#### R. B. CHAPPELL and wife v. EDWARD G. BUTLER.

In an action by a distributee against an administrator, seeking to cancel a deed releasing tbe plaintiff’s interest in tbe estate of the intestate to said administrator, on the ground that tbe deed was obtained under false and fraudulent misrepresentation, &c., evidence is admissible, to show that the administrator (tbe defendant) on tbe day preceding the execution of said deed by the plaintiff, obtained a similar deed from another distributee of the intestate by like false and fraudulent misrepresentations and concealment.

Where the jury, in response to issues submitted to them, found: That-tile defendant did make false and fraudulent misrepresentations, and did fraudulently conceal facts and circumstances from the plaintiffs, and did exercise undue influence to secure the execution of such deed; and that the plaintiffs executed the same by reason thereof: Held, that there was no error in the judgment of the court below, directing said deed to be delivered up to he cancelled, and declaring the defendant to be a trustee of the plaintiffs, as to their interest in the estate of the intestate; and that the judgment must be affirmed.

Civil Action, tried before Moore, J. and a jury, at July (Special) Term, 1875, of Granville Superior Court.

Tbe action was brought to cancel a deed of assignment and release executed and delivered by tbe plaintiffs to tbe defendant on the ground that the same was obtained by false *460■and fraudulent misrepresentations made by the defendants.

The complaint alleged: That Elizabeth Marable died intestate in the county of Granville in the year 1871, leaving a large real and personal estate, and the defendant on the 3rd day of March, 1871, qualified as administrator of her estate.

The plaintiff, Julia Chappell, is a near relative of the intes‘tate, and as such entitled to a large interest in said estate, and the plaintiff R. B. Chappell is her husband.

The plaintiff’s reside in the State of Virginia and knew but little of the business of the intestate, and the defendant resided near the intestate and Avas fully cognisant of the situation and value of her estate. Shortly after the death of the intestate the defendant came to the house of the plaintiff in the State of Virginia and stated that the estate of the intestate was-greatly indebted and that but little if anything at all would be coming to her distributees. That he had lived with the intestate during her life, and that she had always promised him to give him her estate when she died, but that she had died without having done so and he thought the distributees ought to release him. The plaintiffs believing these representations and the defendant being a relation of the ferae plaintiff, the plaintiffs during that visit executed a release of their interest in said estate for the nominal sum of ten dollars.

The real estate of the intestate was worth about twenty thousand dollars, and was free from debt, and the plaintiff was aware of these facts at the time said representations were made.

The defendant has had the said deed recorded and now claims the interest of the plaintiffs in the estate of the intestate in his own right, under the deed.

The defendant in his answer denied that the said deed was obtained by false and fraudulent statements made to the plain-4iffs. He also denied that he made his representations as .-alleged in the complaint.

*461The answer contained other allegations denying the facts alleged in the complaint and explaining the representations made to the plaintiffs, but it is unnecessary to state the same as they in no way effect the decision of the case in this court.

The following issues were submitted to the jury :

1. Did the defendant make to the plaintiffs any false or fraudulent misrepresentations or fraudulent concealments or exercise any undue influence to secure the execution of the deed in the complaint mentioned ?

2. Did the plaintiffs execute tlxe said deed by reason of the false or fraudulent misrepresentations or fraudulent conceal-ments or undue influence on the part of the defendant ?

During the progress of the trial the plaintiffs introduced one Mrs. Jefferson, also a distributee of the defendant’s intestate, and proposed to prove by her, that on the day before the deed in controversy was executed, the defendant and one Eichard II. Ilammie procured from her- a deed, releasing her interest in the estate of the intestate, by false and fraudulent misrepresentations and concealment and undue influence. The defendant objected; the objection was overruled and the defendant excepted.

The record sent up on appeal to this court is voluminous. The foregoing are all the facts necessary to an understanding of the points raised and decided in this court.

The jury found all the issues in favor of the plaintiff, and the court rendered judgment, that the said deed be cancelled, and declaring the defendant a truetee of the plaintiffs’ as to their interest in the estate of the intestate.

Erom this judgment the defendant appealed.

Edwards and Batchelor efe Son, for the appellant.

Hargrove, Venable, Peace and Young, contra.

Settle, J.

The plaintiffs seek to have the deed executed by them to the defendant declared null and void, and that the *462same be delivered up to be caneellod. The jury have found :

1. “ That the defendant did make to the plaintiffs false and fraudulent misrepresentations, and did fraudulently conceal facts and circumstances from the plaintiffs, and that the defendant did exercise undue influence to secure the execution of the deed in complaint mentioned.”

2. “ That the plaintiffs did execute the said deed by reason of the false and fraudulent misrepresentations and concealment of the defendant, and by reason of undue inflnence on the part of the defendant.”

A perusal of the record, which is ten times more voluminous than necessary to present the points which arise upon it, satisfies us that his Honor submitted the matter fairly to the jury, and that their verdict was fully warranted by the evidence, -which is sent up with the record.

The exceptions of the defendant to the admission of evi dence cannot be sustained. The whole matter is too plain for-argument.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. Let this be certified, &c.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.