_mr.sroN v. ruarm. 19 `
An examination of these authorities will show that they relate to “
bargains between the agent and the principal. Here the act com-
plained of is a gift. Now, it has been repeatedly held, and it is de-
claredsettled by the text writers, that a gift by a man to a person
who has been for many years acting as his conndential agent and ad-
viser is valid, unless the party who seeks to set it aside can show that
some advantage was taken by the agent of the relation in which he
stood to the donor. If it appears that the conduct of the agent was
fair, honest, and bona fide, it is immaterial that the deed of gift may
have been drawn up by his solicitor without the intervention of a dis-
_ interested third party. Kerr, Fraud & M. 176, and authorities cited.
In the case either of guardian or ward, where the relationship has
completely ended, or principal and agent, or, indeed, in any other con-
fidential relation, if it can be shown by satisfactory extrinsic evidence
that confidence has been abused and iniiuence unduly exerted to ob-
tain a gift, the rules of equity, and the remedies which it bestows, are
exactly the same as where the presumption is created. In the case
now under consideration the guardianship hadbeen terminated 11
years. It was not a bargain between the agent and the principal,
but a gift. No presumption exists against this gift. Does the ex-
trinsic evidence satisfactorily prove the allegations of conndence
abused and dominant influence misused? To clearly and properly
. answer this question, we must consider the parties and their mutual
relations.
Ralston was a young man without aim or ambition in life except
that he be permitted to live, and have the means to live, as he desired.
A more aimless existence could not be conceived. He was a man of
` fortune; he had no immediate relatives except five aunts and their
children; father, mother, and brothers were all dead. He early con-
sidered what should be done with his property whenhe died. In
1873, many years before he met the complainant, he had said to his
mother: "I purpose to give a portion of my property to the children
of my friend Turpin." In 1874 he made his will. That he was at
that time rational, intelligent, and sober, no one has questioned; and
the attorney who drew the will, a distinguished gentleman of ele-
vated character, has testified that he was perfectly sober, and gave
all of the directions for the will with clearness and with careful and
explicit attention to the details. In this will he gave to his aunt,
Mrs. Smith, a portion of his real estate, and a large portion to Turpin
and to his children. In this will he makes provision for the stone to
mark his grave, and, with singular omission of reference to any of his
own blood, although they, too, are to receive his bounty, he writes:
“I request that my friend George B. Turpin, and his children after
him, will see to it that my monument and grave, always during their
lives, shall be suitably kept, and cared for." It must have been a
close and warm friendship and mutual esteem which would so early ·
dictate so large a bequest and attach to it so delicate a condition.