Somewhat similar principles apply to conveyances to apparent heirs. Thus a conveyance to a nephew or niece will raise a presumption of undue influence on the part of the nephew or niece, if such transaction results in great advantage to such nephew or niece.1 Such a transaction, however, will be upheld, if fair and reasonable:2 as where the nephew has, under such contract, come from a different state at considerable expense, and has expended a considerable sum in improving his aunt's house,3 or has, under such contract, supported such uncle.4 So a surrender by a grandmother to her grandsons of notes held by her against them is not prima facie caused by undue influence.5 So a contract of sale by an uncle to his nephew with whom he is in confidential business relations is not presumptively caused by undue influence.6

6Wright's Executor v. Wright (Ky.), 108 S. W. 85ft.

7Wright's Executor v. Wright (Ky.), 106 S. W. 856.

8James v. Aller, 68 N. J. Eq. 666, 111 Am. St. Rep. 654, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 285, 62 Atl. 427.

9Rowe v. Freeman, 80 Or. 428, 172 Pac. 508.

10Steen v. Steen, 169 la. 264, 151 N. W. 115.

11 Lynch v. Doran, 95 Mich. 395, 54 N. W. 882.

12McLeod v. McLeod, 145 Ala. 269, 117 Am. St. Rep. 41, 40 So. 414; Hassell v. Hassell, - Ala. -, 77 So. 716.

13Hassell v. Hassell, - Ala. - , 77 So. 716; Huggins v. Huggins, 107 S. Car. 470, 93 S. E. 129.

14 Slayback v. Witt, 151 Ind. 376, 50 N. E. 389; Reinerth v. Rhody, 52 La.' Ann. 2029, 28 So. 277; Hatcher v. Hatcher, 139 Mo. 614, 39 S. W. 479; Lee v. Lee, 258 Mo. 599, 167 S. W. 1030.

15 Smith v. Smith, 84 Kan. 242, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 944, 114 Pac. 245; Moriarty v. Kelly, - N. J. - , 102 Atl. 443; Fjone v. Fjone, 16 N. D. 100, 112 N. W. 70.