Donnelly V. Rees Case Brief

Donnelly v. Rees, 74 P. 433

Facts

For five years before the execution of the deed Kean had been a habitual drunkard to an extent seriously to impair his mind, and such as "to make him an easy prey to the arts and schemes" of defendants or other designing people; 2. He was in such a condition of drunkenness when he made the deed "as to render him unfit to transact business, and entirely incapable of realizing and understanding or attending to the said transaction"; 3. The deed was without consideration; and 4. It was procured by the fraudulent practices of the defendants, or, in the terms used in the findings, it was fraudulently procured by "the arts and importunities" or "arts and schemes" of the defendants, and by undue influence exercised over the grantor by them.

This action is brought on by the daughter and sole heir of Patrick Kean, who brings this suit to set aside, as fraudulently obtained, a deed made by her father to the defendant--of date November 15, 1897. The land conveyed was an undivided half of certain mines owned by the former, and, it is found, was of the value of ten thousand dollars.

Issue

Whether it was necessary that the plaintiff should pay to the defendants the amount of their alleged bill, or to O'Brien the amounts alleged to have been advanced to Kean subsequently to the transaction if the deed was obtained by “fraud” and “undue influence” while Mr. Kean was intoxicated?

Rule

The defendants gained the land by "fraud" --i.e. by actual fraud,--and also by "undue influence," and are therefore--or, rather, each is "an involuntary trustee of the thing gained"; and the same result follows, because they gained the thing by "the violation of a trust." (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2224.)

Analysis

The court looked at Civ. Code, sec. 2224 when making their decision and found it was not necessary that the plaintiff should pay to the defendants the amount of their alleged bill, or to O'Brien the amounts alleged to have...