Gardner v. Ives

94 A. 269, 248 Pa. 574, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 614
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 22, 1915
DocketAppeal, No. 180
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 A. 269 (Gardner v. Ives) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gardner v. Ives, 94 A. 269, 248 Pa. 574, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 614 (Pa. 1915).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The averments in appellant’s bill, upon which she asked that the deed to the appellee be declared null and void, are that at the time it was executed by Mary Ives she was in her eighty-second year, with failing memory, [575]*575weak in body and mind, and that the appellee had procured the execution of the instrument by fraud and undue influence. The learned and careful chancellor below found, “with no difficulty whatever,” that the grantor, at the time she executed the deed, had sufficient mental capacity to understand what she did, and that the grantee, her son, had exercised no undue influence over her in inducing her to execute and deliver .the instrument to him. On these findings the appeal is dismissed and the decree affirmed at appellant’s costs.

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

Related

Stull v. Ragsdale
620 S.W.2d 264 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 A. 269, 248 Pa. 574, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-ives-pa-1915.