The question of undue influence between persons in confidential relations is rarely settled by the bare presumption arising out of such relations. Additional facts either strengthen or rebut the presumption of undue influence. If, in addition to the confidential relationship between the parties, a person who reposes trust and confidence in the other is afflicted with weakness,1 either physical,2 or mental,3 such fact greatly strengthens the presumption of undue influence arising out of the confidential relations between the parties. Examples of cases in which undue influence has been held to exist under this combination of facts are given in the note below.4 An assignment by a wife, who has recently been released from an insane asylum, of an insurance policy held by her on her husband's life, to their child, at his instance without understanding its effect has been held to be due prima facie to undue - influence.5 Between persons in a confidential relation, the fact that the party seeking relief was aged and infirm, and that he was induced to enter into the transaction by a contract which had not been performed, still further strengthens the presumption of undue influence.6 This combination of facts does not necessarily establish the existence of undue influence. Many cases exist in which transactions under such facts have been upheld.7

1 Banner v. Roseer, 96 Va. 238, 31 S. E. 67.

2Tichy v. Simecek (Neb.), 95 N. W. 629.

3Doran v. McConlogue, 150 Pa. St. 98, 24 Atl. 357.

4 Frederic v. Wilkins, 182 Ala. 343, 62 So. 518.

5Masterson v. Sheahan (Mo.), 186 S. W. 524.

6 Bawden v. Taylor, 254 111. 464, 98 N. E. 941.

11ndiana. Ashmead v. Reynolds, 134 Ind. 139, 39 Am. St. Rep. 238, 33 N. E. 763.

Massachusetts. Woodbury v. Woodbury, 141 Mass. 329, 55 Am. Rep. 479, 5 N. E. 275.

Michigan. Jacox v. Jacox, 40 Mich. 473, 29 Am. Rep. 547.

Missouri. Martin v. Baker, 135 Mo. 495, 36 S. W. 369; Youtsey v. Hollings-worth (Mo.), 178 S. W. 105.

Vermont. Normand v. Normand, 89 Vt. 77, 94 Atl. 172.

2 Lewis v. McGrath, 191 III. 401, 61 N. E. 135; McDowell v. Edwards' Adm'r, 156 Ky. 475, 161 S. W. 534; Disch v. Timm, 101 Wis. 179, 77 N. W. 196.

3 Illinois. Dorsey v. Wolcott, 173 111. 539, 50 N. E. 1015.

Kentucky. McDowell v. Edwards' Adm'r, 156 Ky. 475, 161 S. W. 534.

Missouri. Youtsey v. Hollingsworth (Mo.), 178 S. W. 105.

Pennsylvania. Gibbons v. Gibbons, 175 Pa. St. 475, 34 Atl. 846.

Vermont. Normand v. Normand, 89 Vt. 77, 94 Atl. 172.