Stephenson v. Meeks
| Citation | 81 S.E. 851,141 Ga. 561 |
| Decision Date | 23 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | 283. |
| Parties | STEPHENSON v. MEEKS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where it was sought to set aside a deed on the ground that the grantor, on account of age and weakness, was mentally incapable of making it, and that the grantee procured it by the use of undue influence, after a witness had testified that he had known the grantor for many years; that the latter was 92 years of age at the time of his death (the deed being executed about a year prior thereto), "and his mental capacity was pretty weak; I hardly think he was capable to transact business"--it will not require a new trial that the court permitted the witness to testify that "in that weak condition, it seems to me, his mind could be more or less subjected to influence, but not more than any other old man of his age would."
In an action of the character indicated in the preceding headnote where the grantee in a deed sought to be set aside was charged with having used undue influence in its procurement from the grantor, who was aged and weak in mind and body, and evidence was introduced tending to show that some years before the deed in controversy was made the grantor had executed a will, in which he made substantially the same provisions as in the deed; that the grantee in the subsequent deed, who was the son of the grantor, on learning of the provision in the will requiring him to pay to his sister a certain amount, became enraged and cursed and abused his father and mother, causing the father to destroy the will that on another occasion, when his father proposed to give a piece of personal property to the sister of the grantee, who was the plaintiff in the present suit, the grantee became enraged and indulged in violent and profane language, and that after the death of his father, the grantor, he told his sister that their father was bothered, and that the grantee told him to make it like he did before, which the grantor did; and that the grantor relied greatly upon the grantee in regard to his business affairs, and where the grantee [[defendant] did not testify in the case, and counsel argued that such failure raised a presumption against him, while counsel for the defendant insisted that it raised no such presumption--there was no error in charging the jury that "the fact that the defendant did not go upon the stand and testify in this case does not raise a presumption against him, but it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cotton States Fertilizer Co v. Childs
...case had evidence within her power and control which she did not produce. We also call attention to a decision in Stephenson v. Meeks, 141 Ga. 561 (2), 81 S. E. 851, which related to the same subject, but which did not involve a transaction between husband and wife. The charge dealt with in......
-
Cotton States Fertilizer Co. v. Childs
...that case had evidence within her power and control which she did not produce. We also call attention to a decision in Stephenson v. Meeks, 141 Ga. 561 (2), 81 S.E. 851, which related to the same subject, but which did not a transaction between husband and wife. The charge dealt with in Wei......