COLEGATE D, OWINGS' CASE.—1 BLAND. 367

or misinformed. Henry Pigot's Case, 11 Co, 27; Hatch v. Hatch, &
Ves. 295.

It hag been laid down in general terms, that it is fraudulent to
obtain a deed by the exercise of undue influence over a man whose
mind had ceased to be a safe guide of his actions; Bar ding v.
Handy, 11 Wheat. 125; Chesterfield v. Janssen, 2 Ves. 156; or from
a man who was of small understanding and not able to govern the
lands which had descended to him. Tuyne's Case, 3 Co. 83. A
woman could read and write, and had taught a child to read, was
held to be a person of weak understanding; White v. Small, 2 Chaw.
C«. 103; so repeating scraps, of Latin and reading classic authors
was deemed no proof of sanity; because what a person learns in his
youth leaves a lasting impression, and the traces of it are never
entirely worn out. Such a person, though not a lunatic, was deter-
mined to be a weak mail. Bennet v. Vade, 2 Atk. 325. In another
case it is said, that the man was foolish to imbecility, though not
to downright idiocy. Bunch v. Hurst, 3 Derau. 292. A man who
had entirely recovered from a long continuance of lunacy is said
to have been of a diseased intellect from his birth. Wriylit v.
Proud, 13 Ves. 138. A young man is said to have been of mean
parts and easy to be imposed upon. Portengton v. Eglington, 2
Vern. 189. A person is spoken *of as being seventy-two

years of age and a weak man easily to be imposed upon. 392
Clarltson v. Hanway, 2 P. Will. 204. And again it is said that the
grantor was upwards of eighty-four years of age; blind or nearly
so, and altogether dependent on the kindness and assistance of
others. Griffith v. Robins, 3 Mad. 191. From all which it would
appear, that by weakness is meant a sort of mental imbecility
approaching to the condition of one who is actually non combos
mentis, and analogous to childishness and dotage. Kaimes' Pr. Eq.
b. 1, p. 1, c. 1, s, 3, and c. 2; Bates v. Graven, 2 Ves. Jum. 289.

The circumstances which, when taken in connexion with this
weakness of mind, constitutes a foundation of fraud whereon to
vacate a contract, are various. Shelf. Lun. 265. Such as that of
the deed never having been left for perusal; or its not being read;
or its being prepared by the grantee and obtruded on the grantor;
or where the gift was exorbitant, or where the party had not then
the means of paying what he stipulated to pay; or where in con-
sequence of the relation in which the parties stood towards each
other, or in any way, the grantee had obtained a commanding influ-
ence, or the entire confidence of the grantor, which was used; as
in the case of a wife who had used unwarrantable means to insin-
uate herself into the favor of an old man, and by imposing upon
his weakness, had clandestinely obtained from him a conveyance
of his estate; Hervey v. Herrey, I Atk. 564; Mountain v. Sennet,
1 Cox, 353; Nantes v. Corrock, 9 Ves. 183; or where the considera-
tion was greatly inadequate; or where the weak man had conveyed