Grove, 33 Md. 1S8.4 The relation

  
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="BACKGROUND: white" lang="EN-US">Grove, 33 Md. 1S8.4 The relation<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="BACKGROUND: white" lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>of the parties at the time of the alleged gift was as follows: Defendant, Samuel F. Jenkins, had been less accustomed to transact business than Jay, his brother. Each had implicit confidence in the other. In this magnanimous gift arrangement, no unfair advantage should be gained by either. When they could not run the sawmill and agree, it was shut down, and soon the circumstances Indicate that defendant thought that If the deal fell through the deed and bill of sale would be of no effect Plaintiff entertained the idea that as soon as the conveyances were executed he was the absolute owner of one-half of the property, and so claims the same.In Rhodes v. Bates, 1 Chancery App. 256, a ease between two brothers, Sir G. J. Turner, L. J., said: I take it to be a well-established principle</span><span style="COLOR: #0066ff; FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt" lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.ralphlaurensoutletstore.com/"><strong><span style="COLOR: windowtext; TEXT-DECORATION: none; text-underline: none">Ralph Lauren Outlet</span></strong></a></span><span style="BACKGROUND: white" lang="EN-US"> of this court that persons standing in a confidential relation towards others cannot entitle themselves to hold benefits which those others may have conferred upon them, unless they can shew to the satisfaction of the court that the persons by whom the benefits have been conferred had competent and independent advice in conferring them. This, in my opi</span><span style="COLOR: #0066ff; FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt" lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.ralphlaurensoutletstore.com/">Ralph Lauren Outlet Online</a> </span><span style="BACKGROUND: white" lang="EN-US">nion, is a settled general principle of the court, and I do not think that either the age or capacity of the person conferring the benefit, or the nature of the benefit conferred, affects this principle. Age and capacity are considerations which may be of great importance in cases in which th</span><span style="COLOR: #0066ff; FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt" lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.ralphlaurensoutletstore.com/">Polo Outlet Online</a> </span><span style="BACKGROUND: white" lang="EN-US">e principle does not apply; but I think they are but of little, if any, importance in cases to which the principle is applicable. They may afford a sufficient protection in ordinary cases, but they can afford but little protection in cases of influence founded upon confidence.In Story's Equity Jurisprudence 13th Ed. </span><span style="COLOR: #0066ff; FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt" lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.ralphlaurensoutletstore.com/">http://www.ralphlaurensoutletstore.com/</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </span></span><span style="BACKGROUND: white" lang="EN-US">§ 307 et seq., there is found a very complete statement of the law applicable to this case. According to section 307, In cases of constructive frauds, which arise from some peculiar, confidential, or fiduciary relation between the parties, there is often to be found some intermixture of deceit, imposition, overreaching, unconscionable advantage, or other mark of direct and positive fraud. But the principle on which courts of equity act in regard thereto stands independent of any such ingredients, upon a motive of general public policy; and it is designed in some degree as a protection to the parties against the effects of overweening confidence and self-delusion, and the Infirmities of hasty and precipitate judgment These courts will therefore often interfere in such cases, where but for such a peculiar relation they would either abstain wholly from granting relief or would grant It in a very modified andabstemious manner. See, also, Osmond v. Fitzroy, Peere Williams' Rep. 129.The relation of the parties at the time the instruments in question were executed was such as to compel the plaintiff to make a full discovery of the purport of the conveyances to his brother and partner, or abstain from gaining any selfish benefit in the transaction. It appears that plaintiff suggested and wrote the preliminary contract, and gave the attorney the information in regard to drawing the other documents. It is not to be presumed that defendant at his age and in his station of life, freely, voluntarily, and advisedly gave away and conveyed one-half of his home, and one-half of all the other means by which he could obtain subsistence during his old age, without expecting anything in return. The deal amounted to a constructive fraud upon the defendant, which vitiates the contract. Kroll v. Coach, 45 Or. 459, 78 Pac. 397, 80 Pac. 900. There are no intervening rights and the proper relief can be granted. Parrish v. Parrish, 33 Or. 486, 54 Pac. 352; Finlayson v. Finlayson, 17 Or. 347, 21 Pac. 57, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" unitname="l" sourcevalue="3" hasspace="True" negative="False" numbertype="1" tcsc="0">3 L</st1:chmetcnv>. R. A. 801, 11 Am. St Rep. 836.5 The deed and bill of sale should be annulled and canceled of record. The property therein described should not be considered in settlement, except as to the increase thereof, leaving as partnership property one portable sawmill <o:p></o:p></span></p>