About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Joseph K. Eyre and Algernon E. Ashburner, Executors of Elizabeth E. Potter, deceased v. Samuel R. Potter and Mauger London U.S. 42 (1854)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0227 and id is 1 raw text is: SUPREME COURT. Eyre et al. v. Potter et al. JOSEPH K. EYRE AND ALGERNON E. AsnBURNER, EXECUTORS OF ELIZABETH E. POTTER, DECEASED V. SAMUEL R. POTTER AND \IAUER LONDON. Where a widow filed a bill in chancery, complaining that immediately upon the death of her husband, the son of that husband, together with another person, had imposed upon her by false representations, and induced her to part with all her right in her husband's estate for an inadequate price, the evidence :n the case did not sustain the allegation. It is not alleged to be a case of constructive fraud, arising out of the relative position of the parties towards each other, but of actual fraud. The answers deny the fraud and are made more emphatic by the complainants hav- ing put interrogatories to be answered by the defendants, and the evidence §ustains the answers. It will not do to sot up mere inadequacy of price as a cawse for annulling v contract made by persons competent and willing to contract, and, besides, there were other considerations acting upon the widow to induce her to make the contract. The testimony offered to prove the mental imbecility of the widow, should be received with great caution, and is not sufficient. THIs was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of North Carolina, sitting as a court of equity. The bill was filed by Elizabeth E. Potter, during her lifetime, to which her executors afterwards became parties. The opinion of the court contains an explanation of the case as it is set forth in the bill, and it is not necessary to repeat it. The cause was argued by Air. Badger fo:, the appellants, and by Mr. Bryan and Mr. Graham for the appellees. The points of law which were raised by the counsel upon each side respectively, were so intermingled with their views of the facts and evidence, that it is impossible to separate them. The view of the case presented on behalf of the appellants was as follows: - The consideration of the deed, dated lMIay 31, 1847, was evi- dently and grossly inadequate. The defendant, Samuel R. Potter, in his answer admits that he had formed' the opinion, that the estate of his late father was worth $120,000. The statements and estimates in the answer of the said de- fendant, and the schedules therein referred to, show that the real and personal estate of the said Samuel Potter, at the time of his death, must have been nearly-that sum. They certainly show that the estate was so large and valuable -that the price agreed to be paid to the plaintiff for her interest therein, was shockingly inadequate. In relation to the debts of the intestate, no account has been

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most