*14 mnnaar. nnroarmn.
~  `   '.   , NOTE. ‘ ~
‘ FnAm>—C0¤rrnm¢rrAL Rnmvrrons-—Unnum Inrwssoz. Whenever the relations be-
tween,parties_ are such that the donor or grantor appears to be subject to the control or
induence ofthe donee_or_grantee,“the burden is on the latter to show that the transac-
`tioniwas: fair and honest, and was not procured by undue influence, Dunn v. Dunn,
(N. J.) 7 Atl. Rep: 842; Vllhipple v. Barton. (N. H.) 3 Atl. Rep. 922: Worrall’s Appeal,
(Pa.) 1 Atl. Rep. 380, and note; Tancre v. Pullman, (Minn.) 29 N. W. Rep. 171; Davis
v. Dean, (Wis.) 26 N.W. Rep. 737 ; Samson v. Samson, (Iowa,) 25 N..W. Rep. 233; Craw-
ford v. Hoeft, (Mich.) 24 N. W. Rep. 645; Smith v. Smith, (Wis.) 19 N. W. Rep. 47; Ash-
ton v. Thompson, (Minn.) 18 N. W. Rep. 918; Sprague v. Hall, (Iowa,) 17 N. W. Rep.
743; Thorn v; Thorn, (Mich.) 16 N. W. ·Rep. 324; Hanna v. Wilcox, (Iowa,) 5 N. W.
Rep. 717.; N oble’s Adm’r v. Moses, (Ala.)1 South. Rep. 217; and, in the absence of such
proof of good faith, the transaction will be deemed void, and equity will exercise juris-
‘ iction to set it aside, Dunn v. Dunn,*(N. J.) 7 Atl. Rep. 842; Munson v. Carter, (Neb.)
27.N. W. Rep.208; Davis v. Dean, (Wis.) 26 N. W. Rep. 737; Samson v. Samson, (Iowa,)
25 N. W. Rep. 233; Crawford v. Hoeft, (Mich.) 24 N. W. Rep. 645; Sprague v. Hall,
(Iowa,) 17 N. W. Rep. 743; Thorn v. Thorn. (Mich.) 16 N. W. Rep. 324; Hanna v. Wil-
cox, (Iowa,) 5 N. W. Rep. 717; Watkins v. Brant, (Wis.) 1 N. W. Rep. 82.
The relief granted. ,rests on a general principle, applicable to all relations in which
dominion is exercised by one [person over another, Munson v. Carter, (Neb.) 27 N. W.
Repi 208; Samson v.` Samson, ( owa,) 25‘N. W. Rep. 233; Ashton v. Thompson, (Minn.)
18- .. W. Rep. 918; whether that dominion arises from the superior knowledge of the
matters derived from a iiducia , relation on the one side, Dunn v. Dunn. (N. J.) 7 Atl.
Rep. 842; Whipple v. Barton, (NYH.) 3Atl. Rep. 922; Tancre v. Pullman, (Minn.) 29 N.W.
Rep. 171 : Crawfordv. Hoeft, (Mich.) 24N . W. Rep 645; McHarry v. Irvin’s Ex’rs, (Ky.)
3 S.W. Rep. 374; from weakness. dependence, an trust, jlpstiiiably reposed on the other,
Ikerd vi Beavers, (Ind.) 7 N. E`. Rep. 326; Oakley v. Rite ey, (Iowa.) 28 N. W. Re . 448;
Davis v. Dean, (Wis.)26 N. W. Rep. 737; from immoral and adulterous relations, ll-Ianna
v. (Wilcox ·(I¤Wu.).6 N. W. Rep. 717; or from any social or domestic force, thoughnot
V sulhcient to amount to duress; which controls the free action in the matter, Munson v.
Carter, (Neb.) 27   Rep. 208.' · *
This [principle applies especiallyto transactions between parents and children, when
_the chi d hasreceut y come of age, or while it is under the constant and immediate in-
Hueuceiofthe parent, Ashton v. `Thompson, (Minn.) 18 N. W. Rep. 918; Noble’s Adm’r
v. Moses, (,Ala.);1·»South. Rep. 217; or when the child occupies a confidential relation
to the arent, Samson v. Samson, (Iowa,)125 N. W. Rep. 233; Crawford v.Hoeft, (Mich.)
24 N. W.`Rép.· 645';‘Bowe v. Bowe, (Mic .) 3 N. W."Rep; 843; and to dealings between
persons, one of whom stands in loco parenm to the ot er, Davis v. Dean, (Wis.) 26 N.
·W. Rep. 737· and between attorneys and their clients, Dunn v. Dunn, (N. J.) 7 Atl.
§er%842; Wh‘ipple v. Barton, (N. H.) 3 Atl. Rep. 922; Tancre v. Pullman, (Minn.) 29
. . Rep. 171. V x _ .
. It is not sudicient-to avoid a deed or will that its execution was procured by the exer-
cise of honest argument and persuasion, or an iniiuence fairly and honestly acquired.
such as one-may properly obtain over another, Sturtevant v. Sturtevant, (Ill.) 6 N. E.
Rep. 428; Bradford2v. Vinton, (Mich.)26 N. W. Rep. 401; In re Disbrow, (Mich.) 24 N.
I   Rep. 624; although such will mig t not have been made but for such advice or per-
suasion, `Bradfordv. Vinton, (Mich.) 26 N. W. Rep; 401; In re Disbrow, (Mich.) 24 N.
·W. Rep. 624 ;· noris importunity alone suilicient, ut undue influence, obtained byim-
portuuity, andwhich gave dominion over the will ofthe testator to such an extent as
to destroy his free' agency, is, In re` Disbrow, (Mich.) 24 N. W. Rep. 624; Bledsoe v.
Bledsoe, (Kyi) 1 S. W. Rep. 10. The influence must be such that the party stands in vin-
culis- Conle r v. Nailor, 6 Sup.Ct. Rep. 1001; Bradford v. Vinton, (Mich.) 26 N. W. Rep.
  Shepardson v. Potter, (Mich.) 18 N. W. Rep. 575; ln re Carroll, (Wis,) 7 N. W. Rep.
. _,Undue influence may he found. from all the facts and circumstances surrounding a
case, even if thereis no positive evidence. Saunders Appeal, (Conn.) 6 Atl. Rep. 193;
Woodbury ,v.· Woodbury, (Mass.) 5 N. E. Rep. 275; Shepardson v. Potter, (Mich.) 18
.N.W.»Rep. 575; Porter v. Throop,»,(Mich.) 11 N. W. Rep. 174. It is always a ground of
suspicion when a conndential agent takes a considerable interest under an instrument
'which he hashprepared for execution. Yardley v. Outhbertson, (Pa.) 1 Atl. Rep. 765.
This *is a-rule of equity which applies to.any instrumentwhoseprocurer is a large ben-
'eficiary thereunder, Id.; Davis v. Dean, (Wis.) 26 N. W. Rep.' 737; but it has been held
that it is immaterial that a deed of gift by a principal to his agent was drawn up by the
- ~ solicitor of. the agent, without the intervention of a third party, and that such deed is
,valid unless it can. be shown that someadvantage was taken by the agent of the rela-
tion in which he stood to the donor, Ralston v. Turpin, 25 Fed. Rep. 7.
Inadequacy of consideration alone is not general ysudicient to. avoid an executed
convepance, though it should always induce close scrutiny ofthe circumstances. Cole
v. Co e, (Neb.) 31 N. W. Rep. 493; McHarry v. Irvin’s Ex’rs, (Ky.) 3 S. W. Rep. 374.