In addition to the foregoing facts, the further fact that the party holding the dominating position in the confidential relation has failed to make disclosure of the material facts, still further strengthens the presumption of undue influence.1 The same result follows if material facts are misstated, even if not in such form as to amount to technical fraud.2

1Weeke v. Wortmann, 84 Neb. 217, 120 N. W. 933; Loosing v. Loosing, 85 Neb. 66, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 920, 122 N. W. 707; Viallet v. Consolidated Ry. & Power Co., 30 Utah 260, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 663, 84 Pac. 496.

2Watkins v. Brant, 46 Wis. 419, 1 N. W. 82.

3Loosing v. Loosing, 85 Neb. 66, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 920, 122 N. W. 707.

4Viallet v. Consolidated Ry. & Power Co., 30 Utah 260, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 663, 84 Pac. 496.

5Smith v. Cuddy, 96 Mich. 562, 56 N. W. 89.

6Whitridge v. Whitridge, 76 Md. 54, 24 Atl. 645.

7Sayles v. Christie, 187 III. 420, 58 N. E. 480.

8Tribou v. Tribou, 96 Me. 305, 52 Atl. 795. .

1 Conveyance by beneficiary under a will to executor who conceals facts learned by him in that capacity. Richards v. Pitts, 124 Mo. 602, 28 S. W. 88.