Citations
- 139 A.D. 859
Full opinion text
Spring, J.
-. The action was commenced- to cancel a deed of conveyance exe-. cnted .and -delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant in April, . 1907.. ■ . - '
' The plaintiff is the atint of the defendant, and they resided on ' farms in the sanie neighborhood in the county of Erie. The' plaintiff was .upwards - of seventy years of age, and was much afflicted and depressed by the death of' her son and only child in January . preceding. ,-The defendant, a married woman in middle life; had ■- lived in the household of the plaintiff during her early childhood, and .their relations were intimate until after the execution of the deed in controversy,' knd until-the influence of other relatives with the plaintiff had embittered her against the defendant,, who had been her favorite niece. ■
The deed was prepared by a friend .of the defendant, and the. ■ acknowledgment of its execution was taken by a notary public in • the vicinity. The story of the defendant and her witnesses is to the effect that the plaintiff voluntarily informed her that she wished. : to deed the' farm" to her,'reserving in herself a . life estate by a separate instrument. The defendant thereupon took the deed vesting the titl.e in the plaintiff to Mr. Christie, the man suggested by the plaintiff to draft the deed, and the instrument in question was prepared. • The defendant testified,that she.told Mr.'Christie that the plaintiff desired a deed with a separate life lease, and tire scrivener : said the life' estate could be reserved in the deed itself and a separate instrument conveying á life estate was unnecessary.- The deed accordingly contained these clauses : “ And the said-Sally Máttesoji does covenant with the said party of the second part as follows: That the party of the second part shall quietly enjoy tlie said premises. Subject, however, to-the life interest of the said party of the--first -part, Sally Matteson.” '
The defendant and the notary both testified that the deed was read over to the plaintiff before she executed it and the life lease, clause was satisfactorily explained, to her, and the deed was then executed and acknowledged by her and delivered to the defendant. Several witnesses testified' that the old lady told them she had conveyed the farm to the defendant, and to some that possession was not to be given until after her death. The plaintiff testified that she never knowingly executed the deed; that she signed' what she supposed was a receipt, and the instrument was not read over to her at all, and that she was in poor health with impaired hearing and vision. The weight of the evidence is very largely with the defendant on these questions of fact and the trial judge so realized.
The complaint charged the defendant with fraudulently procuring the execution and delivery of the deed to her. On this issue the court found: “ That the plaintiff executed said deed by her own free and voluntary act and without fraudulent inducement on the part of the defendant or any other person. That from the time of the execution and delivery of the deed above referred to and up to the trial of this action, the plaintiff continued to reside on and remain in possession of the premises described in said deed.”
The court also found that the plaintiff and the' defendant