State ex rel. v. Lawrence Bridge Co...22 Kan. 438. State er rel. v. Nebraska Teleph. Co..17 Neb. 126. Story v. New York Elev. Ry. Co. Strauss v. Carolina D. & L. Assoc. Sullivan v. Haug. Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. 66 Fed. 785 (14 C.C.A. 264) 60 .3 Wash. St. 316.. 125 365 Virginia Midland R. R. Co. v. White.84 Va. 498. Watson v. Dundee Mort. Invest. Co...12 Or. 474. Wead v. St. Johnsbury & L. C. R. R. Co... .64 Vt. 52.. 102 Western American Co. v. St. Ann Co.22 Wash. 158. Western Rv. of Alabama v. Alabama * 446 Wight v. Randskopf.. Wilcox v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. Wile v. Cohn.. Wilhelm v. Woodcock. Wild v. Oregon Short Line Ry. Co...21 Or. 159.. Wilkin v. City of St. Paul. Willamette Iron Works v. Oregon Willets Mfg. Co. v. Board of Mercer Williams v. Eggleston. Williamson v. North Pac. Lumber Wilson v. City of Salem. .11 Or. 518. .24 Or. 224.. ..62 N. J. Law, 95.. Co.38 Or. 560.. .343, 353 169 95 .92, 97 96 416 47:) 356 337 91 127, 12) 487 317 .343, 352 41 194 77 514 Wilson v. Denver, etc., R. R. Co....7 Colo. 101. 100 119 1. The plaintiff and her husband testified in a suit to set aside a conveyance that the deed was not read to them before they signed it, and that they did not know its contents. There were several persons present when the deed was executed, none of whom corroborated the plaintiff, and most of whom testified that the deed was read. Held, sufficient to show that the deed was read to plaintiff and her husband before it was executed by them. EVIDENCE OF DURESS. 2. Defendant exchanged lands with plaintiff's husband, and conveyed his land to plaintiff at the request of the husband. Defendant afterwards learned that plaintiff's husband had no title to the land conveyed, and demanded that his land be reconveyed to him. Plaintiff and her husband met defendant at an attorney's office, and she refused to reconvey the property; and the defendant's attorney, who was also a justice of the peace, intimated that she would be sent to the penitentiary if she refused to sign it, and she was urged by her husband to do so. She then left the office and consulted an attorney, who informed her that she could not be arrested; and she then returned to the other office, and defendant's attorney commenced to write, and told her she would be arrested when the instrument was finished, but it was not shown that she knew what he was writing. Plaintiff and her husband testified that they wished to consult another attorney, but that defendant and his attorney would not permit them to leave the office, but a disinterested witness testified that she left the office a second time. Held, not sufficient to show that the wife was induced to sign the deed by duress. |