
    Jones v. Jones.
    It does not affirmatively appear that the court erred in striking the plea of fraud, inasmuch as the record of the case in which the decree was obtained is not set forth, nor any of its contents stated or recited, so as to show that the fraud complained of was material or had any relation to the grounds of relief upon which the decree was rendered.
    August 1, 1892.
    Pleading and practice. Fraud. Before Judge Martin. Harris superior court. April term, 1891.
    Complaint for land was brought by James J. Jones against Miss Lucy Ann Jones, to the April term, 1888, of Harris superior court. The abstract of title was : “Decree at Oct. term, 1877, vesting title to [the premises in dispute] in James J. Jones and giving use and possession to Miss Lucy Ann Jones during her life and in fee to James J. Jones, he to take possession at her death. Decree at Harris superior court Oct. term, 1877.” By amendment the plaintiff alleged that at the October term, 1877, of Harris superior court, a decree was rendered in his favor in an action between him and Mrs. Ann Jones, by virtue of which decree the title to said land in remainder was vested in him, while a life-estate was decreed in her, and that she died in June, 1885. The plaintiff recovered, and the defendant excepted to the striking of her second plea, which alleged as follows : The decree relied on to recover the premises in dispute was obtained by fraud, and is void and of no effect, for that Ann Jones, the mother of plaintiff and defendant, at the time it was rendered was greatly advanced in age and quite feeble, and her mind greatly impaired. The plaintiff filed his bill against her and made her believe that he had the power and would turn her out of doors upon the cold charity of the world, and falsely and fraudulently represented to her that he was entitled to have a decree vesting the title in him to said premises, and that he had paid the purchase money, and the court would give him the land; and Ann Jones, “by reason of her extreme age and impaired mind, did not understand her right or what was being done and made fear and the said James J. Jones permitted him to have the decree described in plaintiff’s abstract.” That he had the power to put her out of possession, and that he had paid the purchase money for the land and was entitled to have the title vested in him, was false and untrue; she paid the entire purchase money herself. She died and left defendant as her heir at law in possession of the premises in dispute.
   Judgment affirmed.

0. J. Thornton, for plaintiff in error. ■

Peabody, Brannon & Hatcher and J. H. Worrill, contra.  