¶1Appellate courts are wisely reluctant to disturb the decisions of a chancellor upon mere questions of fact. In the present case, the onus was upon the complainant to establish the charges of the bill; and we would be unwilling to reverse the decree of the chan*64cellor, unless satisfied that there was a decided preponderance of tbe evidence against tbe conclusions adopted by him. As is not unusual in cases of this sort, tbe conflict in tbe evidence is considerable. Undoubtedly, there is a good deal of testimony which tends strongly to establish the donor’s mental incapacity ; but no inconsiderable portion of this proceeds from witnesses whose credit has been successfully impeached. Oh the other hand, quite a number of witnesses sustain the capacity of the donor, and the testimony of some of them is very emphatic and satisfactory. On the whole, we are not so well convinced that the chancellor erred in his decision upon the question of fact submitted to him, that we are willing to reverse his decree; and it must, therefore, be affirmed.
39 Ala. 63
Phillips' Adm'r v. Phillips
Decided January 15, 1863
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1863-01-15
Heard before the Hon. M. J. Saffold. The bill in this case was filed, on the 28th March, 1855, by William G. Phillips, as the administrator of the estate of William Phillips, deceased, against Tabitha Phillips, who was the daughter of said decedent, and William Phillips, jr., and Greenberry Phillips, who were the illegitimate children of said Tabitha ; and sought to cancel and set aside, on the grounds of. fraud, undue influence, and mental incapacity, three deeds of gift,…
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1878
6 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1863-01-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →