To constitute undue influence, there must be influence of some sort exerted upon the person who seeks relief.1 In the absence of influence exerted by another, undue influence can not be said to exist.2 A conveyance by a grantor of weak mind who is shown to be the active agent in the transaction is not caused by undue influence.3 The influence must be shown to exist at the time of the transaction in question, in order to render such transaction invalid.4

Sec. 440. Influence exerted must overpower the will A contract or conveyance may be caused by the influence of the adversary party without being caused by undue influence.1 The term "'undue' carries with it the fundamental idea that the influence, if effective, has been injurious."2 Thus solicitation and importunity,3 suggestion and advice,4 appeals to the reason and convic-

9See ch. XVIII. 10 See Sec. 441.

1Valbert v. Valbert, 282 111. 415, 118 N. E. 738; Gardner v. Lightfoot, 71 la. 577, 32 N. W. 510; White v. Johnson, 4 Wash. 113, 29 Pac. 932.

2McMillan v. McMillan, 184 III. 230, 56 N. E. 302; Neel v. Neel (Ky.), 26 S. W. 805.

3Gardner v. Lightfoot, 71 la. 577, 32 N. W. 510.

4Valbert v. Valbert, 282 111. 415, 118 N. E. 738.

11llinois. Lang v. Lang, 284 111. 148, 119 N. E. 963.

Michigan. Hammond v. Welton, 106 Mich. 244, 64 N. W. 25; Pritchard v. Hutton, 187 Mich. 346, 153 N. W. 705; Akers v. Mead, 188 Mich. 277, 154 N. W. 9.

Mississippi. Gillis v. Smith, 114 Miss. 665, 75 So. 451.

Missouri. Smelser v. Meier, 271 Mo. 178, 196 S. W. 22.

Pennsylvania. Doran v. McConlogue, 150 Pa. St. 98, 24 Atl. 357.

Tennessee. Seat v. McWhirter, 93 Tenn. 542, 29 S. W. 220.

West Virginia. Delaplain v. Grubb, 44 W. Va. 612, 67 Am. St. Rep. 788, 30 S. E. 201.

Change of beneficiary in insurance policy. Seward v. Seward, 59 Kan. 387, 53 Pac. 63. Contract, Rogers v. Higgins, 57 111. 244.

2Sturm v. Stump, 239 Fed. 749 [citing Coleman's Estate, 185 Pa. St. 437, 40 Atl. 69.

3Rogers v. Higgins, 57 111. 244; Coleman v. Coleman, 85 Or. 99, 166 Pac. 47.

4Valbert v. Valbert, 282 111. 415, 118 N. E. 738; Seward v: Seward, 59 Kan. 387, 53 Pac. 63; Seat v. McWhirter, 93 tion of the party influenced,5 and appeals to the emotions or affections,6 or influence secured by kindness,7 while all forms of influence are not necessarily undue influence. Even the fact that the importunity is urgent,8 that it is accompanied by tears,9 or that it subjects the grantor to vexation and annoyance,10 does not establish the fact that the influence was undue. To what degree influence must extend to be termed undue is a question stated in the abstract by the courts in varying terms. It has been said that the influence must be such as to deprive the party of free agency;11 that it must overcome his will;12 that it must render his act the offspring of another's will,13 or that he must stand in vinculis.14

Tenn. 542, 29 S. W. 220; Delaplain v. Grubb, 44 W. Va. 612, 67 Am. St. Rep. 788, 30 S. E. 201.

5Preston v. Lloyd, 269 111. 152, 109 N. E. 687; Hammond v. Welton, 106 Mich. 244, 64 N. W. 25.

6United States. Sawyer v. White, 122 Fed. 223.

Alabama. Adair v. Craig, 135 Ala. 332, 33 So. 902; Frederick v. Hartley, - Ala. - , 79 So. 381.

Illinois. Burt v. Quisenberry, 132 111. 385, 24 N. E. 622; Sargent v. Roberto, 265 111. 210, 106 N. E. 805.

Kentucky. Collier v. Dundon, 164 Ky. 345, 175 S. W. 635.

Missouri. Smelser v. Meier, 271 Mo. 178, 196 S. W. 22.

Mississippi. Gillis v. Smith, 114 Miss. 665, 75 So. 451.

Pennsylvania. Doran v. McConlogue, 150 Pa. St. 98, 24 Atl. 357.

South Carolina. Huggins v. Hugging, 107 S. Car. 470, 93 S. E. 129.

Vermont. Orr v. Pennington, 93 Vt. 268, 24 S. E. 928.

West Virginia. Delaplain v. Grubb, 44 W. Va. 612, 67 Am. St. Rep. 788, 30 S. E. 201.

7Chrisman v. Quick, 174 Ky. 845, 193 S. W. 13.

8Finlayson v. Finlayson, 17 Or. 347, 11 Am. St. Rep. 836, 3 L. R. A. 801, 21 Pac. 57.

9Doran v. McConlogue, 150 Pa. St. 98, 24 Atl. 357.

10Rendleman v. Rendleman, 156 111. 568, 41 N. E. 223.

11Illinois. Shea v. Murphy, 164 111. 614, 56 Am. St. Rep. 215, 45 N. E. 1021.

Kentucky. Collier v. Dundon, 164 Ky. 345, 175 S. W. 635; Beard v. Beard, 173 Ky. 131, 190 S. W. 703.

Michigan. Pritchard v. Hutton, 187 Mich. 346, 153 N. W. 705; Akers v. Mead, 188 Mich. 277, 154 N. W. 9.

Mississippi. Gillis v. Smith, 114 Miss. 665, 75 So. 451.

Missouri. Wing v. Havelik, 253 Mo. 502, 161 S. W. 732.

New Jersey. Earle v. Norfolk, etc., Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 188.

West Virginia. Farnsworth v. Noff-singer, 46 W. Va. 410, 33 S. E. 246.

12Towson v. Moore, 173 U. S. 17, 43 L. ed. 597; Mallow v. Walker, 115 la. 238, 88 N. W. 452; Brown v. Brown, 171 N. Car. 649, 88 S. E. 870.

13 Francis v. Wilkinson, 147 111. 370, 35 N. E. 150; Thill v. Freiermuth, 132 Minn. 242, 156 N. W. 260; Wing v. Havelik, 253 Mo. 502, 161 S. W. 732; Delaplain v. Grubb, 44 W. Va. 612, 67 Am. St. Rep. 788, 30 S. E. 201; Farns-worth v. Noffsinger, 46 W. Va. 410, 33 S. E. 246; Barnett v. Greathouse, 77 W.Va. 514, 88 S. E. 1013.

14Conley v. Nailor, 118 U. S. 127, 30

So it has been said that, to be undue, the influence must cause him to do something which he would not have done had he been allowed to exercise his own free judgment.15 It has been suggested that influence is undue only when exerted to secure an unjust contract or disposition of property.16