Inadequacy of consideration, together with circumstances of unfair dealing not amounting to technical fraud, may establish undue influence.1 A deed executed by an aged and illiterate couple who were controlled by their daughter and her husband, for a grossly inadequate consideration in favor of such daughter, was set aside.2 A conveyance by a vendee who was old and weak mentally, and ignorant, for a small fraction of the value of the property, to a real estate dealer who was familiar with values, will be set aside.3 Inadequacy of consideration and a gross exaggeration of the value of certain realty made to one who was ignorant of the value of land in that locality, will cause equity to deny specific performance.4 Gross inadequacy of consideration for a release of a claim for personal injuries made by one who is at that time suffering from the injury, who is ignorant and given no opportunity to secure independent advice, and who is induced to make such release by vague promises of permanent employment, the release containing only a contract to employ him for such time as might be satisfactory to the adversary party, are grounds for setting aside a release at law.5 If a conveyance is obtained from one who is intoxicated, and the consideration therefor is grossly inadequate, equity will set such conveyance aside.6 A sale by one who was under the influence of liquor, of property worth twenty per cent, more than the contract price, on deferred payments without adequate provision for insurance, is voidable.7 A release which is executed by one who is in a weak condition physically and mentally, for an inadequate consideration, and without the opportunity of independent advice, is said to be invalid for fraud.8

14Bridgewater v. Byasse (Ky.), 93 S. W. 35.

1Kirby v. Arnold, 191 Ala. 263. 68 So. 17; Swan v. Talbot, 152 Cal. 142, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1066, 94 Pac. 238; Zink v. Marcue, 84 la. 305, 50 N. W. 984; Krause v. Stevens, - Neb. - , 172 N W. 245; Worth v. Watts, 76 N. J.. Eq. 299, 74 Atl. 434.

2Brummond v. Krause, 8 N. D. 573, 80 N. W. 686.

3Wolford v. Steele (Ky.), 84 S. W. 327.

4 Wagner v. Allen, - la. - , 169 N. W. 143.

5Kansas City, M. & B. By. Co. v. Chiles, 86 Miss. 361, 38 So. 498.

6 Swan v. Talbot, 152 Cal. 142, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1066, 94 Pac. 238.

7 Moetzel v. Koch, 122 la. 196, 97 N. W. 1079.

8 United States. Union Pac. Ry. Co.