Cited by

Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , , and Clarity v. Davis, 92 Minn. 60 , , relate to wills, where, of course, the burden is upon proponent to establish the will by proof that it is the act of a testator who was then capable and competent; but we do not think the effect of these decisions is to support appellants’ contention

It is to be noted in this connection that in Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , , the trial court had exercised its discretion, submitted the case to a jury, and had taken its verdict.

Ashton v. Thompson, 32 Minn. 25 , ; Prescott v. Johnson, 91 Minn. 273 , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Shevlin v. Shevlin, 96 Minn. 398 , .

See Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , .

Co., 81 Minn. 130 , ; Levine v. Barrett & Barrett, 83 Minn. 145 , , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , .

665 ; Clarity v. Davis, 92 Minn. 60 , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Mackall v. Mackall, 135 U. S. 167 , 10 Sup.

him within the rule that where *407 confidence is reposed, and that confidence is abused by the party having it in his power for his own advantage to sacrifice those interests which he is bound to protect, he shall not be permitted to hold any such advantage; that is to say, in the language of Lord Eldon, so constantly quoted (see Ashton v. Thompson, 32 Minn. 25 , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ) as to become the very alphabet of this subject: The question is not whether the plaintiff knew w