DEEDS:    Mental  Incompetency — Forgetfulness  and  Age.    Principle  re-

2  affirmed  that  the  clear,  convincing,  and  satisfactory  showing  neces-
sary to  set  aside  a  deed  on  the  ground  of  mental  incompetency  is  not
necessarily  established  by  a  mere  showing  that  the  grantor  was  aged
and  f orgetfuL


1296  Sutherland  State  Bank  v.  Pubgason.     [192  Iowa

Appeal  from  Cherokee  District  Court. — C.  C.  Bradley,  Judge.
January  20,  1922.
Suit  in  equity,  for  cancellation  of  a  deed  made  by  Jane  A.
Bailey  to  Jennie  E.  McCulla  and  Maude  C.  Purgason,  appel-
lants, of  a  quarter  section  of  land,  on  the  grounds  that  the
grantor  was  mentally  incompetent  to  execute  the  deed;  that
the  deed  was  secured  by  undue  influence ;  and  that  the  deed  was
never  delivered.  The  facts  appear  in  the  opinion.  Decree  was
entered,  canceling  the  deed.  The  grantees  in  the  deed  appeal. —
Reversed.
Molyneux  &  Maker  and  C.  B.  Meloy,  for  appellants.
Walter  McCulla  and  Herrick  &  Herrick,  for  appellee.
Paville,  J. — I.    The  questions  presented  for  our  determin-
ation are  largely  questions  of  fact.     The  law  in  eases  of  this
character  is  well  established.    We  are  confronted  with  the  not
1  DiGEDB-  undue      iiHUsual  situation  where  an  attempt  is  made  to
port5J?Hy*  and       ®®^  asidc  a  deed  executed  by  an  elderly  person,
persuasion.  q^  i\^q  familiar  twofold  ground  of  an  alleged

want  of  mental  capacity  to  execute  the  deed  and.  a  claim  of
undue  influence.  The  action  is  brought  by  a  guardian.  The
record  discloses  that  Cyrenus  Bailey  and  his  wife,  Jane  A.
