Family arrangements not within the exceptional rule.

(g) Talbot v. Staniforth, (1861) 1 J. & H. 484, 502 ; Sug. 14th ed. 316.

(h) O'Rorke v. Bolingbroke, (1877) 2 A. C. 814; and see per Lord Selborne in Lord Aylesford v. Morris, (1873) 8 Ch. 484, 491 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 546.

(i) See comments on King v. Hamlet, Sug. 1084, 11th ed.

(k) Tweddell v. T., (1822) T. & R. 1, 13 ; see Devey v. D., (1851) 9 Ha. at p. 230; Houghton v. Lees, (1855) 1 Jur. N. S. 862 ; see cases of such arrangements being set aside, Sturge v. S., (1849) 12 Beav. 229 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 17; Hoghton v. H, (1852) 15 Beav. 278 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 482; Lawton v. Campion, (1854) 18 Beav. 87 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 505 ; Bury v. Oppenheim, (1859) 26 Beav. 591.

(/) See Bellamy v. Sabine, (1847) 2 Ph. 425; 17 L. J. Ch. 105; Lord Aldborough v. Trye, (1840) 7 C. & F. ; Cooke v. Burtchaell, (1842) 2 D. k War. 165. See also, as to family arrangements generally, Sta-pilton v. S., (1739) 1 Atk. 2 ; 2 Wh.

& T. L. C. 7th ed.; Neale v. X.,

(1837) 1 Ke. 672, 684 ; Farmer v. F.,. (1848) 1 H. L. C. 724 ; and Persse v.

P., (1840) 7 C & F. 279 ; Wallace v.

W., (1842) 2 D. & War. 452, 470;

Westby v. W., ib. 502; Smith v.

Pincombe, (1852) 3 M. & G. 653;

Baker v. Bradley, (1855) 7 D. M.

& G. 597 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 7 ; Head v.

Godlee, (1860) John. 536 ; 29 L. J.

Ch. 633; Dimsdale v. D., (1856) 3 Dr. 556 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 806; Berdoe v. Dawson, (1865) 11 Jur. N. S. 254.

(m) Tweddell v. T., and Hoghton v. H., sup.; Hoblyn v. H., (1889) 41 Ch. D. 200; 60 L. T. 499 ; and see

Wright v. Vanderplank, (1856) 8 D. M. & G. 133; Turner v. Collins, (1871) 7 Ch. 329; 41 L. J. Ch. 558. (n) Wright v. Vanderplank, Turner v. Collins, sup.; Kempson v. Ashbee, (1875) 10 Ch. 15; 41 L. J. Ch. 195; Bainbrigge v. Browne, (1881) 18 Ch. D. 188 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 522 ; and see He Witte v. Addison, (1890) 80 L. T. 207, "where a mortgage by a daughter of a reversionary interest, prepared by her father's solicitors for benefit of the father, was set aside.

(o) Bainbrigge v. Browne, sup. ; Be Witte v. Addison, sup.

(p) Greenwood v. G., (1863) 2 D. J. & S. 28; Brooke v. Lord Mostyn, (1864) ib. 373 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 65.

(q) Baker v. Bradley, (1855) 7 D. M. & G. 597 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 7 ; Talbot v. Staniforth, (1861) 1 J. & H. 48k

(r) Eartopp v. H., (1856) 21 Beav. 259 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 471; see too Wakefield v. Gibbon, (1857) 1 Gif. 401 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 505 ; Hoblyn v. H., sup.

(s) Jenner v. J., (1860) 2 D. F. & J. 359 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 201 ; Hoblyn v. H., sup.

(t) Williams v. W., (1867) 2 Ch. 294 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 200.

(u) Hoblyn t. H., sup.

(x) Fane v. F., (1875) 20 Eq. 698 ; and see Gordon v. G., (1819) 3 Sw. at p. 467.

(y) Talbot v. Staniforth, (1861) 1 J. & H. 484 ; in this case there was a subsequent re-settlement by will, but it formed no part of the consideration.

(z) See Turner v. Collins, (1871) 7

The adequacy of the consideration must be determined with reference to circumstances as existing at the date of the contract, and not to subsequent events (a). It was formerly held (b) sufficient to avoid the sale of a reversionary interest, that the price paid was not the estimated value according to the tables used by actuaries; but subsequent decisions establish the more reasonable doctrine, that the market value (which is generally about two-thirds of the estimated value (c)) is alone to be regarded (d) : and, on a sale, made in good faith, by auction, under circumstances calculated to insure a fair sale, its result was considered in itself to fix the market value (c) : so, on a sale by private contract, the circumstance of the bargain having been declined by various parties (/), or of the property having been valued by competent parties (g), was material. Where the market value appeared to have been rather better than 1,900/., and the price paid was 1,700l., the Court held, that the inadequacy was sufficient to entitle the vendor to relief (h): so, where the value was assumed to be 580/., and the price was 500/., and 50/. payable on a future contingency (i) ; so, where the value was 238/., and the price 200/. (k) ; so, where the value was 400/., and the price 370/. (/) ; and the tendency of the latest decisions was to establish that unless a person gave much more than the value, it was impossible to purchase a reversionary interest with safety, except under a sale by auction (m).

Adequacy of consideration, how determined.

Ch. 329; 41 L. J. Ch. 558; and cf. Kenqison v. Ashbee, (1874) 10 Ch. 15 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 195, where under the circumstances a considerable time was allowed.

(a) Gowland v. De Faria, (1810) 17 Ves. 20 ; Boothby v. B., (1849) 2 H. & Tw. 214 ; natural love and affection may, it appears, if stated in the deed (see Willan v. IV., (1814) 2 Dow, 274), aid an inadequate pecuniary consideration; Whalley v. W., (1821) 3 Bli. 1.

(b) (lowland v. De Faria, sup. ; and see Peacock v. Erans, (1809) 16 Ves. 512.

(c) See Potts v. Curtis, (1832) You. 543; Sug. 14th ed. 279; Bettyes v. Maynard, (1883) 31 W. R. 461 ; as to the value of surveyor's evidence, ib. 491 ; and see Eda-ards v. Burt, (1852) 2 D. M. & G. 55 ; and as to small reliance being placed upon it, Bee Waters v. Thorn, (1850) 22 Beav. 547; Foster v.Roberts, (1861) 29 Beav. 167, 470, 471 : 30 L. J. Ch. 660.

(d) Lord Aldborough v. Trye,(1840) 7 C. & F. 436 ; Hincksman v. Smith, (1827) 3 Rus. 433, 435; Headen v. Rosher, (1825) M'C. & Y. 89 ; Potts v. Curtis, (1832) You. 543; Newton v. Sunt, (1833) 5 Si. at p. 521 ; Wardle v. Carter, (1835) 7 Si. 490 ; Smell v. Walker, (1848) 12 Jur. 1041.

(e) Shelly v. Nash, (1818) 3 Mad. 232; Fox v. Wright, (1821) 6 Mad. 1ll ; Lord Aldborough v. Trye, sup.

(/) Moth v. Atwood, (1801) 5 Ves. 845 ; Perfect v. lane, (1861) 3 D. F. & J. 369; 31 L. J. Ch. 489.

(g) Edwards v. Burt, (1852) 2 D. M. & G. 55, 63.

(h) Edwards v. Browne, (1845) 2 Coll. 100. Of course, the circumstance of a lot sold by auction being conveyed in the same deed with property purchased for an inadequate consideration by private contract, was no bar to the relief as respects the latter. Newton v. Hunt, (1833) 5 Si. 511.