But where the evidence showed that the patient’s own attorney prepared the papers, that he had independent advice, and understood what he was doing, and exercised his free will, and that the medical man had long attended him, the Court refused to set aside the deed, although the patient was eighty years of age [377]. And although a |141| gift made to a physician may be voidable, because of his standing in a confidential relation to the donor, a patient, yet, if after the confidential relation has ceased to exist, the donor intentionally elects to abide by the gift, and does, in fact, abide by it, it cannot be impeached after his death, even if it is not proved that the patient was aware that the gift was voidable at his election [378]. There is, of course, nothing in the relation of medical attendant and patient which can prevent the one from entering into a contract with the other, where the transaction proceeds openly and fairly, and the relation of physician and patient has, in reality, no bearing upon it [379]. In the case of a sale by a patient to a physician, where there was no proof of inadequacy of price, the transaction was sustained [380]. A strong case must be made to set aside a will on the ground of undue influence. Influence is not sufficient: there must be such a degree of influence as deprives the testator of the proper mastery over his faculties [381]. To invalidate a will, on the ground of undue influence, it must be shown that it was practised with respect to the will itself, or so contemporaneously with the will, or connected with it, as by almost necessary presumption to affect it; and flattery and obsequiousness, however degrading, will not constitute such an undue influence as will affect the acts of a capable testatrix [382]. Many wills made in favour of medical men by their patients have been sustained, although disputed, and that even in cases where the patients have been aged, infirm women, with impaired minds [383]. |142|