12 » rmnmau. mcronrmn.
sition in his adection and in his scheme for the disposition of his
property. Respondent alleges that Ralston and Mrs. Ralston went
with Mr. Ogden to Bridgeport in search of a commissioner before
whom the deeds to land in Georgia could be properly executed. Find-
— ing none there, they all went to New York, where the two deeds of the
26th and the 28th were formally signed and delivered. The third
deed was drawn in Georgia eight months later, and was forwarded to
Ralston, who was then in New York. It was duly executed by Ral-
ston and his wife, and returned to the respondent. Turpin denies that
hemade any such representations to Ralston as were alleged to have
been made at the time the hrst deed was agreed upon. He denies all
the allegations of undue influence, and asseverates that when the Hrst
two deeds were executed Ralston was perfectly sober and rational,
and that he believes him to have been in the same condition when the
.- last deed was executed. To show his great friendship for Ralston,
he alleges that he did not charge or take from him some three thou-
sand dollars as commission on the estate of his mother, of whosewill
Turpin was the executor. He avers that after all the transactions
· here described, of which his children were the beneficiaries, Ralston
made a deed to the complainant conveying two valuablelots, with the
store-houses, in the city of Macon, which property the complainant has
since held and enjoyed; and also conveyed to his aunt, Mrs. Smith,
other valuable property in Macon under a settlement effected for him.
The answer is a stout denial of every material fact alleged in the com-
plainants bill, and the issues presented are mixed questions of law
and fact.
The causes indicated by the complainant, and urged as reasons why
the several conveyances from Ralston to Turpin as trustee should be
cancelled ·and nullifled, are: First, the want of that degree of men-
tal soundness whicha man must possess to enable him to bestow his
property upon another; and, secondly, the undue and paramount in-
‘ iluence which Turpin is said to have exercised both upon Ralston and
his wife. While much evidence has_ been presented bearing upon
both propositions, the solicitors for either party have seemed to argue
' with far more elaboration the law and the evidence relating to the
allegation of undue and controlling influence.
_The rule relating to the question of mental weakness is stated with
great precision and clearness by Mr. Justice FIELD in delivering the
opinion of the court in the case of Allore v. Jewell, 94: U. S. 511 : .
» "It may be stated as settled law whenever there is great weakness of
` mind in a person executing a conveyance of land, arising from age, sickness,
or any other cause, though not amounting to absolute disqualification, and
, the consideration given for the property was grossly inadequate, a court of
‘ equity will, upon proper and seasonable application, set the conveyance aside."
A fcmlcri it would seem, as contended in the concluding argument
for complainant, a voluntary deed, without other consideration than
friendship and intimate personal relations, would be even the more