COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE. 397

the consideration of the plaintiff, or in her possession for an instant
before its execution; and at that time, it was neither read by or to
her, or explained to her in any form whatever, (n) It conveys to
the defendant, in the most full and comprehensive terms, the whole
and entire estate real and personal of the plaintiff, without condi-
tion or reservation of any kind whatever. It professes to have
been made for value received, but was in fact signed without the
least valuable consideration; and, if sustained, would leave the
plaintiff utterly destitute and penny less. At the time of the exe-
cution of this deed the plaintiff was upwards of eighty-four years
of age; and was then, and had been for some time previous in a
state of general dotage: and besides, was at the time suffering
under an attack of erysipelas, that grievously affected her mental
faculties, from which attack she could not have immediately
recovered a perfectly sound state of mind, even after that bodily
disease had intermitted or passed off, and which disorder must
have considerably accelerated the pre\iously commenced devasta-
tions of age.(o) This deed must therefore be annulled, as well
because the plaintiff was, at the time it was executed, actually
non compos mentis; as on the ground, that it was obtained by the
most gross abuse of confidence, and by a fraudulent combination;
for, as it has been truly said, fraud and deceit by him who is
trusted, is most odious in law.(p)

Thus far the plaintiff will obtain all the equity she asks. But
he who asks equity must do equity. The plaintiff herself seems
to admit in her bill, when taken in connexion with her late hus-
band's will, which she exhibits as a part of it, that she stands here
in some sort encumbered with an equity due to the defendant.
And the only difference between these parties as to that claim is as
to its extent. The defendant claims an absolute estate in fee sim-
ple in the property of the plaintiff after her death. While, on the
other hand, the plaintiff insists, that the defendant's claim extends
no further than a life estate with remainder to her lawful children,
should she have any.

The bill states, that the plaintiff was seized in fee simple of a
tract of land called " John & Thomas' Forest;" that at an early
period of her life she married John C. Owings, who made his will,

(n) Thoroughgood's Case, 2 Co. 9.—(o) Attorney General v. Parnther, 3 Bro. C. C.
443; 1 London Jurist, 340; Sergeson v. Sealey, 2 Atk. 413.—(f») Fermor's Case.
8 Co. 79.