Whether undue influence exists in a particular case is a question of fact.1 Accordingly, many cases exist in which similar facts as to the compulsion used, the situation of the parties and the like, produced opposite results because in some cases it appears as a fact that the mind of the party who seeks relief was overpowered, while in others it appears as a fact that it was not. For this reason, it is often impossible to make any exact statement of what degree of constraint is necessary to cause undue influence, since the existence of undue influence, where it is found to exist, is determined by the court as a question of fact in each particular case.

8Peckham v. Van Bergen, 10 N. D. 43, 84 N. W. 566.

9Meech v. Lee, 82 Mich. 274, 46 N. W. 383.

10 Adams v. Bank, 116 N. Y. 606, 15 Am. St. Rep. 447, 6 L. R. A. 491, 23 N. E. 7. An almost identical set of facts except that the compulsion was less than in Adams v. Bank, was said in (Commercial) National Bank v. Wheelock, 52 0. S. 534, 49 Am. St. Rep. 738, 40 N. E. 636, to amount to duress, if of any operative effect.

1In re Smith, 95 N. Y. 516, 522

[quoted in Barnard v. Gantz, 140 N. Y. 249, 35 N. E. 430; see also Sargent v. Roberto, 265 111. 210, 106 N. E. 805; Valbert v. Valbert, 282 111. 415, 118 N. E. 738; Coon v. Dennis, 111 Mich. 450, 69 N. W. 666; Boardman v. Lorentzen, 155 Wis. 566, 52 L. R. A. (N.S.) 476, 145 N. W. 750.

2"Though there was no fraud there was something like fraud; for an undue advantage was taken of his situation." Evans v. Llewellin, 1 Cox Ch. 333, 340 [quoted in Jordan v. Stevens, 51 Me. 78, 81 Am. Dec. 556, 561, and in Schuttler v. Brandfass, 41 W. Va. 201, 23 So. 808].

1 Woodbury v. Woodbury, 141 Mass. 329, 55 Am. Rep. 479, 5 N. E. 275; Bowles v. Wathan, 54 Mo. 261; Dailey v. Kastell, 56 Wis. 444, 14 N. W. 635.