Killian v. Badgett
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL EROM PULASKI CHANCERY COURT. Hon. T. D. W. Yonley, Chancellor. The bill charges that Killian obtained the conveyance from his wife by taking advantage of the weakness of her mind, occasioned by excessive use of morphine, and ill-health. The answer directly denies this, and is good, unless contradicted by two witnesses, or one with strong corroborating circumstances.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROM PULASKI CHANCERY COURT. Hon. T. D. W. Yonley, Chancellor. The bill charges that Killian obtained the conveyance from his wife by taking advantage of the weakness of her mind, occasioned by excessive use of morphine, and ill-health. The answer directly denies this, and is good, unless contradicted by two witnesses, or one with strong corroborating circumstances. Burr vs. Burton, 18 Ark., 214; Spence vs. Dodd, 19 Id. 166. Old age, failing health, and failure to recollect or understand certain transactions, will not alone be sufficient to prove-incapacity to make a will. Clarke vs.…
1Opinion of the Court
Whytock, Special Sup. J.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Pulaski Chancery Court, rendered on the 29th day of July, 1868. The suit was commenced by the appellees, Badgett and wife, for the purpose of cancelling a deed in trust, executed by Milus A. Killian and Elizabeth Killian, his wife, to defendant, William B. Badgett, as trustee. The deed bears date the 28th day of May, 1861. The complaint charged that it was procured from Mrs. Killian by the-fraud and misrepresentations of the defendant, Milus A. Killian, her husband.
The Chancery Court decreed that the title to the lands described,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Blanchard v. NestleNew York Supreme Court · 1846
3Cited by1 opinion
- Morton v. DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912