The person subjected to undue influence may, if he chooses, after such influence is removed, ratify the transaction and make it as valid as it would have been if there had been no undue influence.1 Conduct while the influence exists does not constitute ratification.2 It has been held that payment of interest on negotiable notes before maturity is not ratification; since if payment is refused, there is danger that the notes may be transferred to bona fide holders.3 Conduct before the facts are discovered does not amount to ratification.4

6 Muir v. Miller, 82 la. 700, 47 N. W. 1011, 48 N. W. 1032.

1 "It is admitted that no case can be found in all the books where a general action for damages has been maintained upon the ground of undue influence in procuring a sale or other contract." Bancroft v. Bancroft, 110 Cal. 374, 378, 42 Pac. 896.

2 Valentine v. Richardt, 126 N. Y. 272, 27 N. E. 255.

3McCormick v. Malin, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 509.

1California. More v. More, 138 Cal. 489, 65 Pac. 1044.

Illinois. Roby v. Colehour, 135 111. 300, 25 N. E. 777; Albrecht v. Hunecke, 196 111. 127, 63 N. E. 616.

Michigan. Sanderson v. Adams, 133 Mich. 359, 94 N. W. 1063.

Oklahoma. Gidney v. Chappell, 26 Okla. 737, 110 Pac. 1099.

Pennsylvania. Keller v. Lamb, 202 Pa. St. 412, 51 Atl. 982.

Tennessee. Talbott v. Manard, 106 Tenn. 60, 59 S. W. 340.

Texas. Ellis v. Ellis, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 46, 23 S. W. 996.

2 Bell v. Campbell, 123 Mo. 1, 45 Am. St. Rep. 505, 25 S. W. 359; Gidney v. Chappell, 26 Okla. 737, 110 Pac. 1099.

3 Buck v. Bank, 27 Mich. 293, 15 Am. Rep. 189.

4Shevlin v. Shevlin, 96 Minn. 398, 105 N. W. 257.