take in pleading, or in the conduct of a cause at In what cases granted. law (a), or assist a party who has failed in obtaining fresh evidence (b). There is a remarkable exception to the general Registry act. doctrine upon this subject, arising from the peculiar penning of the Registry act, by which, if the forms required by it have not been complied with, the instrument becomes void to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and no equitable relief can be given, either on the ground of accident or mistake(c). But the subject which most frequently calls for Fraud. the interference of a court of equity is comprehended under the extensive head of fraud, either by suggestio falsi (d), or suppressio veri(e); or by taking (a) Stephenson v. Wilson, 2 Vern. 325. Blackhall v. Combs, 2 P. W. 70. Holworthy v. Mortlock, 1 Cox, 141. Stephenson v. Praed, 2 Ves. jun. 519. Bateman v. Willoe, 1 Sch. and Lef. 201. Ware v. Horwood, 14 Ves. 31. (6) Hankey v. Vernon, 2 Cox. 12. (c) Hibbert v. Rolleston, 3 Bro. C. C. 571. Camden v. Anderson, 5 T. R. 709. Moss v. Charnock, 2 East, 399. Curtis v. Perry, 6 Ves. 739. Speldt v. Lechmere, 13 Ves. 588. Ex parte Yallop, 15 Ves. 60. Ex parte Houghton, 17 Ves. 251. Thompson v. Leake, 1 Mad. Rep. 39. Thompson v. Smith, ib. 395. Brewster v. Clarke, 2 Meriv. 75. Dixon v. Ewart, 3 Meriv. 322. Whether a court of equity will relieve when the compliance with the forms of the act has been prevented by fraud is still vexata questio. Newnham v. Graves, 1 Mad. Rep. 399. n. Barker v. Chapman, ib. Mestaer v. Gillespie, 11 Ves. 621. Hil. Vac. 1820. Bunny. Thompson, Hobbs v. Norton, ib. 136. (d) Jervis v. Duke, 1 Vern. 19. Ibbotson v. Rhodes, 2 Vern. 554. Broderick v. Broderick, 1 P. W. 239. 371. Buxton v. Lister, 3 Atk. 385. C. C. 386. Evans v. Bicknell, 6 Ves. 182. Burrows v. Lock, 10 Ves. 475. (e) Hunsden v. Cheyney, 2 Vern. 150. Hanning v. Ferrers, In what cases an unconscientious advantage either of parental Gilb. Eq. Rep. 85. 1 Eq. Ab. 356. Beatniff v. Smith, 1 Eq. Ab. Cocking v. Pratt, Heron v. Heron, ib. (b) Frank v. Frank, 1 Ch. C. 84, Cann v. Cann, 1 P. W. 723. (d) Jervis v. Duke, 1 Vern. 19. ness of intellect short of legal incapacity (a), religious In what cases delusion (b), or drunkenness, when procured by the granted. contrivance of the party who takes advantage of it(c). Upon principles also of public policy arising out of the relative situation of contracting parties, the court interferes to prevent persons in fiduciary situations from purchasing of their cestuys que trust (d): it watches with the greatest jealousy gifts from a ward to his guardian (e), or a client to Bowles v. Stewart, 1 Sch. & Lef. 209. Murray v. Palmer, 2 Sch. & Lef. 474. East India Company v. Donald, 9 Ves. 275. Leonard v. Leonard, 2 Ba. & Be. 184.. James v. Greaves, Osmond v. Fitzroy, (a) Herbert v. Lowns, 1 Ch. Rep. 12. 2 P. W. 270. Clarkson v. Hanway, ib. 202. 3 P. W. 129. Griffin v. Deveuille, ib. n. 324. Bridgman v. Green, 2 Ves. 627. Case cited in Lord Donegal's case, ib. 407. (6) Norton v. Relly, 2 Eden, 286. Huguenin v. Bazeley, 14 Ves. 273. (c) Rich v. Sydenham, 1 Ch. Ca. 202. Johnson v. Medlicot, 3 P. W. 131., n. Cory v. Cory, 1 Ves. 19. Cook v. Clayworth, 18 Ves. 12. Lord Ellenborough has laid down that an instrument executed in a state of intoxication is in all cases void.-Pitt v. Smith, 3 Campb. 33. (d) Clarke v. Swaile, 2 Eden, 134. Fox v.: Mackreth, 2 Bro. C. C. 400. Campbell v. Walker, 5 Ves. 678. M'Enzie v. York Buildings Company, 8 Bro. P. C. Ed. Toml. 42. Gibson v. Jeyes, 6 Ves. 266. Ex parte Hughes, ib. 617. Ex parte Lacey, ib. 625. In what cases his attorney (a); and absolutely rescinds sales by granted. expectant heirs of their expectancies (b), or sailors of their prize-money (c). Upon the same principle a court of equity preserves with extreme strictness the right of redemption to a mortgagor, from being fettered by any agreement with the mortgagee (d). Underhand Here may be ranked the numerous cases of reagreements. lief against underhand agreements to the prejudice of third persons: as frauds upon marriage articles (e); (a) Proof v. Hines, For. 111. Walmsley v. Booth, 2 Atk. 25. Drapers' Company v. Davis, ib. 295. Saunderson v. Glass, ib. 296. Oldham v. Hand, 2 Ves. 259. Strachan v. Brander, 1 Eden, 303. Willes. Middleton, 1 Cox, 112. 4 Bro. P. C. Ed. Toml. 245. Leigh v. Williams, and Kennet v. Greenwollers, cit. 3 Cox, P. W. -131. n. Kenney v. Browne, 3 Ridg. P. C. 462. Newman v. Payne, 4 Bro. C. C. 350. 2 Ves. jun. 199. Wood v. Downes, 18 Ves. 120. Montesquieu v. Sandys, ib. 302. W. 310. and cases there cited. (b) Twistleton v. Griffith, 1 P. (c) Baldwin v. Rochfort, 1 Wils. 229. Taylour v. Rochford, 2 Ves. 281. How v. Weldon, ib. 519. (d) Newcomb v. Bonham, 1 Vern. 8. Howard v. Harris, ib. 33. 190. Eaton v. Greaves, ib. 138. Kilvington v. Gardner, ib. 192. Willett v. Winnall, ib. 488. Bowen v. Edwards, 1 Ch. Ca. 222. Jason v. Eyres, 2 Ch. Ca. 33. Manlove v. Ball, 2 Vern. 84. Jennings v. Ward, ib. 520. Croft v. Powell, Com. Rep. 603. Spurgeon v. Collier, 1 Eden, 60. Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 273. Vernon v. Bethell, 2 Eden, 110. (e) Arundel v. Trevillian, 1 Ch. Rep. 47. Howard v. Hooker, .2 Ch. Rep. 42. Peyton v. Bladwell, 1 Vern. 240. Redman . Redman, ib. 348. Drury v. Hooke, ib. 412. Gale v. Lindo, ib. 475. 2 Freem. 101. Bruning, ib. 392. Key v. Bradshaw, 2 Vern. 102. Smith v. Scribblehill v. Brett, ib. 446. Lamlee v. Hannam, ib. 499. Keat v. Allen, ib. 588. Duke of Hamilton v. Lord Mohun, 1 P. W. 118. Turton v. Benson, ib. 498. 2 Vern. granted. frauds upon the marital right(a); bonds given to In what cases the obligor upon marry the death of a parent, or person standing in loco parentis, from whom the obligee has expectations, and from whom the transaction is to be kept concealed (b); and secret agreements made by creditors with their debtor, to represent their debts less than they are, in order to deceive third persons (c). Thus where the object of an agreement was that a sum of money should be given in order to prevent an opposition to a bill depending in parliament which was to be concealed from the legislature, such agreement was considered as a Cole v. 764. Prec. Cas. 522. Roberts v. Roberts, 3 P. W. 66. (a) Though considerable doubt was thrown upon this by Mr. Justice Buller in Lady Strathmore v. Bowes, 2 Bro. C. C. 345. where he seemed to doubt the general doctrine, yet it was laid down by Lord Rosslyn in Ball v. Montgomery, 2 Ves. jun. 194. and has been repeatedly determined, that a settlement made by a woman before marriage, without the privity of the husband, is a fraud upon the marital right. Hunt v. Matthews, 1 Vern. 408. Carlton v. Earl of Dorset, 2 Vern. 17. Howard v. Hooker, 2 Ch. Rep. 81, Cotton v. King, 2 P. W. 360. Mose. 259. Poulson v. Wellington, 2 P. W. 533. Thomas v. Williams, Mose. 177. (6) Woodhouse v. Shepley, 2 Atk. 535. Cock v. Richards, 10 Ves. 429. (c) Child v. Dandridge, 2 Vern. 71. Small v. Brackley, ib.602. Spurrel v. Spiller, 1 Atk. 108. Neville v. Wilkinson, 1 Bro. C. C. 543. Constantein v. Blache, 1 Cox. 227. Eastabrook v. Scott, 3 Ves. 456. 6 Ves. 202. 16 Ves. 125. Cecil v. Plaistow, I Anst. 202. Mawson v. Stock, |