Cited by

Jur., Duress and Undue Influence, § 33; Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86, 92 , ; Thill v. Freiermuth, 132 Minn. 242 , .

In re Nelson’s Will, 39 Minn. 204, 206 , ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, supra, at p. 76 (N. W. p. 885); Schmidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn. 451, 457 , ; Tyner v. Varien, supra, at p. 183 (N. W. p. 898); Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86, 92 , ; In re Estate of Jenks, supra, at p. 383 (N. W. p. 271).

p. 898); Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , 92 , 131 N.W.

In re Will of Storer, 28 Minn. 9 , ; In re Will of Nelson, 39 Minn. 204 , ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 43 Minn. 73 , ; Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , ; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , ; Melberg v. Wild Rice Lbr.

* * * What is meant is that a point is reached when the contestant prevails unless the proponent assumes the obligations of going forward with his evidence.” In Re Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , : “Even in the case of a gift from parent to child, or child to parent, while the court will scrutinize carefully the circumstances of the transaction, the presumption is in favor of its validity, and in order to set it aside on the ground of undue influence the court must be satisfied that it was not

Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , ; Rader v. Rader, 108 Minn. 139 , ; McEleney v. Donovan, 119 Minn. 294 , ; Thill v. Freiermuth, 132 Minn. 242 ; Boynton v. Simmons, 156 Minn. 144 , .

Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , .

The questions asked and persistently urged so remotely affected the defendant’s credibility and were so likely to be applied by the jury unfavorably to him in their consideration of the issue involved and not restricted to their proper scope that a new trial should be had- Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , ; Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , ; State v. McCoy, 112 Minn. 424 , ; Petruschke v. Kamerer, 131 Minn. 320 , ; 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , , Downer v. Union Land Co. of St.

It may be either through threats or fraud, but, however exercised, it must, in order to avoid a will, destroy the free agency of the testator at the time when the instrument is made.” In Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , , this language is used: “In proving undue influence, there must be evidence to satisfy the court that the free agency of the donor or testator was destroyed at the time the instrument was made, so that, in effect, the deed or will does not express the mind and intent of the donor

Mitchell v. Mitchell, 43 Minn. 73 , ; Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , .

Mr. Justice Bunn, in Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , , said: “There is no reason for not applying the familiar rule that the party who seeks to set aside a solemn instrument like a deed on the ground of fraud or undue influence, which is a species of fraud, has the burden of proof.” Such is also the rule in Prescott v. Johnson, 91 Minn. 273