Blodgett v. Yocum

Citations

• 80 Kan. 644
• 103 P. 128
• 1909 Kan. LEXIS 130

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Deeds — Fraud—Undue Influence. In an action between the heirs of a deceased person for the recovery of real estate to which the defendants claimed title by virtue of conveyances executed by the deceased in her lifetime the court instructed the jury that, in deciding whether or not the deceased was of sound mind or was unduly influenced at the time of making the deeds in question, they had the right to take into consideration the reasonableness or unreasonableness of her act in making the deeds; and if they believed that a woman of sound mind would not have been likely to do such an act in the free exercise ■ of her judgment, discriminating against one daughter in favor of another daughter and her family, then they had the right to infer from the act itself that undue influence was used to secure the deeds, though not bound to do so. Held, error. A person of sound mind who is not unduly influenced may make such disposition of his property as he desires, without regard to its fairness or unfairness.</p> <p>2. Ejectment — Misjoinder of Actions. In an action of ejectment, brought for the recovery of several distinct and separate parcels of land, where the plaintiff’s title as to all the defendants is the same, and the answer sets up a misjoinder of causes of action because some of the defendants claim separate interests in separate portions of the real estate, but admits that all the defendants are in possession of all the real estate, the misjoinder furnishes no ground for objection to the introduction of testimony on the trial or for a demurrer to the evidence; and where in such a case none of the defendants asks for a severance or a separate trial, and the action proceeds as though there was no misjoinder, it will be regarded as immaterial.</p>