Yeakel v. McAtee

Citations

• 156 Pa. 600
• 27 A. 277
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1387

Syllabus

<p>Gift — Parent and child — ■Fraud—Irrevocable gift.</p> <p>If there is no evidence which tends to show that a donor was incompetent to mato a gift, or which raises a suspicion of fraud or undue influence on the part of the donee, the capacity of the donor and the fairness of the transaction will be presumed, unless the relation between the parties is such that the policy of the law casts upon the donee the burden of showing that; the gift, was the voluntary and intelligent act of the donor. In the absence of such evidence this burden does not rest on children who receive gifts from their parents.</p> <p>It is not incumbent on a child who receives a gift from a parent to prove affirmately, in a proceeding to annul the gift, that the donor was told she might outlive the donee, or that the gift was irrevocable.</p> <p>A mother gave certain bonds and stock to her daughter. The evidence affirmatively showed the voluntary character of the gift. It also appeared that the mother was not impoverished by the gifts and that she made no complaint during the life of her daughter that she had not retained property enough to afford her a comfortable maintenance. From the evidence it appeared that the mother had a strong will, and was not controlled by her daughter or anybody else. Held that the mother was not entitled after the deatli of the daughter to have the gifts rescinded.</p> <p>Evidence — Competency of witness — Decedents’ estates.</p> <p>In an action by a mother against the estate of a daughter to rescind a gift made by the plaintiff to her daughter, the plaintiff is not a competent witness under the act of May 23, 1887, P. L. 158.</p>