150 Mich. 99 | Mich. | 1907
Erastus Merrill, who died in November, 1864, testate, was father of Sarah (Salisbury), Helen (Cornell), Alexander, and Loring. His widow was mother of Helen and Loring. Subject to a life estate devised to his widow, the estate of Erastus was given to
The questions discussed by counsel are:
(1) The effect of the guardianship.
(2) The fact of guardianship and other facts in evidence as establishing incompetency of Loring, in fact.
(3) The relations of Helen Cornell and her brother Loring.
(4) The effect of the delay in bringing suit.
Upon the reasoning of the cases cited, it must be said that capacity to dispose of property and to execute proper conveyances is not necessarily disproved by the determination of the probate court, although the order, it otherwise appearing that the condition of Loring, whatever it was, was continuing from boyhood to death, was, whether ■or not the proceedings were in all respects regular, proper to be considered as evidence of his condition.
From 1893 until February, 1906, when the bill of complaint was filed, no attempt was made to question the validity of the deeds. There is testimony tending to prove that the mother of complainant stated to Helen that she should not disturb her in her possession during her (Helen’s) life, but expected her children to share in the property after her death. It remains, however, that the per
We are not called upon to discuss the effect of this delay upon rights otherwise existing, but we regard it as confirmatory of the correctness of the finding upon which decision is based.
The decree is affirmed, with costs to defendants.