Case Briefs Week 1 Introduction To Legal Analysis

1095 Words5 Pages
Case Briefs By Janainna Bezerra Kaplan University Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing March 29, 2011 Case 1 Donnelly v. Rees 141 Cal. 56, Cal. 1903. November 6, 1903 Facts: The sole heir of a deceased person may be set aside a deed secured from the deceased without thought of the defendants and their fraudulent practices of undue influence over the deceased. The deceased was known to be a drunkard for more than five years before completing the dead. The deceased drinking problem left the deceased unfit to do business and incapable of attending, realizing, understanding the transaction. Issue: Is the plaintiff required to make payments on an account of an alleged bill if the deed was made using fraudulent practices. Is being an ordinary drunk enough to avoid a deed or contract. Rule: Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1853 and Code Civ. Proc.’ Sec. 1963, subd. 5., were admissible into evidence. The case came into several provisions of section 2224 of the Civil Code and also with the other questions that were involved in the case that needed to be distinguish (1) The defendants gained the land by "fraud" --i. e. by actual fraud,--and also (2) by "undue influence," and are therefore--or, rather, each is "an involuntary trustee *61 of the thing gained"; and (3) the same result follows, because they gained the thing by "the violation of a trust." Apply: Civ. Code, sec. 2219; Pierce v. Robinson, 13 Cal. 127; Kimball v. Tripp, 136 Cal. 634, 635; Knight v. Tripp, 121 Cal. 674; Davies v. Otty, 35 Beav. 213. Conclusion: The Court held that the deed in question was obtained through undue influence because the defendants knew that the deceased had a five year history of alcohol abuse and used that knowledge to have the deceased sign the deed in question while he was unit to transact business. Case 2 Guidici v. Guidici, 2 Cal.2d 497, Cal.,1935.
Open Document