HOLLIS VS. HOLLIS. 481

said that it was for the "use" or "the good" of the complain-
ant. It was proved further, that the complainant at the time
of executing the deed, expressed herself entirely satisfied with
it; but that nothing was said at-the time, of any trust.]

THE CHANCELLOR :

That the defendant Hayes, if his deed is allowed to stand,
will have acquired a property, at a price greatly below its
value, even if he pays the $100 to Mrs. Herbert, out. of his
pocket, is clear beyond controversy. He paid but $100 for the
land, and there is no witness, who does not estimate it to be
worth $1400, whilst one of them carries it as high as $2000.
The average of the estimates is not much, if any, below $1750,
The contract, therefore, appears to be grossly against con-
science, unreasonable, and oppressive, and there can be no
question, as it seems to me, that if the defendant in this case,
was a complainant seeking to enforce such a contract, the
court would refuse to enforce it, upon the ground of the great
inadequacy of the price. But this is a case, in which an
attempt is made to set aside a conveyance actually executed,
and the circumstances which will warrant the court in exe-
cuting such a po\ver, must be much stronger than would be re-
quired to induce it to withhold its aid, if applied to, to com-
pel an execution of a mere agreement to convey. The inade-
quacy of price, may, however, be so great, as to induce the
court to vacate a conveyance actually made. The difference
between the price paid, and the value of the thing purchased,
may be so gross and manifest, that, as said by a distinguished
writer on this branch of the law, "it must be impossible to
state it to a man of common sense, without producing an ex-
clamation at the inequality of it." Sugden on Vendors, 193.

The idea of fraud, or undue imposition, or of some circum-
stance which vitally affects the bona fides of the transaction,
necessarily and unavoidably presents itself, when the property
is parted with upon terms so utterly disproportioned to its
value.

It is not, however, deemed necessary to decide in this case,
vox, i—41