ambler case Floyer against sir Brownlow sherard Hilary see Bulwer v Astley Ph  agreement for a annuity the court not will set it aside though sell to cheap  if there be no imposition bill bring by the purchaser of annuity charge on  bank stock in trustee name to be pay the annuity and decree lib Reg a foe Lord  chancellor this be no more than a agreement for the purchase of two annuity  for the seller life at six year purchase Chargeable upon dividend of bank  stock and of which sir Brownlow be tenant for life and the bill be bring by Mr  Floyer against sir Brownlow and the trustee to have the arrear and accrueing  payment secure and accord a decree be make at the bolls for payment thereof  from which decree sir Brownlow have appeal the original hear be on that July  lib Reg a foe the annuity purchase be one of pound for which pound be pay and  one of pound for which pound be pay here be no evidence of any particular  imposition by the plaintiff nor do it appear to be a bargain seek by plaintiff  but propose by defendant agent the question therefore be whether the court can  infer any imposition from the price it be the most uncertain thing in the  world and though there be some calculation concern the value of annuity yet  they depend upon circumstance and there be always a great difference make as  to the price between grant a annuity for the buyer life and the seller see  Lawley v Hooper atk by the proof in the cause it appear that annuity for the  seller life be sometime sell for seven year purchase and sometime for six take  it in the most unfavourable light for plaintiff it be sell but one year under  the common value and this court will not take upon they to set aside those  grant because sell one year too cheap where it be the agreement of the party  as to the state of defendant health that be very material and will great vary  the price and it appear from some of the witness that he be in a bad state  health and therefore this court can lie no great stress upon its be under  value ambler it be say that the defendant be in great necessity at the time of  grant these annuity and so person general be when they make contract of this  kind but this differ from the case of young heir because there it be a  anticipation of the profit and before the estate come into possession here sir  Brownlows father be dead and he in possession and no evidence to show any  particular distress the defendant be in the principal point be the public  consideration of contract of this sort that instead of relieve person they  only dip they further in distress if it be a annuity for game debt rawden v  Shadwell post or supply extravagance as jewel d be within such rule but this  be a sale for money and a absolute one and only one year purchase dispute as  to the real value give for it this be a sale for a annuity absolute and not  redeemable but when they be redeemable the court look upon it as a evasion of  the statute of usury and only a loan for money see what be say by Lord Thurlow  in fox v Mackreth bro c c and see Searle v carpenter post and the case in the  note there the next objection be as to this court be give relief for in many  case the court ambler er p will not set a agreement aside and yet not extend  any relief but in the present case there be no difference between set it aside  and not give relief there be no bill bring by sir Brownlow to set it aside and  therefore this court will not let thing stand still but m must do justice  between the party two hundred pound a year be grant out of the estate of sir  Brownlow which be pound per annum but it appear there be annuity to the amount  of pound a year grant before and therefore if Mr Floyer have know of such  encumbrance he will hardly have purchase these annuity and there be no way of  come at the dividend but in this court be equitable estate in the defendant  and therefore it be not come into this court for assistance but as it be a  grant of a equitable estate it be necessary to come into this court the  trustee can safe pay the dividend to any body else after notice of this grant  and ambler therefore in a case of this kind the court be as much bind to give  its relief as if it be a legal title and a action bring at law the court of  law must be oblige to let the part make use of the legal title this be a very  unfavourable case on the part of sir Brownlow in sell annuity out of a estate  before encumber to the full value decree affirm it be now clear settle that a  court of equity will not grant relief on account of mere inadequacy of price  unless the inadequacy be so excessive as to amount in itself to conclusive and  decisive evidence of fraud Griffith v Spratley Cox S c bro c c in note  matthews v fever Cox Stephens v Bateman 1Bro c c Heathcote v Paynon bro c c  low v Barchard Ves Underhill v Horwood Ves Pickett v Loggon Ves MGhee v Morgan  Sch and Lef in note lukey v odonnell ib Murray v palmer ib Martin v coal in  Chanc Nov lib Reg a foe S c ms and mad in note Nom maskeen v coal Copis v  Middleton mad see bullock v Saddlier post Morse v royal Ves Sugd vend and Ves  it have be hold that the inadequacy must be so gross as to shock the  conscience see in Gibson v Jeyes Ves coal v Trecothick Ves gwynne v Heaton bro  with respect to purchaser from expectant heir see gowland v de faria Ves Evans  v peacock Ves Davis v duke of Marlborough Swanst Shelly v Nash mad Marsack v  reeves mad fox v wright ib and see tweddell v tweddell turn