clarke v SWAILE June purchase from his client by a solicitor who be also  trustee for the sale of the estate for payment of debt confirm upon the ground  of his have attempt ineffectual to sell of there be no fraud in the  transaction and of the purchase have be recognize and approve of by the  beneficiary and trust S c cit bro c c the bill in the former of these cause be  bring by sir Robert clarke to set aside a purchase make by the defendant  Swaile from his brother sir Samuel clarke and to have the deed deliver up c  the cross bill be to establish the purchase the late sir Samuel clarke be in  the year Eden seize of estate in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk which be much  encumber and he have become in consequence of his embarrassment much involve  in lawsuit the defendant Swaile be at that time first employ by he as his  attorney and solicitor and agent in such capacity he recommend sir Samuel to  sell a part of his estate and point out the manor of Bramlingham in Suffolk as  a proper part to be sell accord by indenture bear date the that and that of  July the premise be convey to Swaile and his heir upon trust to sell and to  retain out of Eden er p the purchasemoney so much as will pay he for his  trouble and then pay off certain encumbrance therein mention and that the  residue of the purchasemoney shall be subject to sir Samuel clarke appointment  it appear in evidence on the part of the defendant Swaile that he have exert  himself considerable to sell the estate but that he have not be able to meet  with a purchaser by article bear date the d of November Swaile agree to  purchase the premise for himself and sir Samuel covenant to convey to he on or  before the that of December then next by indenture bear date the that of  February the premise be convey to Swaile another deed bear date the d of march  be execute in consequence of a misdescription of the estate and a three bear  date the that of march in consequence of a variance of the boundary to which  the present plaintiff be a party sir Samuel die in November three month after  the fill of the bill the suit be revive in may Mr jewel and Mr de grey for the  plaintiff the attorneygeneral and Mr Perrot or the defendant the Lord  chancellor say that he do not like the Eden circumstance of a trustee deal  with his beneficiary and trust that he think however the objection so much  rely on that Mr Swaile have not conduct the transaction with sufficient  publicity have not be make out that upon the whole he do not see any principle  upon which he can set the transaction aside his lordship rely also upon the  circumstance of sir Robert clarke have recognize Mr Swaile as lord of the  manor of Bramlingham note it do not appear distinct in what manner this take  place both bill dismiss Lord Rosslyn have entertain a opinion that a sale to a  person in the situation of trustee shall only be set aside where a advantage  have be make by he Whichcote v Laurence Ves ex part Reynolds Ves this doctrine  have however since be disavow a beneficiary and trust may indeed by a new  contract dismiss his trustee from that character and I the obligation which  attach to the trustee as such be complete shake off he may buy but even then  the transaction will be watch with the great jealousy but if it do not  satisfactory appear that the connection be dissolve it be in the choice of the  beneficiary and trust to take back the property whether the trustee have make  any advantage of it or not fox v Mackreth bro c c Cox bro p c Edward Toml  Campbell v walker Ves menzy v York building company bro p c Edward Toml Gibson  v Jeyes Ves ex part Hugh ib ex part Lacey ib and the case cite in the note ex  part James Ves coal v Trecothick Ves ex part Bennett Ves Morse v royal Ves  Lowther v ld Lowther Ves cane v ld Allen dow p c attorneygeneral v ld Dudley  coop Rep web v Rorke Sch and Lef down v Grazebrooke Meriv long acquiescence  under a sale to a trustee be evidence that as between the trustee and  beneficiary and trust the relation have be abandon and that in all other  respect it be fair Campbell v walker cit sup Parker v white Ves web v Rorke  cit sup but the mere circumstance of the relation have be abandon be not  sufficient the transaction must also be fair as the situation of the trustee  give he the mean of know the value of the property better than the beneficiary  and trust and he acquire that knowledge at the expense of the beneficiary and  trust Ves Reg lib Min App