Sec 538

When a gift though gratuitous has been fairly made, after full deliberation, a court of equity will not interfere to revoke it, unless it was intended by the donor to be revocable;4 and a declaration of trust, although without consideration, will, when made fairly and deliberately, and when vesting a specific interest in the cestui que trust, be sustained.5

Sec 539

Promissory notes and bills of exchange are presumed to have been made for value, and, as we have seen, this presumption is irrebuttable so far as concerns bona fide endorsees for value without notice. As between the parties, however, and against endorsees of legal personality, imposed upon married women by the ancient common law, are so far removed by statute, and by change of customs and conditions of society from which common law is largely derived, as to present no obstacle to the maintenance of this action by the plaintiff against his wife. Clough v. Russell, 55 N. H. 279. Her agreement was valid as a contract for a marriage settlement in his favor; and her conveyance to Ladd was a fraud upon that settlement. Under the former law, the husband, acquiring by marriage great and immediate rights in his wife's property, was entitled to relief against her fraudulent antenuptial conveyance of property which she had represented herself to him to be possessed of. 1 Story Eq. sec 273. And for the purpose of this case, the legal capacities of the plaintiff and his wife being equal, her ante-nuptial promise, in consideration of marriage, is as binding as his, and equally enforceable by process of law. Specific performance of her agreement for the use of her land may be enforced to prevent a fraud being practised upon him by his wife's inducing him to expend his money in valuable improvements on the faith of her agreement, and then depriving him of the benefit of them, and securing them or the proceeds of them for herself."

Equity will not set aside an executed gift.

In negotiable paper, burden is on party disputing consideration.

1 Supra, sec 377 et seq.; Wilson v. Prewett, 3 Wood's C. C. 631; Wilson v. Jordan, 3 Wood's C. C. 647. As to family settlements, see supra, sec 377.

2 Prewit v. Wilson, 103 U. S. 22. 3 Supra, sec 399.

4 Toker v. Toker, 31 Beav. 629; Coutts v. Acworth, L. R. 8 Eq. 558; that an executed gift cannot be recalled, see supra, sec 496.

5 Leake, 2d ed. 610; Kekewich v. Manning, 1 D. M. & G. 176; Richardson v. Richardson, L. R. 3 Eq. 686; supra, sec 496.

with notice or after maturity, the want of consideration may be shown, though the burden is on the party attempting to show such want of consideration.1 But if the paper is shown to have been stolen or lost or fraudulently obtained, then the burden of proving consideration is on the holder seeking to avail himself of the bill.2

Sec 540

It is not necessary that a consideration, if there be one, should appear on the face of a document. A deed, for instance, may purport to convey laud for the price of a dollar an acre; but this will not prevent the parties, or either of them, from showing that the price paid was one thousand dollars.3 Nor is the averment of a consideration of natural love and affection binding on the parties. It may be disputed by showing on the one side an additional valuable consideration, or on the other side that the whole transaction was a fraud.4 A party is not estopped from proving such variation.5 But, even in equity, a party claiming under a sealed document is bound by the general character of the consideration stated, unless mistake on both sides be shown, or the omission be satisfactorily explained. He cannot, for instance, as part of his case (unless with the above qualification), if money be averred, prove Consideration may be proved or varied by parol.

1 Supra, sec 493 et seq.; Holliday v. Atkinson, 5 B. & C. 501; Mills v. Barber, 1 M. & W. 425; Aldrich v. Warren, 16 Me. 465; Thurston v. Mc-Kown, 6 Mass. 428; Wheeler v. Guild, 20 Pick. 545; Case v. Banking Ass., 4 Comst. 166; Barnet v. Offerman, 7 Watts, 130; Swain v. Ettling, 32 Penn. St. 486.

2 Leake, 2d ed. 608; Mills v. Barber, 1 M. & W. 425; Bailey v. Bidwell, 13 M. & W. 73; Mather v. Maidstone, 1 C. B. N. S. 273; Jones v. Gordon, L. R. 2 Ap. Ca. 628; Lenheim v. Wil-marding, 55 Penn. St. 73.

3 Wh. on Ev. sec 1042, 1044-1050; Townsend v. Toker, L. R. 1 Ch. Ap. 459; Llanelly R. R. v. London R. R., L. R. 8 Ch. 955; Cummings v. Dennett, 26 Me. 397; Arms v. Ashley, 4 Pick. 71; Hannan v. Hannan, 123 Mass. 441; Farnsworth v. Boardman, 131 Mass. 115; Tingley v. Cutler, 7 Conn. 291; Hebbard v. Haughian, 70 N. Y. 57; Cunningham v. Dwyer, 23 Md. 219; Jones v. Sasser, 1 Dev. & B. 466.

4 Filmer v. Gott, 4 Br. P. C. 230; Gale v. Williamson, 8 M. & W. 405; Kelson v. Kelson, 10 Hare, 385; Gow-ard v. Waters, 98 Mass. 596; Brown v. Lunt, 37 Me. 423; Lewis v. Brewster, 57 Penn. St. 410; and other cases cited in Wh. on Ev. sec 1046.

5 Maigley v. Hauer, 7 Johns. 341; Leonard v. Vredenburgh, 8 Johns. 29; Buckley's App., 48 Penn. St. 491; Hendrick v. Crowley, 31 Cal. 471. 729 natural love and affection, or, if natural love and affection be averred, prove money.1 But no matter what may be the consideration averred, a party attacking the conveyance for fraud may impeach the averment by parol.2.

1 Peacock v. Monk, 1 Ves. Sen. 128; Gale v. Williamson, 8 M. & W. 408; Morse v. Shattuck, 4 N. H. 229; Hol-brook v. Holbrook, 30 Vt. 432; Scher-merhorn v. Vanderheyden, 1 Johns. 139; Winchell v. Latham, 6 Cow. 682;.

Morris Canal Co. v. Ryerson, 27 N. J. L. 457.

2 Wh. on Ev. sec 923-8, 1047; Esta-brook v. Smith, 6 Gray, 572; Bowen v. Bell, 20 Johns. 338; Hoeveler v. Mugele, 66 Penn. St. 348; Johnson v. Taylor, 4 Dev. L. 355.