Cited by

foundational reliability, we are mindful of “the line of distinction which separates the legitimate province of the [judge] from that of the [jury],” Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434, 437 (1868), which is that “the role of resolving disputed facts belongs to the jury, not the court,” Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn ., ; see also In re Sperl’s Estate , (“ ‘The cardinal maxim of our law, “Ad questiones facti non respondent judices ,” is not to be lightly violated.

Naeseth v. Hommedal, 109 Minn. 153 , [1909]; Ashton v. Thompson, 32 Minn. 25 , [1884] ; Prescott v. Johnson, 91 Minn. 273 , [1904] ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , [1905] ; Shevlin v. Shevlin, 96 Minn. 398 , [1905].’’ Agner v. Bourn, 281 Minn. 385, 390 , .

In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204 , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; In re Estate of Habhegger v. Habhegger, 154 Minn. 145 , ; Rochester Loan & Trust Co. v. Pett, 159 Minn. 341 , ; Dyste v. Farmers & Mechanics Sav.

Naeseth v. Hommedal, 109 Minn. 153 , ; Ashton v. Thompson, 32 Minn. 25 , ; Prescott v. Johnson, 91 Minn. 273 , ; *391 Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Shevlin v. Shevlin, 96 Minn. 398 , .

It is both useless and erroneous to cite Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , 103 N.W.

Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , .

Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , 103 N.W.

One of these rules is that where “confidential relations exist between parties and one of them by means of the relation secures from the other an inequitable advantage, equity will set aside the transaction.” Claggett v. Claggett, supra, *250 at 204 Minn. p. 572, 284 N. W. p. 365; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Naeseth v. Hommedal, 109 Minn. 153 , .

Counsel for appellants, in his brief, concedes that “it is mainly a question of fact.” Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , , relied upon by appellants, presents different facts, and only holds that the issue of undue influence should have been left to the jury.

Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , 103 N.W.

Amongst the many cases to which reference might be made the following are particularly helpful: Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; In re Estate of Keeley, 167 Minn. 120 , ; and In re Estate of Olson, 176 Minn. 360 , .

Amongst the many cases to which reference might be made the following are particularly helpful: Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , 103 N.W.

Ashton v. Thompson, 32 Minn. 25 , ; Prescott v. Johnson, 91 Minn. 273 , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Shevlin v. Shevlin, 96 Minn. 398 , ; Naeseth v. Hommedal, 109 Minn. 153 , .

*365 Notwithstanding dicta susceptible of a contrary construction in Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , , and Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , , the burden of proof on the issue of undue influence was with the contestant and remained there to the end.

This court has in a number of cases involving undue influence made reference to inferences, shifting of burden of proof, presumptions and prima facie case: Clarity v. Davis, 92 Minn. 60 , : “The claim * * * that the burden was upon the respondent (proponent) to show * * * that its execution was not procured by any undue influence * * * is, as it must be, conceded.” Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , : “But, in connection with sufficient other circumstances, these facts may make out a prima facie c

So, in Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , , it was held that the relationship of parent and child did not put upon the child the burden of showing that a will in his favor was not induced by undue influence.

Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181 , ; In re Estate of Jernberg, 153 Minn. 458 , .

In Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , , this in substance is stated as the general trend of opinion.

it must be kept free from the taint of selfish interests * * * and overreaching bargains.” These principles have been applied by this court to cases involving contracts: Ashton v. Thompson, 32 Minn. 25, ; Shevlin v. Shevlin, 96 Minn. 398 , ; Slingerland v. Slingerland, 115 Minn. 270 , ; to the case of a will procured by undue influence, Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , , and to a case involving the assent of a wife to the provisions made for her by her husband’s will.

Whelan v. Whelan, 3 Cowen, 537; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Shevlin v. Shevlin, 96 Minn. 398 , .

In re Storer’s Will, 28 Minn. 9 , 8 N W. 827; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , 103 N W. 502; Naeseth v. Hommedal, 109 Minn. 153 , ; Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463 , .

The ease of Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , , is not to the contrary.

Co. 84 Minn. 397 , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Stebbins v. Martin, 121 Minn. 154 , .

665; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Tyner v. Varien, 97 Minn. 181, 183 , ; Burmeister v. Gust, 117 Minn. 247 , .

369; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Cruikshank v. St.