HYNDMAN-JONES CJ

Without deciding the question whether the conveyance of the Ist July 1909 was voluntary or otherwise I am of opinion that under the circumstances of this case, I should apply the principles referred to by the Vice-Chancellor in Rosher v. Williams [1875] LR 2c. Eq. 210; 44 LJ Ch. 419, viz., that "the Court will anxiously lay hold of any circumstances constituting a consideration moving from the grantee to the grantor, to take a case out of the category of voluntary settlements"; and having regard to that case and the cases of Townend v. Toker [1866] LR I Ch. 446; 35 LJ Ch. 608 and Bayspoole v. Collins [1871] LR 6 Ch. 228; 40 LJ Ch. 289, I hold that since by the conveyance of the 30th May 1908 the first defendant was relieved of the obligation to pay the rent and to comply with the cultivation clause endorsed in the Grant (obligations which were undertaken by the grantee), there was sufficient consideration to avoid a subsequent purchase for valuable consideration.

Judgment for the plaintiff with costs out of the estate recoverable form the first defendant.