not then bound to pay, the party prevailed upon to give it, is taken from the evidence of the transaction itself, not to have been properly advised on the subject, and it will be set aside (s). A Conveyance of a Reversionary Interest from an uncle to a nephew, under circumstances of gross inadequacy of price and alleged fraud, was attempted to be set aside after forty years, but held to be supported by the consideration of natural love and affection inserted in the witnessing part of the Deed, although not expressed in the recital (t).

If a Bargain, which was fair at the time, becomes, by subsequent events, very advantageous, the Vendor cannot make any claim in a Court of Equity on the ground of inadequacy of Price (u). If, for instance, a Man should contract to sell an Estate in consideration of an Annuity during his Life, and the Contract is signed, and the Party to have the Annuity dies before the end of the first half year, the Court would still execute the Contract (x).

So, if a Deed be entered into by Parties fully apprized of their rights, in order to put an end to a Suit, although upon inadequate consideration, it cannot be set aside (y).

Nor does the Court ever give relief against Marriage

(s) Brasley v. Magrath, 2 Sch. & Lefr. 35. Carpenter v. Herriott, Cor. Lord Northington, cited arg. 2 Ves. jun. 493, by the name of Carpenter v. Elliot, and reported 1 Eden, 338.

(t) Whalley v. Whalley, 1 Meriv. 436.

1 Vern. 141, and Gowland and De Faria, 17 Ves. 25.

(x) See 3 Bro. C. C. 605. and Lord Eldon adopts this case in Coles and Trecothick, 9 Ves. 246. Mortimer and Capper, 1 Bro. 156.

(y) Stephens against Lord Viscount Bateman, 1 Bro. C. C. 22; and see Leonard v. Leo(u) See Batty and Lloyd, nard, 2 Ball & Beatty, 179.

Contracts for Settlement, Jointures, or other Provisions, though they may be very unequal, and in favour of the Wife," because it cannot set the Wife in statu quo, or unmarry the Parties," as was said in Wycherley v. Wycherley, where the Remainder-man, on a Bill to be relieved against a Jointure made by Tenant for Life, upon his death-bed, in consideration of and previous to his Marriage, by virtue of a power reserved to him, was denied relief (≈).

In all cases, it must be remembered, that if a Contract, voidable for inadequacy of consideration, is confirmed by the Party, with his Eyes open, (as the expression is,) it will not be relieved against (a).

Voluntary Conveyances are frequently declared by Courts of Equity to be fraudulent, and the Court will determine the fact of Fraud without a trial at Law (b).

Whatever previous determinations there may formerly have been to the contrary (c), it is now fully settled, upon the Statute 27 Eliz. c. 4, which was passed to prevent Frauds on Purchasers, that a voluntary Settlement, however free from actual fraud, is, by the operation of that Statute, deemed fraudulent and void against a subsequent Purchaser for a valuable consideration, even where the Purchase has been made with notice of the prior voluntary Settlement. The Statute receives the same construction, and produces the same effect both in Law and Equity;

(z) Cited in North v. Ansell, 2 P. Wms. 619. 2 Eq. Abr. 391. Anon. Ch. Cas. 17. Whitfield v. Taylor, Show. P. C.

20.

(a) Maskeen v. Cote, Trin.

(b) White v. Hussey, Prec. Ch. 15.

(c) See White v. Stringer, 2 Lev. 105, and the cases mentioned by Lord Ellenborough, in his Judgment in Otley v.

not then bound to pay, the party prevail
give it, is taken from the evidence of th
itself, not to have been properly advi
ject, and it will be set aside (s).
Reversionary Interest from an v
under circumstances of gross ina
alleged fraud, was attempter
forty years, but held to be s
ration of natural love an
witnessing part of the T
in the recital (t).

If a Bargain, whi by subsequent eve cannot make ar

ground of in

a Man sho

ation of

tract is

dies

WO

If,

an under

previous voluntary

sance," says Lord Hardy Conveyance has not been & subsequent Purchaser (g).” executed under a voluntary Fower is afterwards executed for sation, the Purchaser will have the

,a makes a voluntary Conveyance of Land,
Lance sells the same for a valuable con-
Court inclined to think,
Appointment of Property

Land, the

So on an

Faurie & Niachell, 18 Pubert v. Pul:s a Metcalfe y 1 Yes & Bea. Quer v. Manning, Bishop of Gwen i Isus. g. Evelyn Cir, Bro. Č. C. 148,

be incorrectly reported, 4897 and see Ambl. 288. 34 16 34. Powell v. Porok 14 Jan, 1702, Dom.

6. Lord Harcourt's MS. Dinos, Dve v. James, 16 East,

(e) Hill v. Bishop of Exeter, 2 Taunt. 82, 3.

(f) Doe v. Routledge, Cowp. 705. Metcalfe v. Pulvertoft, i Ves. & Bea. 84. Doe v. James, 16 East, 212.

(g) White v. Sansom, 3 Atk. 412. Sed vid. Jennings v. Sellick, 1 Vern. 467.

(h) Hart v. Middlehurst, 3 Atk. 377.

(i) Sagittary v. Hyde, 2 Vern. 44. Rogers v. Langham, 1 Sid. 133. Daubeny v. Cockburn, 1 Meriv. 638.

dis void as against

ation of the surrender of

Obligor gives another Bond,

ond is good against Creditors; saction be with a view to defraud

by an insolvent person for instance, to substitute a valid, for an invalid, Sey (1).

It is observable, that where a voluntary Conveyance is afterwards defeated by a Sale for a valuable consideration, there is no instance of a satisfaction being decreed against the maker of the voluntary Conveyance, or his Estate, unless where there has been some Covenant on which an Action or Suit might be maintained (m).

Every voluntary Conveyance by a Man for his own benefit is fraudulent against Creditors (n), but every voluntary Conveyance is not fraudulent (o). A voluntary Conveyance of Real Estate, or a Chattel Interest in favour of a Child, by one, not indebted at the time, though he afterwards becomes indebted, is good as against future Creditors, though not against

(k) Daubeny v. Cockburn,

1 Meriv. 638.

(1) Ex parte Berry, 19 Ves. 218.

(m) Williamson v. Codrington, 1 Ves. 516.

(n) Fitzer v. Fitzer, 2 Atk. 513, and cited in 2 Ves. sen. 17; and see 1 Cox, 446.

44.

(0) Sagittary v. Hyde, 2 Vern.

and a Purchaser of an Equitable Estate for a valuable consideration, though with notice, is no more affected by a voluntary Settlement, than a Purchaser of a legal Estate (d). If, therefore, a man after Marriage makes the most prudent Settlement on his Wife and Children, such as every wise man must approve, if the Father is afterwards dishonest enough to sell for a valuable consideration the subject of the Settlement, he may, and the Sale cannot be impeached (e). If, however, the Purchase has been made at an undervalue it would not invalidate the previous voluntary Conveyance (f).

"I hardly know an instance," says Lord Hardwicke, "where a voluntary Conveyance has not been held fraudulent against a subsequent Purchaser (g).” And where a Power is executed under a voluntary Settlement, and that Power is afterwards executed for a valuable consideration, the Purchaser will have the benefit of it (h).

If a Man makes a voluntary Conveyance of Land, and the Alienee sells the same for a valuable consideration, the Land, the was bound (i). So on an

(d) Buckle v. Mitchell, 18 Ves. 110. Pulvertoft v. Pulvertoft, 18 Ves. 90. Metcalfe v. Pulvertoft, 1 Ves. & Bea. 183, 4. Otley v. Manning, 9 East, 59. Hill v. Bishop of Exeter, 2 Taunt. 69. Evelyn v. Templar, 2 Bro. C. C. 148, said to be incorrectly reported, 18 Ves. 91; and see Ambl. 288. 1 Eq. Abr. 334. Powell v. Pleydell, 14 Jan. 1702, Dom. Proc. Lord Harcourt's MS. Tables, Doe v. James, 16 East,

212.

Court inclined to think, Appointment of Property

(e) Hill v. Bishop of Exeter, 2 Taunt. 82, 3.

(f) Doe v. Routledge, Cowp. 705. Metcalfe v. Pulvertoft, 1 Ves. & Bea. 84. Doe v. James, 16 East, 212.

(g) White v. Sansom, 3 Atk. 412. Sed vid. Jennings v. Sellick, 1 Vern. 467.

(h) Hart v. Middlehurst, 3 Atk. 377.

(i) Sagittary v. Hyde, 2 Vern. 44. Rogers v. Langham, 1 Sid. 133. Daubeny v. Cockburn, 1 Meriv. 638.