prevent parties exercising their legal rights in an unconscionable manner (Ollivant Ltd. v. Alakija (1950 13 W.A.C.A. 63), but the doctrine will not be carried to such an extent as to defeat an honest purchaser or prevent a bona fide purchaser from dealing freely with his property. See Lord Cranworth in Ware v. Egmout (1854) 4 De G., M. & G. 460. Thus a person who derives his title from a purchaser with notice takes free of the equity. Notice to the vendor or his agent is no notice to the purchaser or vendor's successor in title unless the purchaser is himself bound by such no- tice. See Onasanya v. Anifowowshe (supra). A person who derives title from a bonafide purchaser without notice takes free of the equity notwithstanding that he had notice of the equity. See the following cases: Barrow’ case (1880) 14 Ch. D. 432 at 445; Experte Sandys (1889) 42 Ch. D. 98 at 110; and Wilkies v. Spooner (1911) 2 KB 475. However, a trustee, who, in breach of trust, sells trust property to a purchaser without notice, and who, subsequently purchases the property from the purchaser, will be deemed to hold the property subject to the trusts. Equity will not allow a person to profit from his own fraud. See Barrow’s case (supra). CONCLUSION The doctrine of constructive notice is a dangerous one in that it is contrary to the truth; it is wholly founded on the assumption that purchaser does not know the facts; and yet it is said that constructively he does know them. Therefore, the doctrine ought not to be extended further, otherwise, it may defeat the end of justice which the judges who invented it wanted to serve. The equitable doctrine of notice was evolved to prevent parties exercising their legal rights in an unconscionable manner. But the doctrine will not be carried to such an