Dinges v. Branson

Citations

• 14 W. Va. 100
• 1878 W. Va. LEXIS 56

Syllabus

<p>1. Where an instruction asserts a proposition apparently erroneous and iSgiVe,n, and excepted to, thejudgmentsbouldbe reversed, though it is not shown, whether in fact the instruction prejudiced the appellant, or not.</p> <p>2.The declarations of a testator, or grantor, made either before, or after, the execution of the instrument, are admissible evidence, where the issue involves the mental capacity of the, testator, or grantor, at the time the instrument was executed, or undue influence exerted over him at that time.</p> <p>3. If under any circumstances such declaration should be rejected because too remote from the execution of the instrument, before they would be rejected, the record would have to show when, and the circumstances under which, they were made.</p> <p>4. Where a father has made a voluntary conveyance to his son of a part of his estate, and a contest arises subsequent to the father’s death, as to the competency of the father to make the deed, and as to whether undue influence was exerted over him by the grantee to'induce him to .make it, the declaration of the grantor, both before, and after the execution of the deed, are admissible, the same as if the contest was about a will devising the same estate.</p> <p>5. The bill was filed to set aside a deed, alleged to have been made when the grantor was of unsound mind, and procured to be made by the grantee by undue influences exercised over the grantor, and also for partition of the estate among the heirs at law; the grantee, who was one of the heirs at law, files his answer, putting in issue the chargesasto the incompetency and undue influence, and disclaims any further interest in liis father’s lands, than was secured to him by the deed. The <toed is held good, and the hill dismissed, with costs as to the grantee. Held :</p> <p>This was not to the prejudice of the appellants.</p>