A presumption of undue influence arises in transactions between guardian and ward, even after the ward has attained legal caPac.ity, if such transactions result in benefit to the guardian;1 and this presumption may be sufficient to establish undue influence if it does not appear that the ward acts under independent advice.2 The fact that the price paid was more than was offered by a third person, and that the ward was determined to sell, does not prevent undue influence from existing if the consideration was grossly inadequate.3 So a son who has in fact been acting as guardian of his parents is guilty of undue influence if he induces them to give him a mortgage by making excessive claims for amounts due from them to him. In such a case the son is bound to "deal fairly and frankly and to take no advantage."4

1 Duncombe v. Richards, 46 Mich. 166, 9 N. W. 149; McLure v. Lewis, 72 Mo. 314.

2Creswell v. Welchman, 95. Cal. 359, 30 Pac. 553; Conner v. Garrard (Ky.), 19 S. W. 926; Kuhn's Trustee v. Clay (Ky.), 55 S. W. 1; Bade v. Feay, 63 W. Va. 166, 61 S. E. 348.

3Creswell v. Welchman, 95 Cal. 359, 30 Pac. 553.

4Cowee v. Cornell,. 75 N. Y. 91, 31 Am. Rep. 428.

5Lodge v. Hulings, 63 N. J. Eq. 159, 51 Atl. 1015.

6Doheny v. Lacy, 168 N. Y. 213, 61 N. E. 255.

1Frederick v. Hartley, - Ala. - , 79 So. 381.

2 Shevlin v. Shevlin, 96 Minn. 398, 105 N. W. 257.

3 Shevlin v. Shevlin, 96 Minn. 398, 105 N. W. 257.

4Reeder v. Meredith, 78 Ark. 111, 93 S. W. 558.

1United States. Beaven v. Stuart, 250 Fed. 972.

Iowa. Tucke v. Buchholz, 43 la. 415; Earhart v. Holmes, 97 la. 649, 66 N. W. 898.

Kentucky. Kerrick v. Lawell, 150 Ky. 166, 150 S. W. 21.

New Jersey. Smith v. Boyd, 61 N. J. Eq. 175, 47 Atl. 816.

North Carolina. McRae v. Malloy, 93 N. Car. 154.