Sec 166

The cases we have been considering are those in which the party seeking the aid of the court asks to have an unconscientious bargain rescinded. In such cases, as this unconscientiousness is the chief ingredient in his case, the burden is on him to prove it. Another issue is presented when the agreement has not been executed, and when the vendee applies for its specific performance. In such case the court will refuse its aid to enforce a hard bargain, unless it should appear that the defendant entered into it intelligently and freely. In the former case, the doctrine that a court of equity will not intervene unless in a case clearty made out, tells against the party seeking to rescind ; in the latter case the same doctrine tells against the party seeking to enforce. Hence, in the latter case specific performance will be refused in a case where the price is grossly inadequate, as a court of equity will not permit itself to be the active agent in enforcing a wrong.1 But bare inadequacy of price, without such gross disproportion-ateness as "to shock the conscience," will not be ground to refuse the aid of the court.2 It is otherwise, however, when the price is preposterously inadequate.3 A price amounting to only one-fourth of the value has been held inadequate in this sense;4 and so has a price amounting to one-half of the value.5 sec 167. Not merely the party imposed on himself, but his representatives, can contest an engagement which he has been induced to make improvidently by the undue influence of others.6 And the property thus In such cases specific performance will be refused.

1 Infra, sec 518 ; Rice v. Gordon, 11 Beav. 265 ; Cockell v. Taylor, 15 Beav. 103 ; Tennent v. Tennent, L. R. 2 Sc. & D. 6 ; Parmelee v. Cameron, 41 N. Y. 392; Clark v. Depew, 25 Penn. St. 509.

2 Story, Eq. 12th ed. sec 245, citing Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 246 ; Under-hill v. Horwood, 10 Ves. 219 ; Peacock v. Evans, 16 Ves. 512; Howard v. Edgell, 17 Vt. 9; Osgood v. Franklin, 2 Johns. Ch. 1, 23; 14 Johns. 527; Mayo v. Carrington, 19 Grat. 74 ; Weld v. Rees, 48 111. 428 ; Butler v. Haskell,.

4 Des. S. C. 651; Mitchell v. Jones, 50 Mo. 438 ; see infra, sec 516 et seq.

3 Supra, sec 159 et seq.; Cockell v.. Taylor, 15 Beav. 103 ; Boyse v. Ross-borough, 6 H. L. C. 2; Harding v.. Handy, 11 Wheat. 113 ; Allore v. Jewell, 94 U. S. 511 ; Brady's App., 66 Penn. St. 277 ; Hough v. Hunt, 2 Ohio, 495 ; Buffalow v. Buffalow, 2Dev. & B. Eq. 241 ; Lester v. Mahon, 25 Ala.. 445.

4 Wood v. Absey, 3 Mad. 423.

5 Davidson, v. Little, 22 Penn. St.. 245.

Party's representatives may contest.

1 Bispham's Eq. sec 371-4; Falckef. Gray, 4 Drew, 651; Day v. Newman, 2 Cox, 77 ; Haygarth v. Wearing, L. R. 12 Eq. 320; Summers p. Griffiths, 35 Beav. 27 ; Byers v. Surget, 19 How. U. S. 313 ; Eastman v. Plumer, 46 N. H. 464; Hamet v. Dundass, 4 Barr, 178 ; Graham ?'. Pancoast, 30 Penn. St. 89 ; Nace v. Boyer, 30 Penn. St. 99 ; Madison Co. v. People, 58 111. 456; Gasque v. Small, 2 Str. Eq. 72 ; Morris v. Philliber, 30 Mo. 145 ; Mitchell v. Jones, 50 Mo. 439. For an analysis of the conflicting English cases, see Pollock, Wald's ed. 543.

2 Bispham's Eq. sec 219 ; Harrison v. Guest, 6 DeG. M. & G. 424 ; 8 H. L. C. 481; Cathcart p. Robinson, 5 Pet. 264; Erwin v. Parham, 12 How. U. S. 197; Bedel v. Loomis, 11 N. H. 9 ; Park v. Johnson, 4 Allen, 259 ; Powers v. Mayo, 97 Mass. 180 ; Lee v. Kirby, 104 Mass. 420; Osgood v. Franklin, 2 Johns. Ch. 1 ; Seymour v. Delancy, 3 Cow. 445 ; Weber v. Weitling, 3 C. E. Green, 441 ; Cummings' App., 67 Penn.

St. 404; Cribbins v. Markwood, 13 Grat. 495 ; White v. McGannon, 29 Grat. 511 ; Steele v. Worthington, 2 Ohio, 182 ; White v. Thompson, 1 Dev. & B. 493 ; Sarter v. Gordon, 2 Hill Ch. 121.

3 Bispham's Eq. sec 371 ; Callaghan v. Callaghan, 8 Cl. & F. 374 ; Howard v. Edgell, 17 Vt. 9 ; Osgood v. Franklin, 2 Johns. Ch. 23; 14 Johns. 527 ; Shepherd v. Shepherd, 1 Md. Ch. 244 ; Shepherd v. Bevin, 9 Gill, 32 ; Holland v. Hensley, 4 Iowa, 222 ; Harrison p. Town, 17 Mo. 237.

4 Robinson v. Robinson, 4 Md. Ch. 182.

5 Seymour v. Delancy, 6 Johns. Ch. 222 ; see S. C. 3 Cow. 445.

6 Supra, sec 146 ; Hunter p. Atkens, 3 M. & K. 113; Coutts v. Acworth, L. R. 8 Eq. 588; Ford v. Olden, L. R. 3 Eq. 461; Holman v. Loynes, 4 D. M. G. 270; Allore v. Jewell, 94 U. S. 506 ; Ford v. Harrington, 16 N. Y. 185; Yard v. Yard, 27 N. J. Eq. 114; Hawkins' App., 32 Penn. St. 263 ; Tracey obtained may be pursued in the hands of all assignees with notice.1 The transaction, however, cannot be contested by third parties,2 nor can it be attacked by the party implicated in the wrong.3.