A transaction between principal and agent, if advantageous to the agent, will be scrutinized closely.1 It is said., however, that no presumption of influence arises in a case of a transaction with one who is the servant of the adversary party and who frequently transacts business for him.2 If the transaction, however, concerns a subject-matter which is outside of and unconnected with the agency, no presumption of undue influence arises.3 Such presumption does not arise as to transactions which are entered into after the agency has ceased.4 Agency does not exist for this purpose where the real relation is that of debtor and creditor,5 as where a son takes his father's business under a contract whereby he is to make certain payments to his mother.6

8Foote v. De Poy, 126 la. 366, 106 Am. St. Rep. 365, 68 L. R. A. 302, 102 N. W. 112; Allen v. Allen, 79 Vt. 173, 64 Atl. 1110.

9 Allen v. Allen, 79 Vt. 173, 64 Atl. 1110.

1Piatt v. Elias, 186 N. Y. 374, 116 Am. St. Rep. 568, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 554, 79 N. E. 1.

2 Platt v. Elias, 186 N. Y. 374, 116 Am. St. Rep. 558, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 554, 79 N. E. 1.

3 Platt v. Elias, 186 N. Y. 374, 116 Am. St. Rep. 558, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 554, 79 N. E. 1.

1 United States. Ralston v. Turpin, 129 U. S. 663, 32 L. ed. 747.

Alabama. Burke v. Taylor, 94 Ala. 530, 10 So. 129.

California. Pacific Vinegar & Pickle Works v. Smith, 145 Cal. 352, 104 Am. St. Rep. 42, 78 Pac. 550.

Pennsylvania. Darlington's Estate, 147 Pa. St. 624, 30 Am. St. Rep. 776, 23 Atl. 1046. (Note for services for exorbitant amount.)

Texas. Scott v. Farmers' & Merchants' National Bank, 97 Tex. 31, 104 Am. St. Rep. 835, 75 S. W. 7.

2 Bade v. Feay, 63 W. Va. 166, 61 S. E. 348.

3 Frederick v. Hartley, - Ala. - , 79 So. 381; Brown v. Deposit Co., 87 Md. 377, 40 Atl. 256; Cowee v. Cornell, 75 N. Y. 91, 31 Am. Rep. 428; Doheny v. Lacy, 168 N. Y. 213, 61 N. E. 256.

4Rowe v. Freeman, 89 Or. 428, 172 Pac. 508.

5Parsons v. Parsons, 230 Mass. 544, 119 N. E. 1020.

6 Parsons v. Parsons, 230 Mass. 644, 119 N. E. 1020.