General rule as to distress.

Where a mortgagor in consideration of the mortgage debt releases the equity of redemption to the mortgagee, the parties are to be regarded, until the contrary is shown by the party impeaching the deed, as on the ordinary footing of vendor and purchaser (n).

Release by mortgagor to mortgagee of equity of redemption.

(h) Evans v. Llewellyn, (17S7) 2 Br. C. C. 150; see Groves v. Perkins, (1834) 6 Si. 576; Sturge v. 8., (1849) 12 Beav. 229 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 17 ; Fry v.Lane, (1888) 40 Ch. D. 312; 58 L. J. Ch. 113.

(i) See Pickett v. Loggon, (1807) 14 Ves. 215, 231; Murray v. Palmer, (1805) 2 Sch. & L. 474, 486 ; Wood v. Abrey, (1818) 3 Mad. 417; Gordon v. Crawford, (1730)citedSug. 14th ed. 276 ; Fry v. Lane, sup., and cases there cited. See Curson v. Belworthy,

(1852) 3 H. L. C. 742; James v. Kerr, (1889) 40 Ch. D. 449 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 355.

(ft) Stilwell v. Wilkins, (1821) Jac. 280; see Farmer v. F., (1848) 1 H. L. C. 724, where the vendor was deaf and dumb, but under the circumstances relief was refused; and ef. George v. Evans, (1840) 4 Y. & C. 211.

(l] McClatchie v. Haslam, (1891) 65 L. T. 691.

(m) Knight v. MarjoribanJcs, (1848) 11 Beav. 322, 349.

We shall hereafter see (o), that, upon the purchase of an estate in possession, and where no fiduciary relation exists between the parties (p), mere inadequacy of consideration (q), unless shown to he the result of fraud, surprise, misrepresentation (r), or improper concealment on the part of the purchaser, will be no defence even to a suit for specific performance, unless the inadequacy is so great as in itself to furnish evidence of fraud (s) : and a case sufficient as a defence to a suit for specific performance may be insufficient to enable the vendor to rescind the contract after conveyance (t).

Inadequacy of consideration, no general reason for setting aside conveyance.

Where both parties at the time of the contract are equally in the dark as to the value of the property (as where the sale was of an allotment under an Inclosure Act, which had not yet been set out), mere inadequacy of consideration is no defence to a suit for specific performance (u) : but the inadequacy might, it is conceived, be so gross as to take a case out of the general rule.

Mutual ignorance.

(n) Melbourne Banking Co. v. Brougham, (1882) 7 A. C. 307; 51 L. J. P. C. 65 ; and see Knight v. Marjoribanks, (1849) 2 M. & G. 10, per Ld. Cottenham ; Barton v. Bank of New 8. Wales, (1890) 15 A. C. 379 ; Reeve v. Lisle, 1902, A. C. 461; 71 L. J. Ch. 768; Kevans v. Joyce, (1896) 1 It. It. 442 ; (1897) 1 Ir. R, 1.

(o) Inf. p. 1094.

(p) Harrison v. Guest, (1860) 8 H. L. C. 481 ; Benton v. Bonner, (1856) 23 Beav. 285.

{q) See Sales of Reversions Act, 1867; Earl of Aylesford v. Morris, (1873) 8 Ch. 484 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 546.

(r) See Pickett v. Loggon, (1807) 14 Ves. 215; Reynell v. Sprye, (1852) 1 D. M. & G. 660; 21 L. J. Ch. 633 ; and see Haygarth v. Wearing, (1871) 12 Eq. 320 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 577, where, though the fiduciary relation was not established, the conveyance was set aside for misrepresentation.

(s) See Rice v. Gordon, (1848) 11 Beav. 265; Brought v. Eustace, (1828) 1 Moll. 328, 338 ; Tyler v. Yates, (1871) 6 Ch. 665 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 768.

(t) See Sug. 14th ed. 244 ; Tigers v. Pike, (1842) 8 C. & F. 645; Play-ford v. P., (1845) 4 Ha. 546; Bellamy v. Sabine, (1847) 2 Ph. 425; 17 L.J. Ch. 105 ; Wilde v. Gibson, (1848) 1 H. L. C. at p. 617 ; Falcke v. Gray, (1859) 4 Dr. at p. 661; 29 L. J. Ch. 28. Lord Eldon seems to have entertained a different opinion ; see Coles v. Trccothick, (1804) 9 Ves. 234. As to a misstatement of the consideration in the conveyance, see Gibson v. Russell, (1843) 2 Y. & C. C. C. 104 ; Bourn v. Kirwan, (1835) L. & G. temp. S. 47, 65; Ahearne v. Hogan, (1844) Dru. 310, 320, 326.

(u) Anon., cited 1 B. C. C. 158, and 6 Ves. 24 ; see also Baxendale v.

In all cases where a contract for sale in consideration of an annuity, or other uncertain payment, has been set aside, there appears to have been some other ground for relief besides mere inadequacy of consideration; as, e.g., fraud or undue influence (x).

Uncertainty of amount of consideration.

The non-employment of a solicitor on the vendor's behalf will not make a sale for undervalue impeachable, if the vendor was fully aware of the nature of the transaction (y). Thus, where the consideration was a provision of board and lodging for the vendor, a bed-ridden old man, during the rest of his life, and he refused all professional advice, and deliberately pressed the sale upon the purchaser, the transaction was upheld, notwithstanding the inadequacy of the consideration (z) : but a purchase from a poor sick man, shortly before his death, partly in consideration of a weekly payment, under circumstances of great precipitation, and without proper protection, was set aside (a). So, also, a purchase by a solicitor of an equity of redemption from a day labourer without legal advice, where the fairness of the transaction was not proved by the purchaser (b). So, also, a purchase from a poor aged woman, without professional assistance, who believed that she could not, though the purchaser knew that she could, make a good title (c). So, also, where the consideration was an inadequate weekly payment, and the vendor, an old and infirm woman, was ignorant of the value of the property, and had no professional advice (d). So, also, where the vendor had no knowledge of the property or its value, nor any legal advice, hut relying on the representations of A., the agent of a former owner, conveyed the property to A.'s daughter for an inadequate price (e). So, where the vendor was poor and ignorant and sold at considerahle undervalue, having no professional advice other than the purchasers' solicitor, who gave a great advantage to the purchasers (/).

Want of professional advice.