Infirm

Weak, feeble. When a witness is infirm to an extent likely to destroy his life, or to prevent his attendance at the trial, his testimony de iene ease may be taken at any age. 1 P. Wms. 117. See Witness.

Weak, feeble. The testiuio of an “Infirm” witness may be taken bene esse in some circumstances. See l P. Wms. 117.

1. Legally. insufficient; lacking legal efficacy; incomplete; invalid. See Faith, Good; Negotiable. 3. As to physical and mental infirmity, see Influence; Insanity. 1 18 Cent. Law. J. 3-7 (1884), cases. = 1 Bl. Com. 464. » 3 Bl. Com. 141; L. E., 10 Eq. 630. * Morford v. Peck, 46 Conn. 386 (1878), Loomis, J. 6 Gates 11. Hughes, 44 Wis. 336 ^1878). • Reiche v. Smythe, 13 Wall. 164(1871); United States V. Mattock, 2 Saw. 149-51 (1878). ' Gibson v. American Mut. Life Ins. Co., 37 N. Y. 584 55 (1868); rNFLUETfCE. Most frequently used in connection with " undue," and refers to persuasion, machination, or constraint of will presented or exerted to procure a disposition of property — by gift, conveyance, or will. The influence which is undue in cases of gifts inter vivos differs from that which is required to set aside a will. In testamentary cases, undueinfluence is always defined as coercion or frauds but, inter vivos, no such definition is applied. Where parties occupy positions in which one is more or less dependent upon the other, courts of equit.y hold that the weaker party must be protected, and they set aside bia gifts if he had not proper advice independently of the other.' Influence, to vitiate an act, must amount to force and coercion destroying free agency; it must not be the influence of affection or attachment; not the mere desire of gratifying the wishes of another. There must be proof that the act was obtained by coercion, by importunity which could not be resisted; that it was done merely for the sake. of peace; so that the motive was tantamount to force or fear.* Undue influence is often defined by the courts to be a " fraudulent and controlling influence."

In any application, the phrase savors of what is meant by fraud. ^ When a person, from infirmity and mental, weakness, is likely to be easily influenced by others, a transaction entered into by him, without independent advice, will be set aside, if there is any unfairness in it. Thus, where there is great weakness of mind in a grantor, arising from age, sickness, or other cause, though not amounting to absolute disqualification, and the consideration is grossly Inadequate, a court of equity, upon proper and seasonable application of the person injured, his representatives or heirs, will set the conveyance aside. In such case, it is sufficient to show: great mental weakness — not amounting to insanity or extreme imbecility; and, inadequacy of consideration." Influence obtained by modest persuasion and arguments addressed to the understanding or by mere appeal to the affections, cannot be termed " undue; " but influence obtained by flattery, importunity, superiority of will; mind, or character, or by what art soever that human thought, ingenuity, or cunning may employ, which would give dominion over the will of the testator to such an extent as to destroy free agency or constrain him to do, against his will, what he is unable to refuse, is " undue." * The undue influence for which a deed or will will ■. ' Haydook v. Haydock, 34 N. J. B. 575 (1681); Huguenin V. B£»seley, 2 L. C. Eq., 4 Am. ed,, 1271, 1198-1890, cases. 2 Goodwin v. Goodwin, 59 CaJ. 501 (1881): Jarm. Wills, Perk. Notes, 41; Layman v. Conrey, 00 Md. 232 (1883). s Wessell v. Bathjohn, 89 N. C. 383 (1883). ' AUore v. Jewell, 94 U. S. 511-12 (1876), Field, J. Approved, Griffith V, Godey, 113 id. 95(1885); Crebs v. Jones, 79 Va. 382 (1884). See also Harding v. Wheaton, 8 Mas. 3S0 (1821), Story, J.; Harding v. Handy, 11 Wheat. 103, 119 (1886), Marshall, C. J. be annulled must be such that the party making it has no free will but stands in vinculis. " It must amount to force or coercion, destroying free agency." The ground upon which courts of equity grant relief is that one party by improper means has gamed an unconscionable advantage over another. Each case must be decided on its own merits.' Where a testator embraced spiritualism as practiced by his beneficiary,.and became possessed by it, and this belief was used by the beneficiary to alienate him from his only child, his will was set aside." See Ddkess'; Fraud; Insanity, 2 (6); Beading; Spiritc Alism.