another when they are at arm's length, and where no such relation subsists. In such a case if a purchase has been obtained, and the person from whom it has been obtained seeks to set it aside, the burden of proof is upon him to show that he has been imposed upon, and it is not for him to say "I had no professional adviser," unless he can show there has been contrivance or management on the part of the person who was dealing with him, and whose transaction of purchase is sought to be set aside, to prevent him having that advice. The affairs of mankind could not go on if we were not to act upon some such ground of distinction. What, in my opinion, influenced a good deal the mind of the Vice-Chancellor was this, that here the person selling his property sold it for a consideration, which turned out to be, and I should have thought upon the face of it was, a very meagre and inadequate consideration. The property sold was a small copyhold estate, which was represented as being of the value of between 600l. and 700l., and it was subject to a mortgage for 3007, on which a small arrear of interest was due; the mortgagee, moreover, was entitled to six months' notice before it could be called in. Now the seller was a person who, in point of fact, did not live for more than three months after the commencement of the treaty, and not six weeks after the actual conveyance, and what he took as the consideration was merely a covenant or agreement on the part of the purchaser, that he should have board and lodging, and a person always to attend him. The vendor was in a very infirm state of health, dropsical and suffering from sores in his legs. It is in evidence that he said to the Defendant the purchaser, I find myself very old, and all I care about is, that I should have a comfortable home for the rest of my life, and I will let you have the property if you afford that to me. It seems that the Defendant FF 2 1855. HARRISON v. GUEST. 1855. HARRISON บ. GUEST. Defendant had been endeavouring often to purchase the property of him, I take it, at a fair price. There is no suggestion that he wanted to get it at an unfair price. The vendor in substance said, "I will not sell it to you upon any account for a pecuniary consideration, but you shall have it if you will agree to take care that I shall have a parlour (as he calls it, in a particular house) for the rest of my life, that I shall have some one to attend adequately to my wants in my unfortunate state of health, and that I shall be well kept, and that everything I have shall come from your own table." In point of fact, he only lived a few weeks after the execution of the conveyance, the consideration, therefore, which he received, amounted in truth only in value to a very few pounds. The probable duration of his life, even if it had been a healthy one, would only have lasted for a few more years, and inasmuch as the purchaser was to get the estate, which, after making allowance for interest on the mortgage and for repairs, yielded a surplus rent of about 157., it would seem to be a very inadequate consideration. I think, however, that it is but just to Mr. Guest (the purchaser), to say that I am not at all clear that he, or those whom he consulted, thought so, and I come to that conclusion from many considerations. In the first place, it is clear to my mind that he was anxious to have purchased, not upon the terms complained of, but upon paying a fair value for the estate, which the vendor would not listen to; and secondly, because there had been a sort of stipulation that the purchaser was not to undertake to pay the expense of Hunt's funeral, nor for his wine or spirits, nor for his medicine, if he wanted any. Now that certainly looks, to my mind, as indicative of conduct which was, if you please, trying to drive a hard bargain, but not like the conduct of a man who was anxious to snap at anything that might possibly be beneficial to himself. On such an hypothesis it is hardly consistent to suppose he would would have made a stand upon such insignificant matters as those I have alluded to. The result was, that there was a purchase for what turns out to be an extremely inadequate consideration. That, however, is of no consequence, if the parties were in a situation to judge for themselves, and this makes the question as to the poor old man's state of mind, at the time he entered into this bargain, very material. Now, after looking at the evidence, I cannot entertain any very serious doubt that he perfectly understood what he was about, and, indeed, the Vice-Chancellor said, he did not at all attribute to him anything like an imbecile state of mind, but, on the contrary, as was my impression, that he was rather a keen and cunning old man; that he felt he was not likely to live long, and did not care about any of his relations; probably it was entirely out of his recollection that twenty years before he had made a will in their favour. It is in evidence that he said he cared for nobody, all he cared about was (and I confess that it was a circumstance which struck me as somewhat material in showing the real nature of the transaction) the stipulation (which was not introduced into the deed) that he should have his food from Mr. Guest's table; that he should. not be obliged to cater for himself; that he should have a particular room in Mr. Guest's cottage; and that he should supply him (according to his expression) with “a bit and a drop," for the remainder of his life. On these terms Mr. Guest was to have the property. If upon the proposal being made, Mr. Guest had at once caught at it and bound Hunt down, as it were, without any professional advice, such a mode of proceeding would not be sanctioned in this Court: or if it had been proved that Hunt was a man incapable of making a bargain for himself, I should have set aside the transaction. But so far from finding any such reason for interfering, it is proved that Mr. Guest not only did not catch at the bargain, but desired 1855. HARRISON v. GUEST. 1855. HARRISON v. GUEST. desired Hunt to take time to consider about it, and then left the neighbourhood, and was absent for a fortnight. On Mr. Guest's return, Hunt appears to have been anxious for the completion of the contract, and to have urged him to get the business finished without delay. He seems to have persevered in urging his original proposition, and at length Mr. Guest acceded to it. Now what is there in that indicative of a want of mental ability on the part of Hunt to enter into a contract, or what obligation was there on the part of Mr. Guest to do anything to assist Hunt in making a good bargain? I have not been enabled to discover any ground for either position. Nevertheless if the allegations in the bill are true, that at the time the deed was executed Hunt was studiously kept in ignorance of what he was doing, and still more if he was induced to believe he was doing something different from what he was doing, namely, if he supposed he was making a mortgage instead of conveying the estate away, that, however strong in mind he might have been, would be a ground to set the contract aside. I think, however, having attended to the evidence upon the subject, I must come to an entirely different conclusion. He certainly had no professional adviser of his own. That was his own act and his own determination, rather in the teeth of the remonstrances that were made to him. Having obtained all that he wanted, the conveyance, in truth, was his security. When I say that was his security, there may be a doubt whether the terms of the deed were perfectly well adapted for securing all that he was intended to have, but I agree with the observation that that is no ground for setting aside the transaction, still less for setting it aside as being fraudulent. If the parties had misconceived the effect of what they were doing, it might have afforded very good ground for rectifying the deed. The act of God has made that perfectly unnecessary, and there there is now nothing to rectify; but there is no ground whatever for setting aside the deed upon the suggestion that there was any fraud. I come to the conclusion, therefore, that there is no evidence showing that Hunt thought that this transaction was not what it was, or that he did not fully understand the effect of the act he was engaged in. I think it clear that he did distinctly know what he was doing; that he did not think it was a mortgage, but that he knew it was a conveyance, and that he meant it should be a conveyance. Then it is suggested, however, that part of the terms of the contract was, that he was to have a sum of money, and that was never given to him; there is no evidence of that in the cause to lead me to such a conclusion. I think the evidence is clear that he was never to have had anything more than what he had, namely, board, lodging and maintenance-maintenance from Mr. Guest's tablefor the rest of his days. The evidence shows that he only lived six weeks from the time when he was removed to the Defendant's cottage: that was a very short time, but he might have lived a very long time. He seems to have been pleased with the change, and it appears that he was in a more cleanly and happy state, with more comforts about him. He had all that; and, unable as I am to discover any obligation on Mr. Guest's part to show that Hunt had more by way of consideration than he asked for himself, and unable as I am to discover anything in the evidence for the suggestion that there was any endeavour to keep from him professional advice; on the contrary, being satisfied that there was, as far as there could be, a desire that he should have professional advice; that there was no imposition practised upon him; that he was left to form his own judgment; that no haste whatever was exhibited, but that, on the contrary, he was left to take his own time, and that he nevertheless per severed 1855. HARRISON v. GUEST. |