mnscrou v. runnin. ’ 9
him owing to their confidential relations, and finally went north, where
Ralston was, and induced him to make a deed of gift on the twenty-
sixth of August, 1880, and the subsequent deeds in confirmation, A
which several deeds it is the object of the bill to nullify. One of these
deeds is dated August 28, 1880, and the other April, 1881, and con-
veyed, it is alleged, the more valuable portions of his estate, worth be-
tween forty and fifty thousand dollars. Previously to this conveyance,
to-wit, in January, 1880, the complainant was married to Ralston',
and was, at its date, living with him at Stamford, in the state of · —
Connecticut. She alleges that Turpin came to Stamford,- where the·
first deed was made, and persuaded him to make the deed, and that
in consequence of his importunities, Ralston being in declining health;
and weakened mentally and physically by dissipation, consented to
sign' the deed which Turpin had prepared and brought with him; _
The complainant, being herself under tl1e influence of Turpin, and w’ill·—
ing to do anything to conciliate and gratify him, as well as indisposed t
to opposeher husband, consented to unite in the deed and to relin¥
quish her rights in the premises conveyed. The complainant and her
husband, Ralston, went with Ogden, the partner of Turpin, who was
also in Stamford, to Bridgeport, to find a commissioner of deeds for
the state of Georgia, before whom the conveyance could be executedn
Finding no such official there, they went thence to New York, where
the deed was signed both by Ralston and the complainant herself;
A deed to correct a verbal error in the draught of the first deed was
also executed in New York, two days thereafter, and in the month of
April, in the next year, another deed was forwarded by mail, and was
executed by Ralston and complainant, and returned Qto Georgia; `
Copies of these deeds are annexed to the bill, and they all convey the
same property to Turpin, in trust for his children, the co-respondents,
Ralston reserving the incomes during his life. r
A good deal is saidin the bill about a compromise had subsequently
to the execution of these deeds between Ralston,“or Turpin acting
for him, and Dr. Bozeman, the second husband of his mother, on the
one part, and a Mrs.,Laura R. Smith, an aunt of Ralston, on the
other part, which compromise settled a disputed claim which Mrs.
Smith had against the estate of Ralston’s father; but, as the court is
unable to perceive any relevancy in this matter to the issues pre-
sented by the bill and answer, other reference to such compromise
will be pretermitted. It is true that this settlement placed an in-
cumbrance on the estate of complainant’s husband, and that he paid
$2,500 to discharge a portion of the lien which attached to the prop-
erty he had previously conveyed to Turpin, but this cannot relate
back and affect the validity of the deeds on the issues presented by
the bill. - -
It is further charged that Ralston, from mental weakness, was in-
capable of making a deed; that the deeds were obtained by the undue
and controlling influence of Turpin; and that they were wholly with-