Brooks v. Pratt

First Circuit

Brooks v. Pratt

116 F. 1020, 52 C.C.A. 680, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4396

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 1902

DocketNos. 399, 400

StatusPublished

This text of 116 F. 1020 (Brooks v. Pratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brooks v. Pratt, 116 F. 1020, 52 C.C.A. 680, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4396 (1st Cir. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

COLT, Circuit Judge.

Upon full consideration of the evidence, we have no doubt that Charles R. Gray and Frederick W. Gray, at the time they severally made the assignments to the defendant below, and for many years previous thereto, were of weak mind, and, in consequence, the easy subjects of undue influence. Further, in conformity with the principles and decisions of courts of equity both in this country and in England, we have no question that the relation of attorney and client, under the circumstances disclosed in these cases, renders the assignments invalid. To reverse the decree in these eases, as was said in Broun v. Kennedy, “would be to unsettle the law upon a point on which the best interests of society require that it should be absolutely adhered to.” 4 De Gex, J. & S. 217, 222. In our judgment, these cases are free from doubt, and we need add nothing to the clear and comprehensive opinion of the circuit court. Decrees affirmed, and the costs of appeal are awarded in each case to the appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COLT, Circuit Judge.

Upon full consideration of the evidence, we have no doubt that Charles R. Gray and Frederick W. Gray, at the time they severally made the assignments to the defendant below, and for many years previous thereto, were of weak mind, and, in consequence, the easy subjects of undue influence. Further, in conformity with the principles and decisions of courts of equity both in this country and in England, we have no question that the relation of attorney and client, under the circumstances disclosed in these cases, renders the assignments invalid. To reverse the decree in these eases, as was said in Broun v. Kennedy, “would be to unsettle the law upon a point on which the best interests of society require that it should be absolutely adhered to.” 4 De Gex, J. & S. 217, 222. In our judgment, these cases are free from doubt, and we need add nothing to the clear and comprehensive opinion of the circuit court. Decrees affirmed, and the costs of appeal are awarded in each case to the appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 F. 1020, 52 C.C.A. 680, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-pratt-ca1-1902.