A contract or conveyance induced by undue influence is voidable, and not void.1 Accordingly, if the party of whom advantage is taken wishes to avoid the transaction, he must return what he has received thereunder.2 Thus if the grantor has reserved a life estate and the grantee has furnished money to the grantor to make im-. provements thereon, the grantor must refund such amount.3 The party seeking relief may tender the value of the property received by him if he has parted with it under the continuance of such undue influence.4 Reasonable compensation must be paid for services rendered under a contract of employment, though such contract was induced by undue influence.5

3 Fisher v. Publishing Association, 85 Mich. 472, 48 N. W. 622.

4 United States. Sturm v. Stump, 239 Fed. 749.

California. Colby v. Title Ins. & T. Co., 160 Cal. 632, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 813, 117 Pac. 913.

Connecticut. Looby v. Redmond, 66 Conn. 444, 34 Atl. 102.

Florida. Burton v. McMillan, 52 Fla. 469, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 991, 42 So. 849.

Iowa. Humphrey v. Ringler, 94 la. 182, 62 N. W. 685.

Kentucky. Wiley v. Wiley, 178 Ky. 501, 199 S. W. 47.

Massachusetts. Somes v. Skinner, 16 Mass. 348.

Missouri. Youtsey v. Hollingsworth (Mo.), 178 S. W. 105. (Mortgage rescinded.) Tucker v. Roach, 139 Ind. 275, 38 N. E. 822.

5 (Commercial) National Bank v.

Wheelock, 52 0. S. 534, 49 Am. St. Rep. 738, 40 N. E. 636.

6Holtzman v. Linton, 27 D. C. App. 241.

7Looby v. Redmond, 66 Conn. 444, 34 Atl. 102. (The grantees do not seem to have insisted on total rescission.)

1Bancroft v. Bancroft, 110 Cal. 374, 42 Pac. 896.

It is clearly not illegal. Rochester v. Campbell, 184 Ind. 421, 111 N. E. 420.

2Corrigan v. Pironi, 48 N. J. Eq. 607,. 23 Atl. 355; Costen v. McDowell, 107 N. Car. 546, 12 S. E. 432.

3Corrigan v. Pironi, 48 N. J. Eq. 607, 23 Atl. 355. (No actual fraud was here proved to exist.)

4 Meyer v. Fishburn, 65 Neb. 626, 91 N. W. 534.

5Rochester v. Campbell, 184 Ind. 421, 111 N. E. 420.

If the thing which he has received under such transaction is not of any value, he is not obliged to return it Thus in a suit of an administrator to set aside a transfer of personal property, on the ground of undue influence, the administrator need not tender back the contract entered into by the adversary party, to support such person, which has been discharged by the death of the person making such transfer.6