Peterson v. Budge
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, First District; Hon. Ferdinand-Erickson, Judge. Action to cancel and set aside conveyance. APPELLANTS'’ AUTH0RITIES. We respectfully contend that the rule is that where confidential relations exist that transactions between such parties are held to be presumptively void as being obtained through undue influence and the burden of proof in such cases shifts so as to require the beneficiary to establish the validity of the transaction.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, First District; Hon. Ferdinand-Erickson, Judge. Action to cancel and set aside conveyance. APPELLANTS'’ AUTH0RITIES. We respectfully contend that the rule is that where confidential relations exist that transactions between such parties are held to be presumptively void as being obtained through undue influence and the burden of proof in such cases shifts so as to require the beneficiary to establish the validity of the transaction. (Smith on the Law of Fraud, secs. 190, 115, 106, 10?, 100; 9 Cyo. 456; 6 Ency. of Evid., pp. 11 and 13; Jennings v. Connell, 17 Ill.…
1Opinion of the Court
líoOARTT, J.
(after stating the facts as above.)
It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs, appellants, that the findings of fact are not only unsupported by, but are contrary to, the evidence, that the judgment is against law, and that the court erred in denying plaintiffs the relief prayed for in the complaint. We think this contention is well founded. The evidence conclusively shows that the fiduciary relation of physician and patient existed between, Joseph S. Peterson and the Budges at the time the sale in question 1 took place, and that the value of the property was far in excess of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Thomas v. WhitneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1900
- Woodbury v. WoodburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Cadwallader v. WestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Viallet v. Consolidated Ry. & Power Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1906
- Unruh v. LukensSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
3Cited by14 opinions
- In Re Swan's EstateUtah Supreme Court · 1956
- Gidney v. ChappellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Hodge v. SheaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1969
- Omega Investment Co. v. WoolleyUtah Supreme Court · 1928
- Ashton v. SkeenUtah Supreme Court · 1935
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.