COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE.—1 BLAND. 347

eration was greatly inadequate; or where the weak man had conveyed
all his property, leaving himself to be fed and clothed at the pleasure of
the grantee. (f)

(f) Approved in Highberger v. Stiffler, 21 Md. 354. Deeds or contracts
made by a party upon whom undue influence has been exerted will be va-
cated in equity because in such cases there was no real or free consent.
Undue influence consists: 1. In the use, by one in whom a confidence is
reposed by another, or who holds a real or apparent authority over him. of
such confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advan-
tage over him. 2. In taking an unfair advantage of another's weakness of
mind. 3. In taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another's
necessities or distress. Proposed N. T. Civil Code, Art. 760.

In the case of persons standing in confidential relations, the exercise of
undue influence by the beneficiary is presumed, in gifts. &c., inter vivos and
the burden of proof is upon the grantee to establish the validity of the
transaction. Todd v. Grove, 33 Md. 188: Williams v. Williams, Court of Ap-
peals, 1885. In the case of wills, however, it is otherwise, and the natural
influence of the parent or guardian over the child, or the hushand over the
wife, or the attorney over the client may lawfully be exerted to obtain a
will or legacy, so long as the testator thoroughly understands what he is
doing and is a free agent. Davis v. Calvert, 5 G. & J. 270. note (c).

Gifts procured by agents, and purchases made by them from their princi-
pals should be scrutinized with close suspicion. Brooke v. Berry, 2 Gill, 83.
As to purchases by trustees of the trust property, see Williams v. Marshall.
4 G. & J. 376, note. As to settlements between guardian and ward, see
Forbes v. Forbes, 5 Gill, 30; Smith v. Davis. 49 Md. 470.

If a disposition of property be fairly made by a competent persoH. though
entirely voluntary and without consideration, it is perfectly valid, and cannot
be rescinded merely because the Court may think it absurd or improvident
that such a disposition should have been made. Goodwin v. White. 59 Md.
504. The affection of a grantor for her brother, (the grantee.) and the belief
of witnesses that she would do anything he asked of her, is not of itself
sufficient ground for declaring that the deed has been obtained by undue
influence. Wise v. Swartzwelder, 54 Md. 293. As to deeds, &c.. made by
intoxicated persons, see Reinicker v. Smith, 2 H. & J. 433; Johns v. Fritchey.
39 Md. 258: Heivitt's Appeal, 55 Md. 514. Feebleness of mind alone, in the
absence of fraud or deception practised on the party in consequence of such
infirmity, does not invalidate a contract. Cain v. Warford. 33 Md. 23. Cf.
Watkins v. Stockett, 6 H. & J. 435. As to what is competent evidence of
capacity or incapacity, see Townshend v. Townshend. 7 Gill, 10. notes. As to
evidence of the declarations of a testator under issues of fraud and undue
influence, see Griffith v, Diffenderffer, 50 Md. 466: as to such evidence in case
of a deed, see Kerby v. Kerby, 57 Md. 345.

In the following cases the deeds, &c. have been vacated for undue influ-
ence, &c. Brogden v. Walker. 2 H. & J. 385; Long v. Long. 9 Md. 348; Bank
v. Copeland, 18 Md. 305: Highberger v. Stiffler, 21 Md. 338; Todd v. Grove, 33
Md. 188; Snyder v. Jones, 38 Md. 542; Whitridge v. Barry, 42 Md. 140; Clark
v. Stansbury, 49 Md. 306; Turner v. Rusk, 53 Md. 65; Cherbonnier v. Evitts.
36 Md. 276. (an instructive case;) Merryman v. Euler, 59 Md. 588: Williams
T. Williams, Court of Appeals, 1885.

In the following cases the Court refused to vacate the deeds, &c. because
the evidence of undue influence was insufficient: Jennings v. Pendergast, 10
Md. 346; Wise v. Swartzwelder, 54 Md. 292; Eakle v. Reynolds, 54 Md. 305;