Nobles

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 16 The purpose of this action is to set aside a certain deed, purporting to convey the lands therein described to defendant, and to quiet title to said lands. The plaintiff, having been, prior to the commencement of this action, adjudged by the superior court to be an incompetent, and a guardian of her estate and person thereupon appointed, brought the suit and is a party hereto by her general guardian. Judgment was awarded to plaintiff, setting aside the deed and quieting her title to the lands alleged to have been thereby conveyed. The appeal is from the judgment and the order denying defendant a new trial. The defendant is a son of the plaintiff, and it is charged in the complaint that the latter, while in a state of mental incompetency, conveyed to the defendant, without a valuable consideration, the lands involved in this controversy. It is alleged that the plaintiff, by reason of the infirmities of old age, was without capacity to transact business, or to realize and understand the effect of her act in executing said deed to defendant;…

We have carefully examined the petition for a rehearing herein and observe nothing therein persuading a different conclusion from that arrived at in the main opinion. The petition involves practically only a repetition of an argument based upon the evidence and the facts thereby established. We are unable now, as we were upon the original investigation of the record, to see our way clear to hold that the evidence, as a matter of law, is insufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court. Our attention has, however, been called to two immaterial inaccuracies in the statement of the facts in the original opinion. We therein stated that prior to the commencement of the action the plaintiff, Mrs. Hutton, had been declared an incompetent and a guardian of her estate and person thereupon appointed by the superior court. The fact is, as we find upon re-examination of the record, she began the action before she was adjudged an incompetent, and the proceeding in which she was so declared was consequently had after the suit was instituted. We also stated that Mrs. Hutton, prior to the execution of the deed, was induced to leave her farm and take up her residence with defendant and…