendants have devoted much space in their briefs to the discussion of the question as to when and under what circumstances a party may and may not avoid a contract entered into while laboring under a delusion; but, as the record shows affirmatively and conclusively that plaintiff was not induced or in any way influenced to execute the deed in question because of any delusion or aberration of the mind on her part, it is unnecessary for us. to either discuss or express an opinion on this subject.
Respondent contends, and the court, in effect, found, that there was a failure of consideration on the part of the defendants, because of their neglect to give plaintiff the
The controlling questions, and those that are decisive of this case, are, first, did the plaintiff, at the time she made the deed, have the mental capacity to act and to understand and appreciate what she was doing? and, second, was she unduly influenced to such an extent that her free agency was destroyed ?
The record shows conclusively that, at the time the deed was made, plaintiff was in possession and in full control of her mental faculties. She knew and understood what she
It appears from the record that the plaintiff, about a year before the deed was made, spoke to the defendants about deeding the property to them, and subsequently, on several
We are of the opinion, and so hold, that findings Nos. 9, 10, 12, and 18 are not supported by the evidence. The case is reversed, with directions to the trial court to set aside the decree entered in the case, and to dismiss the action,