St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-04-11
THE COURTS.
Decision of Court Below Affirmed in
the Ashton Thompson Case.
Robert Kruger, Pleading Guilty of Lar
ceny, Sent to Prison.
S,tnrene Court.


At the eighth session of the April term yes
terday all the justices but Dickinson were
present, and the following business was
transacted:
Franz o. Melin, respondent, vs.. Joseph w.
Reynolds ct al, appellant; argued by counsel
for appellant and submitted on briefs by
counsel for respondent, and taken under
advisement.
Minnesota Linseed Oil company, respond
ent, VS.. John Magginnis, appellant; sub
mitted on briefs and taken under advise
ment.
Adjourned to Monday at $3.50 a. N.
DECISION.
Katie Thompson Ashton, respondent, VS..
| Susan L. Thompson and Horace Thomp-
son, Susan L. Thompson, appellant.)
Syllabus-Upon grounds of public policy,
Or as it is otherwise expressed, of p,blie utility,
equity exercises Statutory Jurisdiction in set
ting aside donations of property made to a
donee who stands in some confidential or
fiduciary relation to the donor. The relief
granted in such cases rests upon general
principle applicable to all relations in which
dominion is exercised by one person over
another. The confidential relation of parent
and child, and the fiduciary relation of guar
dian and ward are among those in which
such relief is frequently granted.
Equity looks with special jealousy upon
donations from a child to q parent when
made recently after the child comes of age or
while he is under Instant and immediate
influence of the parent Gas for instance resld-
ing with him) or while his property is in the
parents possession or control.
Donations from ward to a guardian are
regarded with still greater jealousy where
the circumstances are such as to give the
guardian an ascendency over the ward.
Whether the donation be from child to a
parent or by ward to his guardian If the
donor is so placed as to be subject to the
donee the o,tus Is on the parent or guardian
Gas the case may beg to show that the trans
action is righteous"
In such cases the undue influence is on
grounds Of public policy prima facie pre-
sumed from the peculiar relations subsisting
between the parties.
Substantially the same rules are applicable
to the case of an ex-guardian, where, not
withstanding the termination OF the formal
fiduciary relation between him and his ward
he still retains his dominion in fact, and his
position of influence az respects the ward or
his property. This is especially true where
the donations called in question are made
while (even after his majority the ward
continues to reside with the ex-guardian
or the ex-guardian continues to retain pos
session or control of the wards property.
In all those cases where the law infers
from the relations of the parties the probable
ity of undue influence on the part of the
party having dominion or ascendency over
another 1t requires that the influence in fact
exercised shall be exerted for the benefit of
the person subject to 1t and not for the ben
eft of the party possessing it; otherwise the
donations will be promptly set aside.
Application of these principles to the facts Of
this case arising between parent and guardian
and her child and ward, the order refusing to va
cate the decision below and to grant a new trial
is affirmed.
BERRY, j.
re-. Gilfllan, c. j., and Dickinson, j. being
necessarily absent from the argument took
no part in the decision.