
    Peter Weller and Catharine Weller, his Wife, Resp’ts, v. Louis Weller et al., App’lts.
    
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed January 15, 1889.)
    1. Deed—Under what circumstances will not be upheld.
    A deed, upheld by no consideration, whereby aged parents conveyed valuable real estate to their sons who prepared the instrument and procured its execution by the grantors, under a misapprehension of its contents, . will be set aside at the suit of the grantors, such a transaction amounting to fraud.
    3. Practice—Appeal—Failure to except to refusals to find—Effect OF.
    Where a party takes no exception to the refusal of the trial judge to find certain facts as requested, the refusal to find is not a subject of review in the court of appeals.
    Appeal from a judgment of the supreme court, general term, fifth department, affirming a judgment entered upon the decision of the court, in a case tried at the Brie county equity term. The facts will be found fully stated in the opinion of the general term, reported in 7 N. Y. State Eep., 768.
    
      Spencer Clinton, for app’lts; Truman C. White, for resp’ts.
    
      
       Affirming 7 N. Y. State Rep., 763.
      
    
   Danforth, J.

The findings of the trial judge were excepted to, but the exceptions are not argued upon this appeal. They were, however, well considered by the learned judges of the general term, and to the opinion pronounced by that court (7 N. Y. State Rep ; 768), no answer is made. On the other hand, the refusal of the trial judge to find certain facts, as requested by the defendants, is alone assigned as error, but no exception was taken to that refusal, and it is, therefore, not the subject of review in this court. We have, however, examined the evidence in the light of the argument presented for the appellant, and find abundant reason to support the conclusion of the courts below, that advantage was taken of the peculiar condition of the injured parties, and that the defendants obtained their participation in the transaction now in question by impostion amounting to fraud; that there was neither good faith on the part of the defendants, nor a true consent on the part of their aged and infirm parents, to the conveyance which they were induced to execute.

We think the conclusions of the trial court were warranted by the case made, and it necessarily follows that1 the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.  