counted for the half of the net proceeds. This transaction was open and was known to all the cestui que trustent and was objected to by none of them. Held, that there was nothing in all this to indicate fraud. Ib.

3. While it is true that a trustee cannot legally purchase on his own account that which his duty requires him to sell on account of his cestui que trust, nor purchase on account of the cestui que trust that which he sells on his own account, and that the cestui que trust may avoid such a sale even though made without fraud, and without injury to his interests, yet it is also true that such a transaction is not absolutely void in the sense that the purchaser takes no title, and that it may be ratified and affirmed by the cestui que trust, either directly or by acquiescence and silent approval; and, in such case, when he has ample notice of the facts, and waits before taking action to set the sale aside until he can see whether the transaction is like to prove a profitable speculation, he is guilty of laches, which amount to a ratification and approval. Hoyt v. Latham, 553.

VENDOR AND VENDEE.

See SALE.

VERDICT.

See JURISDICTION, B, 2.

WILL.

A testator after giving the bulk of his property to his six brothers and sisters in equal shares, directed that "any and all notes, bills, accounts, agreements, or other evidences of indebtedness against any of my said brothers and sisters, held by me at the time of my decease, be cancelled by my said executors and delivered up to the maker or makers thereof, without payment of the same or any part thereof," except two notes specified and secured by mortgage. Held, that this direction did not include joint and several notes made to the testator between the date of the will and his death, by a partnership of which a brother was a member, to obtain money to carry on the business of the partnership, and secured by a conveyance of valuable property. Waterman v. Alden,

196.

See EVIDENCE, 4.

WRIT OF PROHIBITION.

See PROHIBITION, WRIT OF.