A transaction between physician and patient resulting in benefit to the physician creates a presumption of undue influence.1 It will be scrutinized carefully.2 The burden is upon the physician to show that the patient acted voluntarily or that he acted upon independent advice.3 The presumption is peculiarly strong if the patient is in the physician's custody.4 A contract by which a physician agrees to furnish to a patient all the medical service which the patient may require during the rest of his life, the patient being then about seventy years of age, in consideration of which the sum of one hundred thousand dollars was to be paid to the physician at the patient's death, was said to be presumptively unfair;5 but it is not necessary that the physician should show that the patient had independent advice before entering into such contract.6 If the patient, who has a claim against the physician for personal injuries sustained in a collision upon the highway, enters into a contract with such physician in reliance upon his statement that her physical condition was such that she would be able to resume work in a few months, the burden of showing that no. undue influence was exerted is upon the physician.7

1 Willin v. Burdette, 172 111. 117, 49 N. E. 1000; Cassem v. Heustis, 201 111. 208, 94 Am. St. Rep. 160, 66 N. E. 283; Schneider v. Schneider, 125 la. 1, 98 N. W. 159; Miller v. Thompson, - Okla. - , 171 Pac. 850; Unruh v. Lukens, 166 Pa. St. 324, 31 Atl. 110.

2 Willin v. Burdette, 172 111. 117, 49 N. E. 1000.

3Cassem v. Heustis, 201 111. 208, 94 Am. St. Rep. 160, 66 N. E. 283.

4 Milter v. Thompson, - Okla. - , 171 Pac. 850.

5Barker v. Wiseman, 51 Okla. 645, 151 Pac. 1047.

1 England. Allen v. Davis, 4 De G. & Sm. 133; Dent v. Bennett, 4 Myl. & Cr. 269.

Illinois. Thomas v. Whitney, 186 III. 225, 57 N. E. 808; Zeigler v. Bank,

245 III. 180, 19 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 127, 91 N. E. 1041 [sub nomine, In re McVicker, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1112].

Massachusetts. Woodbury v. Woodbury, 141 Mass. 329, 5 N. E. 275; Butler v. Gleason, 214 Mass. 248, 101 N. E. 371.

Pennsylvania. Unruh v. Lukens, 166 Pa. St. 324, 31 Atl. 110. (Influence of physician combined with that of attorney.)

Utah. Viallet v. Consolidated Ry. & Power Co., 30 Utah 260, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 663, 84 Pac. 496; Peterson v. Budge, 35 Utah 506, 102 Pac. 211.

Contra, Audenreid's Appeal, 89 Pa. St. 114, 33 Am. Rep. 731.

2 Butler v. Gleason, 214 Mass. 248, 101 N. E. 371.

Similar principles apply to transactions between nurse and patient advantageous to the nurse.8 A transaction by which A, who was blind, deaf and helpless, transfers a large part of his property to B, who is nursing A and in whose house A is living, will be presumed to be caused by undue influence.9 It is said that no presumption of undue influence arises in a transaction between a person of more than eighty years of age, and another who was the nephew as well as the nurse of such person.10

However, if influence is exerted by the physician for the good of the patient and not for his own advantage, the presumption of undue influence does not arise.11 Such presumption is, of course, not conclusive, and it may be shown that the transaction was fair and honest.12

3 Zeigler v. Bank, 245 111. 180, 19 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 127, 91 N. E. 1041 [sub nomine, In re McVicker, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1112].

4 Thomas v. Whitney, 186 111. 225, 57 N. E. 808.

5 Zeigler v. Bank, 245 111. 180, 19 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 127, 91 N. E. 1041 [sub nomine, In re McVicker, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1112].

6 Zeigler v. Bank, 245 111. 180, 19 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 127, 91 N. E. 1041 [sub nomine, In re McVicker, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1112].

7 Butler v. Gleason, 214 Mass. 248, 101 N. E. 371.

8 Dingman v. Romine, 141 Mo. 466, 42 S. W. 1087.

9Dingman v. Romine, 141 Mo. 466, 42 S. W. 1087.

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

11 Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., v. Trust Co., 83 Fed. 891.

12 Kellogg v. Peddicord, 181 111. 22, 54 N. E. 623. (Conveyance to the superintendent of a sanitarium of which grantor was an inmate.)