Carter v. Gunnels

Citations

• 67 Ill. 270

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraud—sufficiency of proof of What circumstances will amount to proof of fraud can never be matter of general definition. The legal test is the sufficiency of the evidence to satisfy the understanding and conscience of the jury. Fraud need only be proved like any other material fact.</p> <p>2. On the trial of an issue upon a bill in chancery to set aside a conveyance, as in fraud of creditors, the court instructed the jury that the law never indulges in any inferences or presumptions of fraud, but that it must be proved directly or by such facts and circumstances as would make the conclusion reasonable and irresistible in the mind of a fair minded and reasonable person, that a fraud had been committed by a collusion of parties: Held, that there was no warrant in the law for saying that the testimony, in order to the proof of any particular fact, should possess such a degree of force as to be irresistible.</p> <p>3. Evidence—sufficiency. Evidence, even of sufficient force to produce in the mind nothing more than a mere preponderance of assent in favor of the fact in dispute, can not be pronounced insufficient.</p>