36 Ch. D. App. 185), to which further refer ence will be made immediately, Lord Justice Lindley qualified this statement of the law as follows: "When a gift is made to a person standing in a confidential relation to the do nor, the court will not set the gift aside, if of a small amount, simply on the ground that the donor had no independent advice. In such a case some proof of the exercise of the in fluence of the donee must be given." Allcard v. Skinner was an exceedingly remarkable case. In June, 1868, Miss M. A. Allcard, a young lady of thirty-five, was desirous of de voting herself to good works, and was intro duced by the Rev. D. Nihill, then her spirit ual director and con fessor, to Miss Skin ner, the superior of a Protestant institution known as "The Sis ters of the Poor." Mr. Nihill and Miss Skinner were the founders of the sis terhood. Mr. Nihill I.ORI) was from its inception confessor of the sister hood, and drew up all the rules by which it was governed. Miss Allcard became first a " pos tulant" of the sisterhood, then a "novice," and ultimately a professed member, in which capacity she bound herself to observe inter alia the rules of poverty, chastity and obedi ence. The rule of poverty began in the fol lowing terms : " Behold then the three strong walls that shall keep safe within your hearts the spirit of poverty. They are: I. The cut ting off of possessions; 2. Hardness of life; 3. Love of the poor." It then went on to en join the absolute giving up of all individual
L
property, whether it were given up to the relatives or friends of the member, or to the poor, or to the sisterhood itself, and that if it were given up to the sisterhood it should not be required or reclaimed by the members on leaving the sisterhood. All the forms of gift in the schedule to this rule were in favor of the sisterhood. The rule of obedience re quired the member to obey the voice of the superior as that of God, and under a head "Common Rules" was a provis ion that no sister should seek advice of any extern without the superior's leave. In 1870 Miss Allcard became entitled to considerable prop erty, under her fath er's will, in part of which she had an ab solute interest and in part she had an estate for life with power of disposition by will. Within a few days a ft er becoming a member she made a will bequeathing all her property to Miss ESHER. Skinner, and in 1872 and 1874 handed over and transferred to her several large sums of money and stock. In May, 1879, Miss Allcard left the sisterhood, and immediately re voked her will, but made no demand for the return of her property until 1885, when she commenced an action against Miss Skinner, claiming restitution of it on the ground that it was made over by her while acting under the paramount and undue influence of Miss Skinner and without independent and sepa rate advice. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Kekewich and ultimately reargued in the court of appeal. At the trial Sir
