Dorman v. Gale

⁴⁰⁹ Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The above entitled case conies to this Court on an appeal from a decree in equity of tbe Circuit Court for Talbot County. This, case originated in a bill filed in the Circuit Court for Talbot County by the devisees under the will of Sarah A. Carmine against William, J. H. Wooters. Before the time arrived for the filing of an answer, Mr. Wooters had died, and the bill was answered by his executrix and the devisees under his will.

The object and purpose of the bill was to have set aside a deed, made by Mrs. Carmine to the defendant, of her half interest in a lot of ground on the south side of Goldsborough Street in the town of Easton. Mattie A. Wooters, the wife of the original defendant, was the daughter of Mrs. Carmine and the owner of the other undivided onenhalf interest in the same lot. In 1916, shortly before her death, Mrs. Mattie A. Wooters conveyed her undivided interest to. her1 husband, J. H. Wooters, and the effect of the deed sought to be set aside in tbis proceeding was to vest in Mr. Wooters the entire interest in said lot. The case is one of fact and involves no new legal principle.

The leading element in it is the relationship which existed. The relationship, between a mother-in-law and son-in-law is not such as of itself carries, with it a presumption that the execution of a, deed from one to the other was necessarily within the. class stamped by the law as fraudulent. That phase most frequently occurs in the case of a deed from a child to its parent, but the facts of the relationship and manner of life of the parties at or about the time of the execution of the deed, may or may not be tbe rale which governs confidential relations in a way to make it a controlling: factor. The record in this case, discloses that Mrs. Carmine and Mr. and Mrs. Wooters had lived together as one family in the town of Easton in the neighborhood of thirty years; and that their life had always been entirely agreeable and satisr factory to both Mrs. Carmine and Mrs. Wooters.

No question of mental incapacity is involved in the present case, but ⁴¹⁰ it is abundantly established that Mrs. Carmine was very much worked up and made extremely nervous as the result of the death of her daughter, Mrs. Wooters, and the deed which is now sought to be set aside was executed before that condition had subsided. Mr. Wooters was in business in the town of Easton, and after his wife’s death he and Mrs. Carmine continued in the same friendly relation as seems to have existed theretofore. In this condition of the parties, the only fair inference is that the burden of proof was cast upon the grantee in that deed, Mr. Wooters, of showing that the execution of it was the free, voluntary, and unbiased act of the grantor. If this is done and there is no question of capacity and undue influence, a court will not strike down a voluntary deed merely to gratify the caprice of one of the parties, or because of their subsequently changed relation.

Jervis v. Jervis, 127 Md. 133 ; Mulfinger v. Mulfinger, 114 Md. 463 . In the case of Hammersley v. Bell, 134 Md. 172 , it appeared that an elderly woman in feeble health was living with her daughter and son-in-law and was under their care and protection, and for a nominal sum, conveyed nearly all of her property to the son-in-law, and it was there held that the relation of the parties was such as to impose the burden on the defendants of proving that the deed was the deliberate and voluntary act of the grantor and made without undue influence or fraud upon the part of those who' profited thereby. 'This last case in its facts very clearly approximates the case now under consideration. To this same effect, cases might he multiplied almost indefinitely both in this and other states, but so well settled is the rule that, under the evidence as it