Herbolsheimer v. Herbolsheimer

It is clear from the facts alleged in the complaint that a fiduciary relation existed between the testator and Arthur who received a substantial benefit under tire will and who procured the preparation of the will. These facts and the not unreasonable inference that Arthur was the dominant party and the testator the dependent party were sufficient to show that the testator reposed trust and confidence in Arthur. See Yung v. Peloquin, 6 Ill.App.2d 258; Peters v. Catt, 15 Ill.2d 255.

I.P.I. Civil (2d ed.) Will Contest, §§ 200.03 and 200.09, makes it even more clear.

Section 200.03 states the…