REVOCATION. The recall of a power or authority conferred, or the vacating of an in strument previously made.
An act of the mind demonstrated by some outward and visible sign. Graham v. Burch, 47 Minn. 171, 49 N. W. 697, 28 Am. St. Rep. 339.
Revocation of grants. Grants may be re voked by virtue of a power expressly re served in the deed, or where the grant is without consideration or in the nature of a testamentary disposition ; 3 Co. 25.
Voluntary conveyances, being without pe cuniary or legal consideration, may be super seded or revoked, in effect, by a subsequent conveyance of the same subject-matter to an other for valuable consideration. And it will make no difference that the first conveyance was meritorious, being a voluntary settle ment for the support of one's self or family, and made when the grantor was not indebted, or had ample means besides for the payment of his debts. And the English cases hold tliat knowledge of the former deed will not affect the rights of a subsequent purchaser ; 9 East 59 ; 4 B. & P. 332 ; 18 Ves. 84. See, also, the exhaustive review of the American cases, in note to Sexton v. Wheaton, 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 36.
It is generally held that a volnntary con veyance which is also fraudulent, is void as to subsequent bona tide purchasers for value with notice; but if not fraudulent in fact, it is only void as to those purchasing without notice. See Bisp. Eq. 257; Elliott v. Horn, 10 Ala. 348, 352, 44 Alh: Dec. 488; Verplank v. Sterry, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 536, 557, 7 Am. Dec. 348 ; Hudnal v. Wilder, 4 McCord (S. C.) 295, 17 Am. Dec. 744; FRAUDULENT CONVEY ANCE.
The fact that the voluntary grantor sub sequently conveys to another, Is regarded as prima facie evidence that the former deed was fraudulent as to subsequent purchasers without notice, or it would not have been re yoked ; Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 265, 8 L. Ed. 120 ; Bank of Alexandria v. Patton, 1 Rob. (Va.) 500, 544.
In some of the states, notice of the volun tary deed will defeat the subsequent pur chaser; Lancaster v. Dolan, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 231, 18 Am. Dec. 625 ; Baltimore v. Williams, 6 Md. 242 ; Hudnal v. Wilder, 4 McCord (S. C.) 295, 17 Am. Dec. 744 ; Corprew v. Ar thur, 15 Ala. 525. But in other states the English rule prevails ; Doyle v. Sleeper, 1 Dana (Ky.) 531; Freeman 'V. Eatman, 38 N. C. 81, 40 Am. Dec. 444.
If one bail money or other valuables to an other, to be delivered to a third•person on the day of marriage, he may countermand it at any time before delivery over ; 1 Dy. 49. But if such delivery be made in payment or secu rity of a debt, or for other valuable consider ation, it is not revocable ; 1 Stra. 165. And although the gift be not made known to the donee, being for his benefit, his assent will be presumed until he expressly dissents ; 3 Co. 26 b; 2 Salk. 618.
Powers of appointment to uses are revo cable if so expressed in the deed of settle ment. But it is not indispensable, it is said, that this power of revocation should be re peated in each successive deed of appoint ment, provided it exist in the original deed creating the settlement; 4 Kent 336; 1 Co. 110 b; 2 Bla. Com. 339.
It has been said that the power of revo cation does not include the appointment of new uses ; 2 Freem. 61; Pr. in Ch. 474.
A voluntary deed of trust, without power of revocation, made with a nominal consider ation, and without legal advice as to its ef fect, when there was evidence that its effect was misunderstood by the grantor, will be set aside in equity ; Garnsey v. Mundy, 24 N. J. Eq. 243 ; s. c. 13 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 345, and note by Mr. Bispham. In a similar case it was held that the mere omission of counsel to advise the insertion of a power of revoca tion is not a ground to set aside the deed; but that this omission and the absence of the pow er are circumstances tending to show that the act was not done with a deliberate intent. The deliberate intent of a party to tie his hands should clearly appear. In the absence of such an intent the omission of a power to revoke is prima facie evidence of mistake. The mis take being one of fact mixed with legal ef fects, equity will relieve ; Appeal of Russell, 75 Pa. 269 ; the earlier English cases seem to have insisted upon the presence of a power of revocation in voluntary settlements ; L. R. 8 Eq. 558 ; 14 id. 365; but in a later case it was held that the absence of such a power was merely a circumstance of more or less weight, according to the other circumstances of each case ; L. R. 8 Ch. Ap. 430. A re served right of revocation is not inconsistent with the creation of a valid trust ; Mize v. Nat. Bank, 60 Mo. App. 358.