No presumption of undue influence arises where a relation of trust and confidence had once existed between the parties, but such relation had been dissolved for a considerable period of time.1 A conveyance to a physician who had professional charge of the grantor two months before the transaction and four months afterward, but at no time between, does not raise such presumption.2 The mere fact of the relation of master and servant, or landlord and boarder, does not of itself raise any presumption of undue influence, since confidential relations can not be assumed to exist in such cases.3 The fact that the parties to the transaction were friends,4 or that the grantee was formerly a servant of the grantor,5 does not raise any presumption of undue influence. The fact that the parties to a transaction are brothers-in-law does not of itself show that they are in confidential relations.6

1 England. Huguenin v. Baseley, 14 Ves. Jr. 273; White & Tudor's Lead. Cas. (Pt. 2), 597.

United States. Jackson v. Ashton, 36 U. S. (11 Pet.) 229, 9 L. ed. 698.

Michigan. Finegan v. Theisen, 92 Mich. 173, 52 N. W. 619.

New Jersey. Corrigan v. Pironi, 48 N. J. Eq. 607, 23 Atl. 355.

New York. Marx v. McGlynn, 88 N. Y. 357.

2 Connor v. Stanley, 72 Cal. 556,1 Am. St. Rep. 84, 14 Pac. 306.

3In re Killen's Estate, 223 Pa. St. 201, 72 Atl. 521.

1 Kentucky. Ehrmann v. Stitzel, 121 Ky. 751, 123 Am. St Rep. 224, 90 S. W. 275.

Mississippi. Simonton v. Bacon, 49 Miss. 582.

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

Pennsylvania. Stepp v. Frampton, 179 Pa. St. 284, 36 Atl. 177.

West Virginia. Ballouz v. Higgins, 61 W. Va. 68, 56 S. E. 184.

2 Ehrmann v. Stitzel, 121 Ky. 751, 123 Am. St. Rep. 224, 90 S. W. 275.

3Dorsey v. Wolcott, 173 111. 539, 50 N. E. 1015; Holland v. John, 60 N. J. Eq. 435, 46 Atl. 172; Rowe v. Freeman, 89 Or. 428, 172 Pac. 508; Ballouz v. Higgins, 61 W. Va. 68, 56 S. E. 184.

4 Stepp v. Frampton, 179 Pa. St. 284, 36 Atl. 177.

5 Rowe v. Freeman, 89 Or. 428, 174 Pac. 727.