In Holmes' Est., 3 Giff. Ch. Rep. 345, Sir John Stuart, V. C, said : " The law of this court as to gifts by a client to his solicitor, I think, is perfectly established. The principle is, that the relation of solicitor and client is one of such high confidence on the part of the client that the solicitor is considered to have an amount of influence over the mind and action of his client, which, in the eye of this court, while that influence remains, makes it almost impossible that the gift can prevail. The principle of influence vitiates the gift; but the presumption of influence may be rebutted by circumstances short of the total dissolution of the relation of solicitor and client. That relation is only looked at as creating the influence ; and, as soon as circumstances of evidence are introduced which remove all effect of the influence, whether the relation subsists or not, if the influence of that relation is removed, there is no incapacity on the part of the solicitor to become the object of his client's bounty, and to be the recipient from his client of a gift which will be valid at law and in equity." That assignments by a client to his counsel of interests in litigation are void, see infra, sec 426.

1 Imperial Merc. Co. v. Coleman, L. R. 6 H. L. 189 ; Flanagan v. R. R., L. R. 7 Eq. 116 ; New Sombrero Phosphate Co. v. Erlanger, L. R. 5 C. D. 73. Infra, sec 255 a.

2 Story, Partnership, sec 172; Russell v. Austwick,.l Sim. 52; Getty v. Devlin, 54 N. Y. 403 ; Hopkins v. Watt, 13 111. 298 ; King v. Wise, 43 Cal. 629.

3 Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 234; Hunt v. Moore, 2 Barr, 105 ; Diller v. Brubaker, 52 Penn. St. 498 ; Parchell's App., 65 Penn. St. 224 ; Ellis v. Barker, L. R. 7 Ch. 104 ; Thomson v. Eastwood, L. R. 2 Ap. Ca. 236 ; Parker v. Nicker-son, 112 Mass. 195 ; Spencer's App., 80 Penn. St. 332. Infra, sec 378. Thus one trustee cannot purchase the cestui que trust's property at a sale by the other trustee. Davoue v. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch. 261; Gaines v. Allen, 58 Mo. 541; Miles v. Wheeler, 43 111. 124 ; infra, sec 378. As to the duty of a person occupying a fiduciary position to disclose facts, see infra, sec 254.

4 Lewin on Trustees, 337 ; Hobday v. Peters, 8 Beav. 354; McClure v. Lewis, 72 Mo. 314.

to protect ;l by a guardian over a ward ;2 by a child over a dependent parent;3 by an agent, occupying a fiduciary relation, over a principal ;4 by a husband over a wife ;5 by a medical

1 Michoud v. Girod, 4 How. 503; Casey v. Casey, 14 111. 112; Read v. Howe, 39 Iowa, 553; Statham v. Ferguson, 25 Grat. 28 ; Scott v. Umbarger, 41 Cal. 410; Osborne a. Graham, 30 Ark. 66.

* Dawson v. Massey, 1 B. & B. 226; Gallatian v. Cunningham, 8 Cow. 361; Eberts v. Eberts, 55 Penn. St. 119 ; Hunter v. Lawrence, 11 Grat. 111; Blackmore v. Shelby, 8 Humph. 439 ; Womack v. Austin, 1 S. C. 421; Ma-lone v. Kelly, 54 Ala. 532; Garvin v. Williams, 50 Mo. 206; Meek v. Perry, 36 Miss. 190. "Settlements made soon after the ward comes of age, and especially before he is in possession of his estate, are viewed by the courts with a watchful and even jealous eye. To sustain such settlements it must appear that the ward had sufficient time and opportunity to examine the guardian's accounts ; and that he was either himself competent to make the examination, or was assisted by competent and independent advice." Bispham's Eq. sec 234, citing Hylton v. Hylton, 2 Ves. Sr. 547; Somes v. Skinner, 16 Mass. 348; Kirby v. Taylor, 6 Johns. Ch. 248; Elliott v. Elliott, 5 Binn. 8; Say v. Barnes, 4 S. & R. 112 ; Stanley's App., 8 Penn. St. 431 ; Cowan's App., 74 Penn. St. 329 ; Andrews v. Jones, 10 Ala. 400; Meek v. Perry, 36 Miss. 190; and see Hoppin v. Tobey, 9 R. I. 42 ; Greenawalt ex parte, 2 Clark, 1.

3 Whelan v. Whelan, 3 Cow. 537; Highberger v. Stiffler-, 21 Md. 338; Simpler v. Lord, 28 Ga. 52. On the other hand, if "the information which the trustee has is in no way superior to that of the cestui que trust; if the latter is fully informed of all the facts of the case, and their probable bearing on the value of the property; and if he is acting on independent advice, and his mind is entirely free from any control of the trustees, and the transaction be in itself a reasonable one, it may, under these circumstances, be upheld." Bispham's Eq. sec 237 ; citing Perry on Trusts, sec 195. See Redgrave v. Hurd, L. R. 20 Cb. D. 1.

4 Infra, sec 378; Wh. on Agency, sec 231, 523 ; Lowther v. Lowther, 13 Ves. 103; Reed v. Norris, 2 Myl. & Cr. 361 ; Dunne v. English, L. R. 18 Eq. 524; Kimber v. Barker, L. R. 8 Ch. Ap. 56; Morgan v. Minett, L. R. 6 C. D. 638 ; Provost v. Gratz, 6 Wheat. 481; Jackson v. Ludeling, 21 Wall. 617 ; Smith v. Townsend, 109 Mass. 500 ; Claflin v. Bank, 25 N. Y.293 ; Bainr. Brown, 56N. Y. 285; Chorpenning's App., 32 Penn. St. 315 ; Gaines v. Allen, 58 Mo. 541.

5 The statutes in most of our states requiring that to make a wife's release of dower valid she should be examined separately from her husband, illustrate the jealousy with which the wife's independence in this respect is guarded. When the wife agrees to convey her separate estate, she having power to do so, to her husband, and he afterwards asks the aid of the law to enforce the bargain, the burden is on him to prove the fairness of the transaction. See Boyd v. De la Montagnie, 73 N. Y. 498. That a husband's threats to commit suicide will not avoid his wife's deed thus induced, see Wright v. Remington, 41 N. J. L. 48 ; supra, sec 148. Mr. Pollock refers to Cobbett v. Brock, 20 Beav. 524; Page v. Home, 11 Beav. 227, as showing that there is a fiduciary relation in persons engaged to be married ; but that this does not extend to cases of illicit intercourse. Farman over a patient;' by a priest or other religious guide over mer v. Farmer, 1 H. L. C. 724. That an ante-nuptial contract executed by an intended wife without full disclosure of her husband's circumstances, will not be enforced against her, see Kline v. Kline, 57 Penn. St. 120; Kline's Est., 64 Penn. St. 122; infra, sec 399. That agreements of husband and wife providing for separation, are void, see infra, sec 395. As to disabilities of married women, see supra, sec 76 et seg. That agreements between husband and wife are at common law void, see supia, sec 91.