(g) Above, p. 752, n. (r).

(h) Fox v. Mackreth, 2 Bro. C. C. 400, 420, 421, 2 Cox, 320 - 322; Hall v. Hallet, 1 Cox, 134, 139; Hardwicke v. Vernon, 4 Ves. 411; Expte. Reynolds, 5 Ves. 707; Expte. Hughes, 6 Ves. 617; Expte. Lacey, ib. 625, 630; Expte. James, 8 Ves. 337, 351; Randall v. Er-rington, 10 Ves. 423.

(k) See cases cited in previous note; Silkstone and Haigh Moor Coal Co. v. Edey, 1900, 1 Ch. 167.

(l) Expte. Reynolds, 5 Ves. 707; Expte. Hughes, 6 Ves. 617; Expte.

Where the person authorised is not in a fiduciary position.

Lacey, ib. 625; Expte. James, 8 Ves. 337.

{l) Ibid.

(m) See Re Bloye's Trusts, 1 Mac. & G. 488, 503 sq.; S. C, nom. Lewis v. Hillman, 3 H. L. C.

607, 631 sq.; National Bank of Australasia v. United, etc. Co., 4 App. Cas. 391; Martinson v. Clowes, 21 Ch. D. 857, 861, 862; Hodson v. Beans, 1903, 2 Ch. 647. (n) Above, p. 897.

A sale of land made, in exercise of an authority to sell, by the person so authorised to or in trust for himself, is voidable by all persons, who may succeed to the estate or right of those by whom or on whose behalf the authority was conferred (p). And so long as the sale rests in contract only and has not been completed by conveyance, it is voidable against all persons, who claim under it, whether gratuitously or for value, and whether with or without notice of the facts avoiding the sale (q). After the contract has been completed, the extent of the injured parties' right to relief varies according as they themselves concurred in the conveyance or as the land were assured by the authorised person alone, in professed exercise of his authority. In the former case the injured persons have themselves conveyed away their own estates and given an apparent and, to some extent, a real consent to the sale; though they might not have so consented if they had known the true facts (r). The conveyance is therefore not altogether void: although, if the conveying parties were aware of the facts, the assurance may be voidable as a sale by cestui-que-trust to trustee, or by principal to agent, or on similar grounds (s); and if the facts were fraudulently concealed, it will be voidable as a conveyance induced by fraud (t). In either instance, the conveying parties, having by their own act parted with all their estate, have only a bare right of action in equity to set aside the sale. This may be successfully asserted against the purchaser and his trustee or nominee, their representatives in law, and all other persons who may succeed to their estate, either gratuitously, with or without notice of the facts invalidating the sale (u), or for value, but with notice of those facts (x): but such a right is of no avail against any person claiming under the conveyance as purchaser for value without notice of the impropriety of the sale, whether he has acquired a legal or only an equitable interest in the land (y). If, however, the contract were completed by a conveyance made by the person authorised to sell in professed exercise of his authority to assure the land on sale, then, as the transaction is altogether void in equity as an exercise of the authority (z), the equitable estate or interest authorised to be conveyed never passes away from those persons by whom or on whose behalf the authority was given (a). Their right in this case, therefore, is no bare right of action to set aside a conveyance made by themselves, but is the right incident to the ownership of the equitable estate in the land to recover possession, when wrongfully ousted. It follows that, if after such conveyance the whole or any part of the property have been disposed of to a sub-purchaser for value without notice of the facts avoiding the original sale, he is only entitled to retain the property, as against the parties injured by the original sale, in case he has acquired a legal estate or interest in the land. If his interest be equitable only, they can recover the property from him, and the plea of purchase for value without notice will afford him no defence (b). But if the authority given were ostensibly exercised in favour of some other than the person authorised, and the sub-purchaser had no notice, at the time when he himself purchased an equitable interest, of the facts avoiding the original sale, he may afterwards get in the legal estate from any one, who can and will convey it to him without breach of trust; and he will then be entitled, under the doctrine of tacking, to exclude those seeking to set aside the original sale (c).

Within what limits the sale may be set aside.

Prior to completion.

After completion, the extent of the right varies according to the manner of making the conveyance.

(o) National Bank of Australasia v. United, etc. Co., 4 App. Cas. 391, 410 - 412.

(p) Randall v. Errington, 10 Ves. 423; Charter v. Trevelyan, 11 Cl. & Fin. 713; Bailey v. Barnes, 1894, 1 Ch. 25.

(q) Above, pp. 675, 883, n. (l); and see Re Palmer's, etc. Co., 1904, 2 Ch. 743.

(r) See above, p. 674.

(s) Above, pp. 878 - 881, 890.

(t) Charter v. Trevelyan, 11 CI. & Fin. 714; Lewis v. Hillman, 3 H. L. C. 607, 630.

(u) Charter v. Trevelyan, 11 Cl. &Fin. 714.

(x) Cookson v. Lee, 23 L. J. Ch. 473.

[y) See above, pp. 674 and n. (a), 746, 747, 767, 787, and n. (p).

(z) Above, pp. 884, 885.

(«) See Randall v. Errington, 10 Ves. 423; National Bank of Australasia v. United, etc. Co., 4 App. Cas. 391; Bailey v. Barnes, 1894, 1 Ch. 25.

Tacking-.

The distinction above pointed out (d) may be illustrated by the following examples: - If an estate agent authorised to sell his principal's land covertly purchase it himself through the interposition of a third party as his nominee, and the sale be completed by a conveyance from the principal to the nominee, the agent's interest in the purchaser not being disclosed, the conveyance is voidable by the principal and his successors in interest as having been induced by the agent's fraud (e). But the principal, having parted with his estate in the land by his own act and consent, is left with a bare right of action in equity to set aside the conveyance, and this is not available against any person claiming under the conveyance as purchaser for value without notice of the facts invalidating the conveyance (f). Where, however, land is vested in a trustee for sale and he sells and conveys it to a nominee for his own benefit, the legal estate indeed passes to the nominee, but the equitable interest still remains in the cestui-que-trusts, and can be asserted by them as against all persons who have subsequently taken the trustee's estate, except only those who have acquired a legal estate or interest in the land as purchasers for value without notice of the facts avoiding the original sale (g). So, where a mortgagee in attempted exercise of his power of sale sells and conveys the mortgaged land to a nominee for himself, the mortgagor is entitled to redeem against all persons claiming under the sale as purchasers for value without notice of its invalidity, but having only an equitable estate or interest in the land (h).