Same - Fiduciary Relations

Persons standing in a fiduciary relation occupy a relation of confidence, and are within this equitable rule. A contract between a trustee and his cestui que trust,48 or between a guardian and his ward,49 is looked upon with suspicion. It is presumed that the trustee or guardian who is benefited by the promise of his cestui que trust or ward has used his peculiar position of confidence to his own advantage, and, in order that the contract may stand, he must show the contrary.

111. 420, 58 N. E. 4S0. But see Jenkins v. Pye, 12 Pet. 241, 9 L. Ed. 1070. See "Parent and Child," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 9; Cent. Dig. §§ 74, 111-135.

46 Archer v. Hudson, 7 Beav. 560. See "Parent and Child" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 9; Cent. Dig. §§ 74, 111-135.

47 Green v. Roworth, 113 N. Y. 462, 21 N. E. 165; Harvey v. Mount, 8 Beav. 439; Graham v. Bureh, 44 Minn. 33, 46 N. W. 148; Smyley v. Reese, 53 Ala. 89, 25 Am. Rep. 598; Watkins v. Brant, 46 Wis. 419, 1 N. W. 82; Bowe v. Bowe, 42 Mich. 195, 3 N. W. 843; Golding v. Golding, 82 Ky. 51; Swisshelm's Appeal, 56 Pa. 475, 94 Am. Dec. 107; Hill v. Miller, 50 Kan. 659, 32 Pac. 354; Scarborough v. Watkins, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 540, 50 Am. Dec. 528; Brown v. Burbank. 64 Cal. 99, 27 Pac. 940; Greene v. Greene, 42 Neb. 634. 60 N. W. 937. 47 Am. St. Rep. 724; Woods v. Roberts, 185 I11. 4S9, 57 N. E. 426; Bowen v. Kutzner 167 Fed. 281, 93 C. C. A. 33 (brother and sister); Ziegler v. Shuler, 87 S. C. 1, 68 S. E. 817. No presumption of fiduciary relation arises from mere proof that the parties are brothers, but may be shown by evidence that confidence was actually reposed and abused. Shevlin v. Shevlin, 96 Minn. 398, 105 N. W. 257. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 96; Cent. Dig. §§ 441, 1169; "Wills," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 157; Cent. Dig. §§ 3S3, 384.

48 Spencer's Appeal, 80 Pa. 317; Ward v. Armstrong, 84 I11. 151; Jones v. Lloyd, 117 I11. 597, 7 N. E. 119; Nichols v. McCarthy, 53 Conn. 299, 23 Atl. 93, 55 Am. Rep. 105; McCants v. Bee, 1 McCord, Eq. (S. C.) 383, 16 Am. Dec, 610. Principal and agent Burke v. Taylor, 94 Ala. 530, 10 South. 129. See "Guardian and Ward," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 69; Cent. Dig. §§ 261, 305-307; "Trusts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 283; Cent. Dig. §§ 403, 404.

Same - Other Confidential Relations

The power which a spiritual .adviser may acquire over persons subject to his influence is also looked upon as raising the presumption of undue influence;50 and to this may be added a number of other relations, such as attorney or solicitor and client,51 and doctor and patient.52 The relations mentioned are not all.53 The courts have not limited or defined the relations which they will regard as raising this presumption of influence. The principle, it is said, applies to every case where "influence is acquired and abused, where confidence is reposed and betrayed." 54 Thus, where a young man who had just attained his majority incurred heavy liabilities to a person by the contrivance of an older man who had acquired a strong influence over him, and who professed to assist him in a career of extravagance and dissipation, it was held that influence of this nature entitled the young man to the protection of the court. "The principle," it was said, "applies to every case where influence is acquired and abused, where confidence is reposed and betrayed. The relations with which the court of chancery most ordinarily deals are those of trustee and cestui que trust, and such like. It applies especially to those cases, for this reason, and for this reason only: that from those relations the court presumes confidence put and influence exerted, whereas, in all other cases where those relations do not subsist, the confidence and the influence must be proved ex-trinsically. But, where they are proved extrinsically, the rules of reason and common sense, and the technical rules of a court of equity, are just as applicable in the one case as the other." 55

49 McPARLAND v. LARKIN. 155 I11. 84, 39 N. E. 609, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts. 212; Ashton v. Thompson, 32 Minn. 25, 18 N. W. 918; Wickiser v. Cook, 85 I11. 68; Wade v. Pulsifer, 54 Vt. 45; Bowe v. Bowe, 42 Mich. 195, 3 N. W. 843; Garvin's Adm'r v. Williams, 44 Mo. 465, 100 Am. Dec. 314; Id., 50 Mo. 206. See "Guardian and Ward," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 69; Cent. Dig. §§ 261, S05-307.

50 Huguennin v. B.aseley, 14 Ves. 273; Marx v. McGlynn, 88 N. T. 357; Cor-rigan v. Pironi, 48 N. J. Eq. 607, 23 Atl. 355; Ross v. Conway, 92 Cal. 632, 28 Pac. 785; Finegan v. Theisen, 92 Mich. 173, 52 N. W. 619; Ford v. Hen-nessy, 70 Mo. 580. Spirit medium's influence over believer in spiritualism. Thompson v. Hawks (C. C.) 14 Fed. 902; Connor v. Stanley, 72 Cal. 556, 14 Pac. 306, 1 Am. St. Rep. 84. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 96; Cent. Dig. §§ 441, 1169; "Wills," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 157; Cent. Dig. §§ 383, 384

51 St. Leger's Appeal, 34 Conn. 434, 91 Am. Dec. 735; Carter v. West, 93 Ky. 211, 19 S. W. 592; McGinn v. Tobey, 62 Mich. 252, 28 N. W. 818, 4 Am. St. Rep. 848; Jennings v. McConnel, 17 I11. 148; Zeigler v. Hughes, 55 I11. 288; Ryan v. Ashton. 42 Iowa, 365. See "Attorney and Client," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 123; Cent. Dig. §§ 239-249.

52 Audenreid's Appeal, 89 Pa. 114, 33 Am. Rep. 731; Woodbury v. Woodbury, 141 Mass. 329, 5 N. E. 275, 55 Am. Rep. 479; Dent v. Bennett, 4 Mylne & C. 269; Blackie v. Clark, 15 Beav. 603; Cadwallader v. West, 48 Mo. 483; Watson v. Mahan, 20 Ind. 227; Viallet v. Consolidated Ry. & Power Co., 30 Utah, 260. 84 Pac. 496, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 613. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 96; Cent. Dig. §§ 441, 1169; "Wills," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 157; Cent. Dig. §§ 383, 384.

53 Dent v. Bennett, 4 Mylne & C. 269; Drake's Appeal, 45 Conn. 9; Royd v. De La Montagnie, 73 N. Y. 49R, 29 Am. Rep. 197; Pierce v. Pierce, 71 N. T. 154, 27 Am. Rep. 22; Darlington's Appeal, 86 Pa. 512, 27 Am. Rep. 726; Rockafellow v. Newcorab, 57 I11. 186; Cadwallader v. West, 48 Mo. 483; Cas-pari v. Church, 82 Mo. 649; Allcord v. Skinner., 36 Ch. Div. 145; Hessick v. Hessick, 169 I11. 486, 48 N. E. 712; Russell v. Russell, 60 N. J. Eq. 2S2, 47 Atl. 37. As to master and servant, Doran v. McConlogue, 150 Pa. 98, 24 Atl. 357. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 96; Cent. Dig. §§ .',',1, 1169.

54 Sears v. Sharer, 6 N. T. 268; Fisher t. Bishop, 108 N. Y. 25, 15 N. E.