CASE 1 of 5
Donnelly v. Rees 141 Cal. 56, Cal. 1903. November six, 1903
FACTS: An action might be maintained by sole heir of a deceased person setting aside a deed obtained from the dearly departed without thought by the deceptive practices of the defendants and their undue affect over the departed, who was regarded as an chronic drunkard for over five years before the setup of the deed, to anextent seriously to impair his mind, and who was so intoxicated at the moment as to make him unsuitable to work business, and entirely incapable of recognizing, understanding, or perhaps attending to the transaction. CONCERN: The plaintiff was not necessary to make virtually any payments on account of an alleged bill against the grantor, or perhaps for moneys alleged to have been completely advanced to him consequently to the supposed transaction, wherever these concerns cannot be considered to be connected with the transaction. GUIDELINE: This was admissible in evidence (Code Civ. Proc., securities and exchange commission's. 1853) (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1963, subd. 5. )On the important points found, the case comes within several of the provisions of section 2224 of the City Code, which usually, in view of various other questions active in the case, it can be important to differentiate: (1) The defendants attained the land by " fraud" --i. e. simply by actual scam, --and also (2) by " unnecessary influence, " and are therefore--or, rather, each is " aninvoluntary trustee with the thing gained"; and (3) the same result follows, since they gained the thing by " the violation of any trust. " APPLY: (Civ. Code, sec. 2219; Pierce v. Robinson, 13 California. 127; Kimball v. Tripp, 136 Induration. 634, 635; Knight versus. Tripp, 121 Cal. 674; Davies v. Otty, 35 Beav. 213. ) SUMMARY: It was not necessary that the individual should pay out to the defendants the amount of their alleged costs, or to O'Brien the portions alleged to have been advanced to Kean subsequently to the transaction; or the fact that court will need to so adjudge under the findings--which we have held to be endured by the evidence. CASE 2 of your five
Guidici v. Guidici, 2 Cal. 2d 497, California., 1935. February 26, 1935. FACTS: HEADNOTES
Cancelling of Instruments--Deeds--Intoxication--Evidence--Findings-- Appeal. From this action to cancel a deed to real home, the evidence that plaintiff during signing the deed was in such a state of brain, due to long and extreme drinking of intoxicating liquor, that this individual did not know very well what he was doing, and that he got norecollection of signing the deed, was sufficient to back up the finding that he was mentally incapable, during those times, of understanding the nature of his act in the signing and performance of stated deed, and such finding could hardly be disrupted on appealeven though there is considerable issue in the proof. ISSUE: When marriage is a superb consideration to get a deed, or for a agreement generally, if such a deed is executed by grantor at a time when he is definitely incapable of understanding his action in the setup thereof, by reason of long and excessive having, and the matrimony is entered into about an hour after, while he's in the same state of mind, this cannot be stated that the marriage wedding ceremony forms a valid consideration to get the delivery of stated deed. GUIDELINE: The defendant was a woman of over fifty years of age at that time. She was married twice before, and she publicly stated that the lady was marrying the individual as a organization proposition. At no time did your woman manifest anyaffection toward the plaintiff. The girl evidently reposed but tiny confidence in him, or perhaps was conscious of his drunk condition, since she absolutely refused, with the suggestion from the attorney, to proceed while using marriage ceremony before the deed to plaintiff's important farm was signed and delivered to her. These issues were definitely given consideration by the trial judge who, after a overview of all the evidence with the parties before him and an opportunity to observe all their conduct and demeanor, believed the accounts of the plaintiff and his witnesses, and made studies favorable to him. According to the...