1. The improvidence of the defendant mortgagor, a forty-six-year-old woman subject to epileptic fits and under the dominance of her husband, being so apparent, the presumption is that she did not appreciate the consequences of mortgaging her home, the purpose of the bond and mortgage, who was to receive the proceeds thereof, or the risk she was taking.
2. Under the facts of this case, the burden is on the complainants, who seek to foreclose, to show that the defendant, in mortgaging her home, acted on proper independent advice.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Fielder.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, BODINE, DONGES, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, KERNEY, JJ. 12.
For reversal — CASE, J. 1.