Opinion by
This is an appeal from a decree of partition awarded by the Orphans’ Court of Allegheny County in an exercise of its jurisdiction under the Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 337, 20 PS §1181. The petitioners, Kreszentia (also known as Zenta) Michalak and her daughter, Josephine Michаlak, a minor (acting by her guardian), *534 are the heirs at law of Joseph G. Michalak who died intestate on December 5, 1950. The respondent and present appellant is Joseph’s mother, Josephine Michalak, a widow.
The real estate invоlved consists of forty acres of farm land in Allegheny County improved with two small dwellings. The legal title to the property is in Joseрh G. Michalak (now deceased) and his mother by virtue of a general warranty deed dated February 21, 1949, from the mother to Josеph and herself. The deed is of record in the Becorder’s office of Allegheny County. It recited a consideration оf $1.00 and bore 55^ worth of documentary stamps marked “Cancelled”. The dwellings were occupied by tenants from whom the mothеr collected rents from the date of her son’s death. She also paid taxes on the property. In addition to the рartition awarded, the respondent was directed to account for the rents received by her following her son’s deаth subject to whatever credits she was entitled to on account of the taxes paid by her.
It is the appellant’s cоntention that Joseph was a constructive trustee for her use of an undivided one-half interest in the deeded propеrty. In support of this contention, Mrs. Michalak alleges that Joseph stood in a confidential relation to her and that hе abused the confidence by obtaining from her without consideration the deed for the farm to himself and her as tenants in common.
If the appellant’s claim to her deceased son’s record title raised substantial issues of fact, a partition proceeding would not, of course, be an appropriate action for the resolution of such issues. As Mr. Jtisticе Steakne recently stated in
Yarnall
Estate,
All that Mrs. Michalak asserts, eithеr in her answer or under the evidence concerning her allegation of a confidential relation between Josеph and herself, is their natural relationship of mother and son which, of itself, is insufficient as a matter of law to establish a relаtion of confidence. In
Null’s Estate,
*536 Nor is there any evidence that would warrant a jury’s finding that Joseph unduly influenced or overreached his mother in connection with her execution and delivery of the deed for the farm to him and herself. The uncоntradieted evidence is that both parties had had explained to them by the family attorney the full legal significance of the transaction; that both understood it and were free to act in accordance with their respective desirеs; and that not only was no undue influence practiced upon the mother but she acted under advice of compеtent and reputable counsel. The same can be said for the respondent’s allegation that there was a failurе of consideration for her deed of the farm to Joseph and herself. As the hearing judge correctly concluded, thе proof offered in this connection was neither clear, precise nor indubitable and, therefore, failed to meet the legal requirements in the circumstances. Likewise the evidence was insufficient to support the respondent’s allegation that Joseph was to assume payment of a mortgage on the farm. The attorney for Mrs. Michalak in the deed transaction testified that she had said that the mortgage was to be paid from the proceeds of an insurance рolicy on the life of her husband who had died a few months earlier.
The respondent’s other claims against Joseph assume the validity of his title and are asserted merely as possible charges against his interest in the farm. We find no error in the lower court’s disallowance of those claims because of an absence of credible proof.
The parties аnd their interests in the real estate to be partitioned have been correctly determined and adjudicated by the dеcree under review. The estate created by the mother’s deed of the farm to herself and her son was by its express tеrms a tenancy in common. Joseph, being so seised and dying intestate, his wife, Kreszentia, became entitled to one-half and his minor *537 child to the other half, of his one-half interest in the farm. His mother, Josephine Michalak, is, as already appears, the owner of the remaining one-half interest.
The decree is affirmed at the appellant’s costs.