case bennet versus vade and other June Reg lib a fol see Allen v MPherson h l  c SC post the plaintiff as heir at law to sir John lee bring a bill to set  aside a conveyance of the estate of the defendant on a suggestion of fraud  imposition and undue influence Lord Hardwicke hold the plaintiff ought to be  relieve and decree the deed shall be deliver and possession of the estate  likewise give to he vide white v small Charles can Clarkson v Hanway p W James  v grave p W Bridgman v green Ves Evans v blood bro par can bro p c and ed  Filmer v get bro p c bro p c and ed a bill be bring by the plaintiff as heir  at law to sir John lee to set aside a conveyance of his estate to the  defendant upon a suggestion of fraud and imposition and the undue influence  that vade in particular have over he Lord chancellor I be of opinion the  plaintiff in the original bill ought to be relieve the principal question must  arise upon the original bill so far as the bill seek to set asideathe will it  be improper for this court can make a decree of this kind but only direct a  issue devisavit well non for it be settle ever since the case of powis and  Andrews bro p c and ed upon a appeal from Lord macclesfield decree February to  the house of lord that a will can be set aside for fraud and imposition here  because a will of personal estate may be set aside in the ecclesiastical court  for fraud archer v Alloss vern Thwaitse v smith p W flume v beal p W Tucker v  Phipps post vol Sheffield v duchess of Buckinghamshire ante vol Marriott v  Marriott stram and of real estate at law goss v Tracy p W barnesley v Powell  Ves web v Claverden post and the reason be that the animus to cause to testify  which be essential to the make of a will be want in this case and therefore  can be consider as a will at all but the recovery here have very lucky relieve  the court from this part of the case for by the over diligence and assiduity  of the defendant he have defeat himself which atkins er p be a very common  case and be the interposition of providence to prevent the ill consequence of  fraud sir John lee the tenant have not plead nontenure therefore he gain a new  estate though the limitation be to the old use vide Tregonwel v Strachan stram  durn east hill v Broughton bro Charles Rep roe v Baldwere durn east and the  will be revoke by it vide Brudenel v Boughton ante hick v mors Amb vide Lord  chief justice holt argument upon this point in the case of page versus Hayward  salk atkins it have be object that the bill charge insanity in sir John lee  and at the same time his counsel put it entire upon his weakness the plaintiff  to be sure be right in come here upon the head of fraud and imposition to have  the deed deliver up to be cancel Herbert v lowns Charles Rep and for that  reason proper in amend his bill and charge fraud in order to set asideathe  deed or if the court shall be of opinion that it be mere a matter triable at  law then they may dismiss it to law nor be there any thing irregular in a  person bring a bill with two different aspect that if one fail the other may  as effectual answer the purpose for which the bill be bring see Grimes v  French ante atk I shall take it for grant that sir John lee disorder be  neither idiotism nor lunacy from the inquisition in but still I think this be  rather evidence for the plaintiff than the defendant the boundary be so narrow  and straight between a person who be non compos chin and who be so weak as sir  John lee appear to have be that it ought not to overturn the plaintiff equity  because some of his witness go so far as to give such instance as amount to  lunacy or idiotism there can be a great instance of weakness than the caution  Mr Onslow think himself oblige to give sir John lee which be to avoid sign any  write or paper whatsoever it be like a nurse warning a child not to go near  water for fear of be drown it be prove that he be addict to drink likewise  which add to his natural disability it be argue by the witness on both side he  be almost dark that one eye be entire go and but a small glimmer of light from  the other another great instance of weakness be prove in this cause that they  marry he without his so much as know that he be so or even without the decency  of make a previous proposal to he and I think this be one of the strong mark  of weakness and liableness to imposition that ever I meet with sir John lee  repeat scrap of Latin and read the classic author be no proof of his sanity  because what a person learn in his youth leaves a last impression and the  trace of it be never entire wear out and therefore I lie no weight atkins upon  it and though I do not say the inquisition upon the commission of lunacy have  do wrong in find he no lunatic on circumstance lie before they yet I think I  be as right in determine he to be a weak man upon the circumstance which be  lie before I the second consideration be the strong proof likewise of the  defendant power and influence over sir John lee there be one remarkable  instance of his stand in awe of vade that whenever he be outrageous the bare  name of vade will quiet he as a nurse do a child the three consideration be as  to the deed sir John lee die January that the settlement of the whole estate  upon vade by way of lease and release be date the that and that of the  December before with two very extraordinary proviso first to restrain sir John  lee during his life from take any fine or lease without reserve the full rend  and second the power of revocation which be so express as that the deed be not  to be revoke by sir John but in the presence of three particular person  therein name or of their executor or administrator by this settlement sir John  lee be make to disinherit his heir at law absolute and give his estate away  from his next of kin to vade and other who be no relation for who he never  have declare any kindness so as to create a apprehension that he intend to  give they his estate nor have they do any thing to merit it at his hand here  be a voluntary settlement and the grantor himself so fetter that he be not  able to raise one shilling and as much confine as if it have be a marriage  settlement for a valuable consideration as to the power of revocation the most  extraordinary I ever see for the drawer atkins er p of this deed foresee if  there have be no such power it will have be almost of itself a reason to have  set the deed aside and therefore for form sake have insert one but there be no  proof that sir John lee direct this particular revocation there be no proof  that he be acquaint with any one of the gentleman name in the deed and how can  sir John lee have get they all together upon any sudden illness who live at  distance from one another or how can he force they to come if they shall  refuse a will will have dispose of the whole as well as this conveyance but in  order to secure it effectual the defendant Vadeathought this method better for  fear sir John lee may be get out of their band and make a new will the case of  the duke of Albemarle Freem S c be quite different from the present before he  set out for his government at Jamaica a deed be prepare by his direction and  sign by sir William Jones who peruse it at his request and the power of  revocation there be in the presence of a not tie down to six peer particular  person be this at all like the present where there be no previous instruction  from sir John lee no perusal of counsel on his behalf and a power of  revocation limit to three person by name and almost impracticable to be  perform next as to the execution of it the deed be not prove to be so much as  read to sir John lee in the rough draft before the execution vide Mansers case    a b Thorogoods case   a b nor in the engrossment at the time it be execute  but one part execute and not leave with sir John lee or any body for he then  how can he remember the power of revocation and therefore vad take away the  deed thus execute amount in effect to the same thing as if it have atkins be a  absolute conveyance without any power of revocation at all all the conveyance  be execute after vade have get a entire influence over he for beside this deed  the attorney who draw it wildman have a annuity to himself and his wife of  pound per and during their joint life and to the survivor they have no merit  as to sir John lee but be only hush money from vade beside annuity of pound to  two other person Videathe case of standard v lee which go up to the house of  lord it be say by the defendant counsel that if sir John lee be not insane but  only weak be may do a act that will bind he and very right observe for there  can as be true say be two rule of judge in law and in this court upon the  point of insanity the only part that deserve to be consider be the plain  intention sir John lee bad to disinherit his heir but then it will depend upon  this question whether this too be not owe to the power and undue influence  vade have over he and the frequent opportunity they take of incense sir John  lee against his heir upon account of the inquisition of lunacy therefore  suppose he have a real intention of disinherit his heir at law if it be owe to  fraud and imposition this will fetch back and revest it in the heir and if the  settlement be out of the case no body can have it but the heir and this be  settle by variety of case it come near to the case of atkins top and Stanhope  which go up to the house of peer may the power of imposition in that case be  not the ten part so strong as in the present the provision for creditor be a  very honest one and therefore I shall direct the trustee for this purpose  under the settlement to convey to the plaintiff with a save of the interest of  sir John lee creditor if any shall hereafter appear the deed be decree to be  deliver up to the plaintiff and possession of the estate likewise to be give  to he immediate and vade order to pay cost as to wildman I will not have it  lie down as a rule that a attorney or solicitor who draw deed under fraudulent  circumstance shall afterward to save cost excuse himself in court by say that  he can only follow direction and therefore be not to be involve in the blame  of the transaction but here there be a additional circumstance of the annuity  to himself and his wife which put it out of all doubt that he ought to pay  cost and order accord atkins er p