These may be considered to consist of, 1st, the want of a transferable (k) title to the property proposed to be dealt with; and, 2ndly, the existence of some relation on the part of the proposed vendor to the purchaser which prevents a sale except under special precautions; for instance, an agent for purchase cannot sell his own estate to his principal, without acquainting him with the facts (I); and, as a general rule, whenever such a relation subsists between the contracting parties as may enable one to exercise an undue influence over the other, whether it be that of guardian and ward, solicitor and client, trustee and cestui que trust, medical man and patient, spiritual adviser and penitent, or the like, the Court, upon proof of the exercise of such undue influence, will set aside the transaction, and will consider the circumstance of the real facts not being stated on the face of the assurances to be in itself prima, facie evidence of fraud (m).

As to who are relatively incompetent to sell.

Persons having no transferable title.

Persons standing in a special relation towards the proposed purchaser, which secures undue personal influence.

(j) See sects. 6, 7, et seq.

(k) See Att.-Gen. v. Corporation of Plymouth, 9 Beav. 67; where a corporation was held incapable in Equity of contracting to sell property, by reason of a duty which it owed in respect thereof to the public. As to the alienation of Charity lands by Trustees, see Att.-Gen. v. Corporation of Newark, 1 Hare, 395; Att.-Gen. v. Bretting-ham, 3 Beav. 91; Att.-Gen. v. South Sea Company, 4 Beav. 453; and cases cited: such alienations are not necessarily void, but it lies on the parties claiming under them to show that they were beneficial for the Charity: vide infra, Ch. XIX. See 4 & 5 Vict. c. 35, s. 92, removing a customary restriction which, in some manors, prevented the alienation of ancient copyhold tenements in portions.

(l) Gillett v. Peppcrcorne, 3 Beav. 78.

(m) See Mulhallen v. Marum, 3 Dm. & War. 317; Ahearne v. Hogan, 1 Dru. 310; Gibson v. Russell, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 104; Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Ves. 292; Huguenin v. Baseley, 14 Ves. 273; Dent v. Bennett, 4 Myl. & Cr. 269; Harvey v. Mount, 8 Beav.