* * *' Chesterfield v. Janssen, 2 Ves. 125, 28 Reprint 82. "To the same effect are Bruner v. Cobb, 37 Okla. 228, 131 P. 165, L.R.A. 1916D, 377; Barker v. Wiseman, 51 Okla. 645, 151 P. 1047; Clayton v. Oberlander, 59 Okla. 35, 157 P. 929; Guinan v. Readdy, 79 Okla. 111, 191 P. 602; Paulter v. Manuel, 25 Okla. 59, 108 P. 749; White v. Armstrong, 102 Okla. 156, 227 P. 130, Boles v. Nash, 145 Okla. 120, 291 P. 800; Bispham's Principles of Equity, sec. 219; Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.) sec. 923." The leading case in this jurisdiction is Bruner v. Cobb, supra. There is a review of authorities on the subject in Boles v. Nash, supra, which cites Bruner v. Cobb, supra.

* * *" Chesterfield v. Janssen, 2 Ves. 125, 28 Reprint, 82. To the same effect are Bruner v. Cobb, 37 Okla. 228, 131 P. 165; Barker v. Wiseman, 51 Okla. 645, 151 P. 1047; Clayton v. Oberlander, 59 Okla. 35, 157 P. 929; Guinan v. Readdy, 79 Okla. 111, 191 P. 602; Paulter v. Manuel, 25 Okla. 59, 108 P. 749; White v. Armstrong, 102 Okla. 156, 227 P. 130; Boles v. Nash, 145 Okla. 120, 291 P. 800; Bispham's Principles of Equity, section 219; Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.) section 923. The trial court found that the quitclaim deed from Mirtschin to Burnam was made-without consideration and was obtained by fraud and undue influence.

The court, upon hearing thereon, denied the plaintiff's petition for new trial. The plaintiff then prosecuted her appeal to this court, and in an opinion in said cause, 102 Okla. 156, 227 P. 130, this court reviewed the evidence therein and reversed the district court, with directions to cancel said conveyance and allow the plaintiff her costs. The defendant filed a motion for rehearing, which was thereafter denied.

"Wherever it is shown that a transfer of property was obtained from a person of feeble mind, and that no consideration, or a very inadequate consideration was given in return, a very strong presumption of fraud arises, and unless it is successfully rebutted, a court of equity will set aside the deed so obtained." See, also, White v. Armstrong, 102 Okla. 156, 227 P. 130. We think the court committed error in not taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the deed transaction itself, together with all the other evidence of the mental condition of the grantor in determining his competency to execute the deed and the fraud of the grantee in the transaction.