10 FEDERAL nsromnn.
out consideration; and the bill praysthat the deeds may be canceled,
and that the respondents be decreed to account for all. the rents,
issues, and profits from the date of the execution of the deeds to the
date of the decree, and for general relief. Discovery is waived.
The answer of the respondent George B. Turpin, as trustee, out-
lines the defenses to the bill. Turpin admits his intimate friendship,
not only with James A. Ralston, Jr., but with his father, James A.
Ralston,‘Sr., and that he was the confidential frien·d and business
manager of the latter to the date of his death in 1865. He was also
the intimate friend of Ralston’s mother, and was appointed by her
the executor of her will in 1873; that he was appointed the guard-
ian of young Ralstou,”having been designated as such by the latter
in 1867, when Ralston was 19 years of age. He dually, as such
guardian, settled with Ralston when he became· 21 years o_f age, and
was dismissed by the Court of Ordinary on the third day of May, 1869.
· _ He admits and emphasizes the charges of complainant’s bill as to
the warm and cordial relations of friendship and confidence which
existed in the breast of young Ralston towards himself, and insists
that they were merited by his own conduct, and by his devotion to
Ralston’s interests. He avers that Ralston, on account of the unu-
sual aud disinterested friendship which existed between himself and
the respondent, and the valuable and continuous services rendered
by respondent to Ralston and to his family, had voluntarily, and
, · without solicitation, early formed the intention to make large and gen-
erous provision for the children of respondent; that Ralston, hav-
ing no immediate relatives whom he desired to make the recipients
of his bounty, had uniformly declared his intention that the respond-
ent’s children should, at his death, receive a large portion of his es-
tate. He specially sets out the fact that when Mrs. Aurelia L. Bo-
zeman, the mother of Ralston, came to make her will in 1873, she
said to respondent that she had intended to provide for him in her
will, but that her son "Jimmie" had informed her that he would
provide amply for Turpin in his will, and the fact that in 1874
young Ralston made his will and bequeathed to Turpin, in trust for
Mrs. Laura R. Smith, one half of his estate, and to Turpin, for him-
self and in trust for his children, the other half, which latter half em-
braced the identical property conveyed by the deeds attacked by the
bill; that, in further pursuance of his intention to endow the children
of respondent with this property, on the seventeenth of December,
1879, five years thereafter, Ralston made another will in which he con-
veyed the same property to Turpin’s children, omitting from its ben-
eficence, however, one of the daughters of Turpin, who in the mean
time had married a Mr. Horne, who was objectionable to Ralston,
and devising the remaining half to the complainant, Ida Blanchard,
who in a few weeks would become Ida Ralston. The respondent, an-
swering, avers that he was not in any manner consulted by Ralston
as to either will, and declares that his daughter, who was not in-