The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-08-23


seems entirely inconsistent with the
claim of the plaintiff.
It appears beyond dispute that the
very friendly relationship existing be-
tween the plaintiff and the defendant
for long time prior to the transfer in
question was not changed or in any
way modified or affected by the MAX
ing Of this transfer.
Surely some evidence of such a
transaction as that detailed by the
plaintiff would exist in the CORE
spondence between these brothers, or
in their attitude towards each other
subsequent to the transfer.
Being satisfied from consideration {
Of all the evidence in this case that
the negotiations for, and a substantial |
agreement as to the transfer of this
Stock Were carried on and concluded
on the 9Th or 9Th Of January or on
both these days, the plaintiffs claim
that he was induced to make the
transfer by undue influence and fraud
wholly fails; for his testimony tend
ing to establish the use of such undue
influence and threats is entirely incon-
slstent with any understanding with
reference to the transfer of this stock
prior to Jan. is, and his testimony is
the only testimony in the case tending
in any substantial way to establish the
use of undue influence Of threats.
Fourth-The remaining ground
which the plaintiff claims is estab-
lished by the evidence as emitting him
to relief is. that because of the rela-
tionship between these parties, and
because of the weakened physical
and mental condition of the plaintiff,
! equity will not allow this transfer to
stand; but will either compel a return
of the stock by the defendant to- the
| plaintiff, or will impress upon the
stock in the defendants hands a trust
for the benefit of the plaintiff.
Generally a person free from legal
disability is bound by his contracts,
but upon broad grounds of public pol
icy the rule has been long and firmly
established that equity will give re-
lief where one party having invited
and received the trust and confidence
| of another, takes advantage of his po-
sition to deprive such other party Of
some property right or benefit.
This principle finds it's most fire.
quent application in relationships es-
tablished for special purposes, such as
| trustee and cestui que trust, attorney
! and client, and guardian and ward,
but it is not limited to relationship
| Of any special kind or for any special
purpose.
In the case of a trustee the law will
not permit him to traffic in the trust
l property for his own benefit. In the
1
law requires him to act for the bene-
/ fit Of the person whose trust and con-
tidence he has invited and received.
The effect of the relationship may
vary under different conditions. In
the case of trustee dealing with the
| trust property the transaction will be
VI set aside upon demand Of the person
i entitled to the beneficial interest,
! whether such transaction appears to
\ be fair or not, because of the settled
4 policy to remove in such cases oppor-
4 tunity for frauds that at times might
! relationships of established trust and
confidence equity only requires proof
of the fairness of the transaction to
prevent it's Disturbance.
Also the purposes leading to the re-
lationship or the elements that, taken
together, make it up may be varied,
but co-extensive with the confidence
actually invited and reposed in the
resulting duty.
The rule has been broadly stated,
that, "the principle applies to every
case where influence is acquired and
abused, where confidence is reposed
and betrayed
1t is difficult to define by terms the
exact scope and application of this
principle, because the meaning of the
terms as used in equity must be I'M
derstood; but such application, like
? Piles, is best understood by examina.
ton Of the cases in which it is applied
Equity interferes where there is ar
absence of the proper conditions fol
fairly entering into contract, !. e.
Y that each party undertakes to act fol
: himself, and is free, and reasonably
; able so to act.
S In many fair contracts are present
E some Of the circumstances that have
: when coupled with other circum
t stances rendered contract voidable
E Relations Of kinsl1ip, inequality il
b ability and experience, ties of affec
t ton, exist alike between parties tt
e valid and voidable contracts.
= In many, perhaps most contracts
entered into between parties regarded
! in law as strangers, trust ant
e confidence exist to some extent.
v In the case at bar some circum
: stances exist that are similar to a par
e of the circumstance going to make III
r a case for equitable interference, bu
: after the fullest examination Of tn
e evidence submitted, and of the case
announcing the principle under dis
e cussion,. am satisfied that any state
e ment of the facts in the case at ba
t that will bring his case within the re
: llationship that furnishes in equity
IF basis for relief, will fall in many i'm
# portant respects wholly outside of tn
Is facts established by the evidence
q Ana LnaL d statement VI I'LL ldCtS q
~ established by the evidence in thi
- case, fails in many important par
= ticulars to bring the case within tn
= established limits Of the principle tina
!, equity will relieve from contrat
= procured by the betrayal Of conf1denc
. imposed or the misuse Of influence &C
~ quired.
,e Involved in this ground assigned 6
l. a basis for relief is the condition {
the plaintiff, the relationship actual
in existing between the plaintiff and tn
70 defendant, and the nature Of the tran!
IN fer made.
- 1t appears by the testimony Of tn
- plaintiff that on the 9Th and 9Th {
=. January, 1900, he was in his the
- usual condition of health. In tn
e e condition of health the plaintiff ha
= been successful manager of a lars
=, business; able to wisely pass upon tt
IF varied and important questions TIT
- -, continually presented themselves
=, him in that capacity.
~ Upon the morning of the 18th
= January, it appears that the plaint1
o ~ had been i'll as the result of perit
.' of excessive drinking, covering thr'
II, or four days, and that he was the
n weak and nervous, but in my opinie
NJ the evidence clearly establishes that
e was in full possession Of his facultle
and that his mind was not in any WI
On impaired, and he was not in the sta
II of extreme mental and physical d
sst bility claimed on the part of II
ny plaintiff.
Sc. Several persons intimately acquain