Skip to main content
· 9/15/1871

Uhlich v. Muhlke

Citations

  • 61 Ill. 499

Syllabus

<p>1. Principal and agent&emdash;of dealings between them&emdash;and herein, of Hie burden of proof in relation to the fairness of the transaction. Where a conveyance is made to the confidential agent and adviser of the grantor, it is not void merely by reason of the relation thus existing between the grant- or and the grantee.</p> <p>2. Nor does it devolve upon the grantee, standing in this relation, to prove, in the first instance, that he did not use the influence he possessed over the grantor to induce the deed&emdash;that he did not abuse the confidence reposed in him.</p> <p>3. A confidential relation gives cause of suspicion, and the circumstances under which a deed is made during such a relation, must be closely scanned; and if a reasonable suspicion exists that confidence has been abused where reposed, the deed should be set aside.</p> <p>4. But the suspicion may be removed; and to render such a transaction valid, it is only necessary to show that the other party had competent and disinterested advice, or, that he performed the act, or entered into the transaction, voluntarily, deliberately and advisedly, knowing its nature and effect, and that his consent was not obtained by reason of the power and influence to which the relation might be supposed to give rise.</p> <p>5. A gift by one to another, who has been for many years his confidential-agent and adviser, is valid, unless the party who seeks to set it aside can show that some advantage was taken by the agent of the relation in which he stood to the donor.</p> <p>6. Adequacy of consideration&emdash;fraud. A person owning a large and valuable property in the city of Chicago, obtained the services of another as agent and confidential adviser, in the management of the estate. After four years’ service of an important character, to the principal, for which the agent had received no compensation, the former conveyed to the latter an undivided one-third of the property, of the value of about $125,000, the dee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that a conveyance of sixteen acres, out of a forty acre tract, conveyed the cotenant’s two-fifths interest within that sixteen acre parcel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Breese, Lawrence, McAllister, Thornton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.