Sale by auction;

(x) Oldfield or Bowles v. Round, 5 Ves. 508.

(y) See Sug. 377; but see also contra, Martin v. Cotter, 3 Jo. & L. 506.

(z) See Sug. 310; Poole v. Sher-gold, 2 Bro. C. C. 118, 119; Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 246; supra, 357.

(a) Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 246; Burrowes v. Lock, 10 Ves. 470; Lowther v. Lowther, 13 Ves. 103; Borell v. Dann, 2 Ha. 450.

(b) 1 Mad. 81; Brealey v. Collins, You. 317; and see next note.

(c) See cases cited in n. (a); also White v. Damon, 7 Ves. 30; Western v. Russell, 3 Ves. & B. 187; Deane v. Rastron, 1 Anst. 64; Cad-man v. Horner, 18 Ves. 10; Turner v. Harvey, Jac. 169; Wall v. Stubbs, 1 Mad. 80; Sug. 312; and see Ch. III. supra.

(d) See Martin v. Mitchell, 2 Jac. & W. 413, 423; et vide supra, 353.

(e) 9 Ves. 246; and see Jac. 282. (f) See Sug. 314, n.; see Vigors v. Pike, 8 Cl. & Fin. p. 645.

It is laid down by Sir E. Sugden (i), that "if an uncertain consideration (as a life annuity) be given for an estate and the contract be executory, Equity, it seems, will enter into the adequacy of the consideration." However, in a case (k) before Sir J. Wigram, V. C, his Honour, in deciding that an inadequacy of seven or eight per cent. was insufficient as a defence, made observations indicating a doubt whether the older cases are to be regarded as authorities; they having been decided before the modern rule of treating inadequacy of price in contracts for the purchase of interests in possession as nothing more than an ingredient in evidence, was perfectly established: at any rate the circumstance of the contingency having turned out unfavourably to the vendor, is no ground of defence (l).

But although in sales of property in consideration of a life annuity, the Court will decree specific performance notwithstanding the death of the annuitant, it will inquire with some jealousy as to the fairness of the transaction, and require a clear case for specific performance under such circumstances (m).