Reed v. Reed

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The case which is presented by this appeal belongs to a class than which there is none more important It is an attempt to set aside a deed which the grantor alleges was the result entirely of the confidential or fiduciary relation the grantee, her son, occupied towards her, and of his influence-over her, and she charges that he took advantage of the condition of excitement, distress and fear into which she was thrown by an anonymous letter, to procure the execution of ¹⁴⁶ the deed by her to him and that he procured said deed by the exercise of undue influence upon her at a time when she was too weak from age, infirmity, fear and excitement to withstand said influence or appreciate what she was doing. The principles which must govern in such cases as this have been so often and so clearly announced by this Court that the law upon the subject may be considered settled in this State. Indeed we do not understand that there is any difference between counsel as to the law of the case; but there is a very wide difference between them as to the facts or more properly speaking, as to the conclusions to be drawn therefrom.

The Court below dismissed the bill and this is the plaintiff’s appeal. The answer of the defendants admits, and the case comes before us on the concession on all hands, that a confidential relation existed between the grantor and grantee. The latter was the eldest son of the former and therefore her voluntary deed to him was prima facie void, and the burden is on him to establish that it was the free, voluntary, unbiased act of the grantor. Whitridge v. Whitridge, 76 Md. 73 .

The fact on which the whole case turns is the anonymous letter, and the effect it had upon the plaintiff, in causing her as she alleges, to make the deed in question. The letter is as follows: Chestertown, Md. Mrs. Reed: As a friend I would like to tell you of some of the things I have heard, one is that' Fanny has lost her case and that A1 Jones intends to sue you for slander. Now my advice to you is make over your property to your children or in trust to your grandchildren if he does not win his suit you can get it back and if he does win it you will lose every thing you have; this must be done quickly or it will be too late, as Court commences in a few days. A Friend.” It appears that when the plaintiff received this letter she at once showed it to her son, the defendant, and he advised her immediately to see her counsel a most respectable member of the Kent County Bar.

It may be conceded that if the deed was in fact the fruit of this letter, the Court should not hesitate to ¹⁴⁷ declare the