348 COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE.—1 BLAND.

This case was brought before the Court by a bill filed by Cole-
gate D. Owings against Charlotte C. D. Owings, on the 21st May,
1825, in which the plaintiff alleged, that she was then more than
eighty-four years of age, and at a time when she was in a condi-
tion of extreme ill health, and altogether deprived of the proper
use of her mental faculties, the defendant had fraudulently caused
her to execute and deliver a deed dated on the 15th of June, 1824,
which purports to be a conveyance from the plaintiff of all her real
and personal estate to the defendant; that the deed was made
without any valuable consideration whatever, upon the false and
fraudulent pretext that the plaintiff had promised to give by her
last will and testament all her estate to the defendant. Upon
which * the plaintiff prayed, that the deed might be annulled
371 and cancelled, and for general relief according to the nature
of her case.

The defendant by her answer denied, that the deed had been
fraudulently or in any manner improperly obtained from the plain-
tiff, and averred, that the plaintiff, as her mother, had promised to
her father, a short time before his death, to provide for her. In
consequence of which, and in express reference to that promise, he
had by his last will given the defendant a trifling legacy, and so,
in effect, excluded her from all participation in his estate. Upon
all which the defendant insisted, that the deed should be .sustained,
or that she should have .secured to her the full benefit of the plain-
tiff's promise.

To this answer the plaintiff put in a general replication, and a
commission was issued to take testimony; but before it was re-
turned, the plaintiff, on the 31st of August, 1826, came from Balti-
more to Annapolis with the defendant, and by an order in writing,
signed by her, directed the register to dismiss the bill, and it was
dismissed accordingly.

On the 6th of November, 1826, the solicitors of the plaintiff
filed their petition, in which they stated, that although the com-
plainant was not a lunatic, yet she was incapable of transacting
business or disposing of her property; and that she had declared,
since her return home, that she went to Annapolis with her own
lawyers; and instead of dismissing her bill, she is under the im-
pression, that she has got all her property back, and that the deed
to the defendant has been set aside; and the plaintiff's solicitors
further allege, that the order for dismissing this suit had been pro-
cured by fraudulent practices and undue influence upon the plain-

Heiwitts Appeal, 55 Md. 514; Nevin T. Gttlespie, 56 Md. 320; Kerby v. Kerby,
57 Md. 345; Linnenkemper v. Kempton, 58 Md. 159; Bouldin v. Reynolds, 58
Md. 491; Goodwin v. White, 59 Md. 503; Stirling v. Stirling, Court of Appeals,
1885.

The equitable doctrine of undue influence is elaborately discussed in Pol-
lock on Contracts, 583, et seq.