Joe Grenier v. James W. Harley, Special Administrator With General Powers of the Estate of Dan L. Harley, Deceased

Sustaining the judgment of the Court below in the instant case, there is more than the proverbial “scintilla of evidence,” or, in the even more ancient idiom of the common law, more than “the shadow of a shade”.

The testimony supporting the District Court’s finding that the appellant obtained the execution of the deed in controversy “through undue influence and constructive fraud” is sufficient to dispel any suspicion that, in the language of the Gypsum case, infra, “a mistake has been committed”.

1. Statement of the Case

The appellant’s brief contains no adequate statement of the case, as required by our Rule 18(2) (c), 28 U.S.C.A. Although his brief carries the opening caption, “Statement of Case”, it contains only one sentence that deserves that designation; namely, that the action was commenced by the appellee, to cancel a deed executed by the decedent, Dan L. Harley, conveying real property in Montana to the appellant. The rest of the so- called “Statement” sets forth jurisdictional facts and then argumentatively summarizes a small portion of the evidence. Nowhere does the “Statement of Case” narrate the following proceedings below:

The case was tried to the Court without…