One class of circumstances which will raise the presumption that undue influence was used in procuring another to enter into a contract is where the party benefited stood in some such relation to him as to render him peculiarly subject to influence. Parental or quasi parental relations subsisting between promisor and promisee, or grantor and grantee, will raise this presumption.46 Where an orphan who had been living with her uncle for seven years became security for him soon after attaining- her majority, it was said by the court, adverting to the fact that the security was obtained, through the influence of one standing in loco parentis, from the object of his protection and care: "This is a transaction which, under ordinary circumstances, this court will not allow. * * * This court does not interfere to prevent an act, even of bounty, between parent and child, but it will take care (under the circumstances in which the parent and child are placed before the emancipation of the child) that such child is placed in such a position as will enable him to form an entirely free and unfettered judgment, independent altogether of any sort of control." 46
See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 96; Cent. Dig. §§ Ml, 1155, 1169; "Wills," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 155-159; Cent. Dig. §§ S75-3S7.
42 McPARLAND v. LARKIN, 155 I11. 84, 39 N. E. 609, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 212; Dent. v. Bennett, 4 Mylne & C. 269; Cowee v. Cornell, 75 N. Y. 91, 31 Am. Rep. 428, at page 99; Fisher v. Bishop, 10S N. T. 25, 15 N. E. 331, 2 Am. St. Rep. 357; Woodbury v. Woodbury, 141 Mass. 329, 5 N. E. 275, 55 m. Rep. 479; Greenfield's Estate, 14 Pa. 489; Jones v. Lloyd, 117 I11. 597, 7 N. E. 119; Sands v. Sands, 112 I11. 225; Ward y. Armstrong, 84 111. 151; Zeigler v. Hughes, 55 I11. 288; Jennings v. McConnel, 17 I11. 148; Casey v. Casey, 14 ILL 112. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 96; Cent. Dig. §§ 441, 1169.
43 Ante, p. 144. The acceptance of a voluntary donation throws upon the acceptor the necessity of proving that the transaction was just Houghton v. Houghton, 15 Beav. 299. See "Gifts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 47; Cent. Dig. §§ 81-86"; "Parent and Child," Cent. Dig. § 181.
44 Anson, Cont. (4th Ed.) 16G.
45 Taylor v. Taylor, 8 How. 183, 12 L. Ed. 1040; Miskey's Appeal, 107 Pa. 611; Noble's Adm'r v. Moses, 81 Ala. 530, 1 South. 217, 00 Am. Rep. 175; Highberger v. Stifiler, 21 Md. 338, 83 Am. Dec. 593; Berkmeyer v. Kellerman, 32 Ohio St. 239, 30 Am. Rep. 577; Brown v. Burbank, G4 Cal 99, 27 Pac. 940: Clutter v. Clutter, 4 S. W. 182, 8 Ky. Law Rep. 956; Sayles v. Christie, 187
The term "parental relations" applies, not only to the actual relation of parent and child, and of one in loco parentis and child, but extends to husband and wife, brother and brother or sister, and to all cases in which one member of a family, from age, character, or. circumstances, exercises a substantial preponderance of authority in the family councils.47