mm: v. wn.r.1s. 18
her own scanty means, should thus voluntarily and without advantage
divest herself of the most valuable share of her property not only, but
give up the title to the home where she had lived for over 30 years, and
around which clustered a multitude of sacred associations, retaining only
the right to a precarious residence upon the premises, is hardly credi-
ble. What was she to gain? What motive had she for such a course?
The deed was without adequate consideration. There is nothing to up-
hold it. The theory that it was given for past and future services can-
not be sustained, in the light of the fact that she was not bound to pay
the defendant for the slight service he had rendered in investing small
sums for her, from time to time, and the other fact that there was no ob-
ligation on his part to render any service in the future. There is noth}
ing in the deed, or in any other writing, which requires the defendant
to do any act or pay any money for her, or on her account. _She has
given him property worth $2,500,rand has received nothing in return.
So far as thewritten transaotionis concerned, he may refuse to raise his
finger in her behalf, and she will be without remedy., ` But even had the
consideration suggested by the gdefendant been expressed in the deed, or
in another writing, it would have been entirely out of proportion to the
value of the interest received by him. · . .
T N ot only is the plaintiff corroborated by numerouspresumptions, but
many declarations of the defendant’s witnesses are hardly compatible
with the theory that thedeed was an absolute one. A forcibleillustra—
tion of thi  is found inthe letter of the defendax1t’s sister, written soon
after the deed was executed. " She says: "John [the defendant] is sim-
ply seeing to Fea’s [the plainti¥H"s] affairs, which she says shecannot do,
—that she cannot think. When the thing is settled John gives up, but
he could not act for her without ,a¤t1¤Omy.·· The plaintitfsversion of
the transaction could hardly have been stated more concisely. .
It is not at all material what name was given to the paper by the
plaintiff. She may have understood that it was a deed. She may have `
called it a deed. But this matters not, when the testimony clearly in-
dicates that she signed it only for the purpose of giving the defendant `
authority to act in her name, and notto give him an adverse title to the
property. The proposition, in brief, is this: A woman nearly SO` years
of age, worried, anxious, and in feeble health, seeks a trusted relative
and friend, in whose good faith she has the most implicit confidence, for
sympathy and advice. Her object is to devise some means by which
her sister and herself can obtain title to an outstanding interest inthe
farm which had been her home for many years. A few days elapse,
and the adviser and friend appears as the absolute owner of her own inL
terest in the farm. For this he pays nothing. No advantage or benefit
to her, at all commensurate with the value of the property, is proved; no
rational motive for her act is suggested. She insists that she did me in·
tend to convey the property absolutely, and had no idea that she was
doing so. A deed given in suchcircumstances is repugnant to the prin-
ciples of equity, and cannot be upheld. p
The plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint`; T