Principle of the rule.

(k) As to an authority to sell, see Expte. Lacey, 6 Ves. 625; Lister v. Lister, ib. 631; Lewis v. Hillman, 3 H. L. C. 607, 628 - 630; Franks v. Bollans, L. R. 3 Ch. 717, 718, 719; Be Bussche v. Alt, 8 Ch. D. 286; Farrar v. Farrars, Ld., 40 Ch. D. 395, 404, 409; Re Douglas and Powell's Contract, 1902, 2 Ch. 296; Boyee v. Edbrooke, 1903, 1 Ch. 836, 843 sq.; Hodson v. Deans, 1903, 2 Ch. 617, 652, 653. As to an authority to purchase, see Lewin on Trusts, 439, 6th ed.; 583, 11th ed.; Sharman v. Brandt, L. R. 6 Q. B. 720, 723; Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., 3 App. Cas. 1218, 1229, 1236, 1260; Lie Cape Breton Co., 29 Ch. D. 795, 803, 811; North American Land and Timber Co., Ld. v. Watkins, 1904, 1 Ch. 242, 248.

(I) Parker v. McKenna, L. R. 10 Ch. 96, 125, 126; Williams v. Scott, 1900, A. C. 499; Delves v. Gray, 1902, 2 Ch. 606; see below, p. 886.

(m) See n. (k), above; Sanderson v. Walker, 13 Ves. 601.

(n) Expte. James, 8 Ves. 337, 348; Re Bloye's Trusts, 1 Mac. & G. 488, 491; Aberdeen By. Co. v. Blaikie, 1 Macq. 461, 471.

(o) See Expte, Lacey, 6 Ves. 625; Lister v. Lister, ib. 631; Expte. James, 8 Ves. 337, 348; Re Bloye's Trusts, I Mac. & Or. 488, 495; Aberdeen By. Co. v. Blaikie I Macq. 461; Boyce v. Edbrooke, 1903, 1 Ch. 836, 843.

(p) Re Bloye's Trusts, 1 Mae. & Qt. 488, 494; S. C, nom. Lewis v. Hillman, 3 II. L. C. 007, 628 - 630.

(q) Above, p. 345.

(r) Warner v. Jacob, 20 Ch. D. 220, 224; Farrar v. Farrars, Ld., 40 Ch. D. 395, 411; Kennedy v. De Trafford, L897, A. C. 180, 185, 192; Nuttt v. Boston, 1899, 1 Ch. 873, S77, 878; above, pp. 344, 345.

It should be noted that the application of the rule to the case of a mortgagee, or a person in the like position, exercising his power of sale, was originally put on the ground of his being a trustee in the exercise of such power and of the consequent conflict between his interest, and his duty; Dowries v. Grazebrook, 3 Mer. 200, 207 - 209; Re Bloye's Trusts, 1 Mac. &G. 488,494, 495; Robertson \. Morris, 1 Giff. 421, 4 Jur. N. S. 155, 443. The true reason of the rule, namely, that a sale by the seller to himself is no sale at all and is therefore no proper exercise of the authority, was first clearly expounded by Lord St. Leonards, C, in Lewis v. Hillman, 3 H. L. C. 607, 628 - 630. And afterwards, the view that a mortgagee exercising his power of sale was in the position of a trustee was repudiated; see previous note,

(/) Above, pp. 277 - 279, 302, 307, 344, 345.

The above-mentioned rule may be illustrated by the following examples: - First, a trustee for sale, whether he derive his authority from a trust for or power of sale (c), cannot purchase the trust property, either directly or indirectly, from himself if he be sole trustee, or from the other trustees and himself if he have cotrustees (d), or from his co-trustees or co-trustee alone (e). And an attempted sale of this kind is equally voidable in equity, whether it be made by public auction or private contract (f), to the trustee directly or to another person purchasing on his behalf (g), or be effected by his retiring from the trust for the purpose (h). If, however, a trustee for sale retire from the trust and some time afterwards purchase the trust property from the then existing trustees, the interval being so great that he could not possibly have retired in contemplation of such purchase, the transaction is free from the objection of its being a sale by a trustee to himself (i): though the sale would, it is thought, be voidable in case of the purchaser's concealment of any information acquired by him as trustee and affecting the value of the property (k). If trustees for sale in good faith sell the trust property to a stranger acting quite independently of them, none of them is at liberty to purchase the whole or part of the stranger's interest pending the completion of the contract; for the contract when completed would amount to a sale of the trust property by the trustee to himself in exercise of his authority to sell (l). When the trust property has been fairly sold to a stranger in exercise of a trust for or power of sale, and the contract has been completed, the rules of equity do not prevent any one of the trustees from afterwards buying the property: but, of course, if the purchase by the trustee took place very shortly after the completion of the former sale, the circumstances would be suspicious, and the trustee might have to prove that he acted in good faith (m). A trustee for sale is no more competent to purchase the trust property as agent for a stranger to the trust than he is to buy it for himself (n). For to act as agent on behalf of a purchaser would obviously be in direct conflict with his duty as a trustee for sale (n); and, as we have seen (p), an authority to sell is not well exercised unless the vendor contract with some other person acting independently of him. So also a trustee exercising a trust or power to invest his trust money in the purchase of land is not at liberty to purchase his own land for the trust, for his interest as vendor would be opposed to his duty as trustee; and such a transaction would not amount to a true contract of purchase and would be an improper exercise of his authority to buy (q).

Examples of the rule:

Trustee for sale.

(u) See Lewis v. Hillnan, 3 H. L. C. 607, 628 - 630; Franks v. Bollans, L. R. 3 Ch. 717, 719; Farrar v. Farrars, Ld., 40 Ch. D. 395, 401, 410.

(x) Above, pp. 1, 277.

(y) Mainwaring v. Newman, 2 B. & P. 120; Faulkner v. Lowe, 2 Ex. 595; Boyce v. Edbrooke, 1903, 1 Ch. 836; lie George Bout ledge & Sons, Ld., 1904, 2 Ch. 474.

(z) Boyce v. Edbrooke, 1903, 1 Ch. 836, 845; Wms. Real Prop.

160, 19th ed.

(a) Sanderson v. Walker, 13 Ves. 601; Re Bloge's Trusts, 1 Mac. & G. 488; S. C, nom. Lewis v. Hillman, 3 II. L. C. 607, 628 - 630; Farrar v. Farrars, Ld., 40 Ch. D. 395, 409; Re Douglas and Powell's Contract, 1902, 2 Ch. 296; Hodson v. Leans, 1903, '1 Ch. 647, 652; above, p. 883, n. (k).