¶1{dissenting). In this case the question whether undue influence was in fact exerted depends for its decision upon conflicting evidence. The case was tried on the circuit by a very able and experienced judge who found in favor of plaintiff on that issue. There is no such preponderance of testimony against that conclusion as satisfies me that it is incorrect; and hence my concurrence is not given to reversing it here, where we have not had the benefit of a personal view of the witnesses, on whose credibility the result, in a large degree, rests. Hence my vote is for the affirmance of the judgment.
120 Mo. 597
Hamilton v. Armstrong
Decided March 5, 1894
Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1894-03-05
— Hon. O. M. Spenceb, Judge. (1) While actual fraud was claimed in the petition, none was proved. The findings of the court-below upon this point should be satisfactory. (2) The-grantees in the deeds were nieces of the grantor, and no relation is shown but that growing out of this kindred relation. Undue influence is never presumed from a relationship which the law sanctions and approves.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Revebsed and demanded · Decided 1894-03-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 1953 · most notably In re Estate of Soulard (1897), Hickman v. Green (1894)
33 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →