392 COLEGATE D. OW1NGS' CASE.

of as being seventy-two years of age and a weak man easily to be
imposed upon.(e) 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, (f)
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 compos mentis, and analogous to childishness and
dotage, (g)

The circumstances which, when taken in connexion with this
weakness of mind, constitutes a foundation of fraud whereon to
vacate a contract, are various.(h) 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 consequence of
the relation in which the parties stood towards each other, or in
any way, the grantee had obtained a commanding influence, or the
entire confidence of the grantor, which was used; as in the case
of a wife who had used unwarrantable means to insinuate herself
into the favour of an old man, and by imposing upon his weak-
ness, had clandestinely obtained from him a conveyance of his
estate ;(i) or where the consideration was greatly inadequate; or
where the weak man had conveyed all his property, leaving him-
self to be fed and clothed at the pleasure of the grantee. In all
these, and many other similar cases, the weakness of mind of the
party, who was not altogether no?i compos mentis, has been taken
into account with the other circumstances to make up that amount
of imposition and fraud which was considered as a sufficient
ground for relief, (j)

This plaintiff, it appears, has until the latter years of her long
life enjoyed a full share of sound well regulated mental capacity.
But when this suit was instituted she had advanced beyond the

(c) Clarkson v. Hanway, 2 P. Will. 204.—(f) Griffith v. Robins, 3 Mad. 191.
(g) Kaimes' Pri. Eq. b. 1, p. 1, c. 1, s. 3 & c 2; Bates v. Graves, 2 Ves. jun. 289.
(k) Shelf. Lun. 265.—(i) Hervey v. Hervey,1 Atk. 564; Mountain u. Bennet, 1 Cox.
853; Nantes v, Corrock, 9 Ves. 183.—(j) White v. Small, 2 Chan. Ca. 103; Porteng-
ton v. Eglington, 2 Vern. 189; Clarkson v. Hanway, 2 P. Will. 204; Donegal's Case,
2 Ves. 408; Bridgman v. Green, 2 Ves. 627; Bennet v. Vade, 2 Atk, 324; Norton
v. Relly, 2 Eden, 286; Wright v. Proud, 13 Yes. 136; Huguenin v. Basely, 14 Ves.
273; Harvey v. Pecks, 1 Mun. 518; Rutherford v. Ruff, 4 Desau. 350; Rowland v.
Sullivan. 4 Desau. 518; Brogden v. Walker, 2 H. & J. 285; Gibson v. Jeyes,
6 Ves. 275.