A treatise on the law and practice relating to vendors and purchasers of real estate

® :l

i

1.

% 28

i

VALUABLE LAW WORKS

PUBLISHED BY

STEVENS AND SONS,

LIMITED,

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C.

Chalmers' Bills of Exchange. — A Digest of the Law of

Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, Cheques, and Negotiable Securities. Fourth
Edition. By His Honor JUDGE CHALMEES, Draughtsman of the Bills of Ex-
change Act, 1882, &c. Demy 8w. 1891. Price 18*. cloth.

Moncreiff on Fraud and Misrepresentation. — A Treatise

on the Law relating to Fraud and Misrepresentation. By the Hon. FREDERICK
MONCREIFF, Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1891. Price 21s. cloth.

Kennedy's Law of Civil Salvage. — A Treatise on the Law

of Civil Salvage. By WILLIAM R. KENNEDY, Esq., one of Her Majesty's
Counsel. Royal Svo. 1891. Price 12s. cloth.

Carver's Carriage of Goods hy Sea. — A Treatise on the

Law relating to the Carriage of Groods by Sea. Second Edition. By THOMAS
GILBERT CARVER, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal Svo. 1891. Price 32*. cloth.

Palmer's Company Precedents. — Conveyancing and other

Forms and Precedents for use in relation to Companies subject to the Companies
Acts, 1862 to 1890. Arranged as follows :— Promoters, Prospectuses, Agreements,
Memoranda and Articles of Association, Resolutions, Notices, Certificates, Private
Companies, Power of Attorney, Debentures and Debenture Stock, Petitions, Writs,
Pleadings, Judgments and Orders, Reconstruction, Amalgamation, Arrangements,
Special Acts, Provisional Orders, Winding-up. With Copious Notes and an Appendix
containing the Acts and Rules, fifth Edition. By FRANCIS BEAUFuRT PALMER,
assisted by CHARLES MACNAGHTEN,Esqrs., Barristers- at-Law. Royal&vo. 1891.
" In company drafting it stands unrivalled." — Law Times. Price 36s. cloth.

Hamilton's Manual of Company Law for the Use of

Directors and Promoters. By WM. FREDK. HAMILTON, LL.D. (Lond.) ; assisted
by KENNARD GOLBORNE METCALFE, M.A., Barristers-at-Law. Demy Svo.
1891. Price 12s. Qd. cloth.

Godefroi's Law relating to Trusts and Trustees. — Second Edit.

By HENRY GODEFROI, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal Svo. 1891. Price 32s. cloth.
" This work is a model of what a legal text-book ought to be. It is clear in style
and clear in arrangement." — Law Times, April 18, 1891.

Goddard's Treatise on the Law of Easements. — By

JOHN LEYBOURN GODDARD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. fourth Edition. Demy
Svo. 1891. Price 21s. cloth.
" An indispensable part of the lawyer's library." — Solicitors' Journal.

Prideaux's Precedents in Conveyancing. — With Disserta-

tions on its Law and Practice. Fourteenth Edition. By FREDERICK PRIDEAUX,
late Professor of the Law of Real and Personal Property to the Inns of Court, and
JOHN WHITCOMBE, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. 2 Vols. Royal Svo. 1889.
Price 31. 10s. cloth.
" The most useful work out on Conveyancing." — Law Journal.

Greenwood's Practice of Conveyancing, with Concise Prece-

dents. — A Manual of the Practice of Conveyancing. Showing the present Practice
relating to the daily routine of Conveyancing in Solicitors' Offices, to which are added
Concise Common Forms and Precedents in Conveyancing. Eighth Edition. By
HARRY GREENWOOD, Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1891. Price 16s. cloth.
"One of those books which no lawyer's bookshelf should be without. ... A com-
plete guide to Conveyancing." — Law Gazette.

Russell on Awards, — A Treatise on the Power and Duty of

an Arbitrator, and the Law of Submissions and Awards ; with an Appendix of
Forms, and of the Statutes relating to Arbitration. By FRANCIS RUSSELL. Esq.,
Barrister- at-Law. Seventh Edition. By the Author and HERBERT RUSSELL,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal Svo. 1891. Price 30s. cloth. (Nearly ready.} ^

*** A Catalogue of New Law Works (1891) post free on application.

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

Roscoe's Nisi Prius. — A Digest of the Law of Evidence on

the Trial of Actions at Nisi Prius.—Sizteenth Edition. By MAURICE POWELL,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 1891. Price 21. 10*. cloth.

Roscoe's Criminal Law, — A Digest of the Law of Evidence

in Criminal Cases. Eleventh Edit. By HORACE SMITH and GILBERT GEORGE
KENNEDY, Esqra., Metropolitan Police Magistrates. Demy Svo. 1890. Price
II. 11*. 6d. cloth.
" What Roscoe says, most judges will accept without question." — Law Times.

Pitt-Lewis' Winding-up Practice. — A Manual of the

Practice as to Winding-up in the High Court and in the County Court ; being the
Companies (Winding- up) Act, 1890, and the Winding-up of Companies and Associ-
ations (Part IV. of the Companies Act, 1862), as now amended, with Notes, and the
Companies Winding-up Rules, 1890. Forming a Supplement to " A Complete
Practice of the County Courts." By G. PITT-LEWIS, Q.C., M.P., Recorder of
Poole. Demy Svo. 1891. Price Is. 6d. cloth.

Pitt-Lewis' Complete Practice of the County Courts,

including that in Admiralty and Bankruptcy, embodying the County Courts Act,
1888, and other existing Acts, Rules, Forms, and Costs, with Full Alphabetical Index
to Official Forms, Additional Forms, and General Index. Fourth Edition, with
Supplementary Volume containing New Winding- up Practice. By G. PITT-LEWIS,
Esq.,Q.C.,M.P., Recorder of Poole. ZVols. Demy Svo. 1890-91. Price 21. 10$. cloth.
44 The Standard County Court Practice." — Solicitors1 Journal.

Williams' Law and Practice in Bankruptcy. — Comprising

the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 to 1890, the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, 1890, the Debtors
Acts, 1869, 1878, the Bankruptcy (Discharge and Closure) Act, 1887, and the Deeds
of Arrangement Act, 1887. By the Hon. SIR ROLAND VAUGHAN WILLIAMS,
a Justice of the High Court. Fifth Edition. By EDWARD WM. HANSELL, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. JRoyalSvo. 1891. Price 25s. cloth.
tl A safe and useful guide to practitioners." — Law Quarterly Review.

Smith's Compendium of Mercantile Law. — Tenth Edition.

By JOHN MACDONELL, Esq., one of the Masters of the Supreme Court, assisted
by GEO. HUMPHREYS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 2 Vols. Royal Svo. 1890.
Price 21. 2s. cloth.
44 Of the greatest value to the mercantile lawyer." — Law Times.

Pollock's Digest of the Law of Partnership. — Incorporating

the Partnership Act, 1890. Fifth Edition. By SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK,
Bart., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1890. Price 8s. od. cloth.

Pollock's Law of Torts. — A Treatise on the Principles of

Obligations arising from Civil Wrongs in the Common Law. Second Edition, to which
is added the draft of a Code of Civil Wrongs, prepared for the Government of India.
By SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, Bart., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Demy
Svo. 1890. Price U. Is. cloth.

Pollock's Principles of Contract. — Being a Treatise on

the General Principles relating to the Validity of Agreements in the Law of England.
Fifth Edition. With a New Chapter. By SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, Bart.,
M. A., LL.D., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1889. Price II. 8*. cloth.

Marsden's Treatise on the Law of Collisions at Sea. —

With an Appendix containing Extracts from the Merchant Shipping Acts, the Inter-
national Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea ; and Local Rules for the same
purpose in force in the Thames, the Mersey, and elsewhere. By REGINALD G.
MARSDEN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Third Edition. By the Author and the
Hon. J. W. MANSFIELD, Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1891. Price 11. 5s. cloth.

Talhot and Fort's Index of Cases Judicially noticed

(1865 — 1890); being a List of all Cases cited in Judgments reported in the "Law
Reports," " Law Journal," " Law Times," and "Weekly Reporter," from Michael-
mas Term, 1865, to the end of 1890, with the places where they are 20 cited. By
GEORGE JOHN TALBOT and HUGH FORT, of the Inner Je^ple, Esqrs., Bar-
p risters-at-Law. Royal Svo. 1891. Price 25s. cloth. <

*** All Standard Law Works ere kept in itoch, in law calf and other bindings.

A TREATISE

OX THE

RELATING TO

OF

REAL ESTATE

i BY THE LATE

je^HENRY DART.

THUS SIXITSI EIDITIOiT

BY

WILLIAM BARBER,

OF LINCOLN'S INN, Esb., .ONE OF HER MAJESTY'S COUNSEL,

OF LINCOLN'S INN, ESQ., BARBISTER-AT-LAW,

WV Iff SHELDON,

OF LINCOLN'S INN, ESQ , BARRISTER-AT-LAW.

VOL. I.

LONDON :

STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE,

tn anir

1888

a.*

LONDON :
FEINTED BY C. F. EOWOETH, GEEAT NEW STEEET, FETTEE LANE, B.C.

TO

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE HARDINGE STANLEY,

BARON HALSBURY,

LOED HIGH CHANOELLOE OF GEEAT BEITAIN,

THE

IS,

BY FEBMISSION,
MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED.

PEEFACE.

WHEN this Edition was projected, it was hoped that
Mr. Dart would, as in the last two Editions, take an
active part in the revision of the text; but failing health
soon compelled him to relinquish altogether the task,
when he had only made a few valuable suggestions
on points raised in the first chapter. No one who was
not placed in close relation to Mr. Dart, as was one of
the present Editors from the time when he became a
pupil in his chambers, can fairly judge how greatly
the labour and the responsibility of bringing this
Edition before the public have been increased through
the want of the advice and help of the Author, whose
profound legal knowledge, sound judgment, critical
acumen, and lucidity of expression placed him in a
position almost unrivalled among conveyancers.

The present Editors, fully alive to the increased
responsibilities of their task, have co-operated in the
endeavour to make this new Edition worthy of the
Author's name and reputation, and to present it to

VI PREFACE.

the profession and the public as an accurate and com-
plete compendium of the present state of the law and
practice relating to vendors and purchasers of real
estate.

The general design and the method of arrangement
of former Editions have been carefully preserved ; but
large portions of the book .have been entirely re-
written ; considerable additions have been made to
other parts; and, while recording judicial decisions
down to the latest date, an attempt has been made to
elucidate the principles on which such decisions depend
and the tendencies towards further changes in the
law.

The Chapter on Eegistration of Title, which ap-
peared in the last, has been omitted from the present
Edition ; partly because Lord Cairns' Act, contrary to
the expectations which were formed of it, has proved
a complete failure, and will shortly be repealed ; and
partly because it is impossible at present to forecast
the nature, extent, or effect of the changes which will
be introduced by the proposed Government measure.
But however drastic and comprehensive the coming
reform may be, its practical effect on conveyancing
transactions will be very gradual ; and for many years
to come the great bulk of the existing learning on the
subject, of which this Edition aims at being an expo-

PREFACE.

nent, will govern the practice of conveyancers. The
Editors, fully convinced that the usefulness and value
of their labours will not be lessened by the introduc-
tion of a system of compulsory registration of title,
or by the other subsidiary changes in real property
law which the introduction of such a system will
necessitate, have deemed it right not to delay any
longer the publication of this Edition, which they
now leave to the generous consideration of its
readers.

It only remains for them to acknowledge the great
and valuable assistance which they have received from
Mr. Charles Burney, who has revised the parts of
Chapters XVIII., XIX. and XX. relating to the
practice in Judges' Chambers; from Mr. J. W. Clark,
of Lincoln's Inn, one of the joint authors of the recent
work on Searches, for his revision of Chapter XI.,
dealing with that subject ; and from Mr. Pattullo, of
Lincoln's Inn, who has largely assisted in the pre-
paration of an entirely new Index.

A new and fuller List of Statutes has been added,
and it is hoped that the Table of Contemporary
References in the Index of Cases will prove useful
to those practitioners who have not the authorized
Reports at their command. For the sake of brevity,
and in order to confine as far as possible the dimen-

Vlll PREFACE.

sions of the book, many of the abbreviations used
in referring to Reports and Text Books are shorter
than those commonly employed ; but in order to
obviate any difficulty that might possibly arise from
this source, a full Table of the abbreviations used in
this Edition will be found at p. xli.

The cases have by means of the Addenda been
brought down to the present date.

LINCOLN'S INN,

January, 1888.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTEXTS - - - - ix

TABLE OF ABBEEVIATIONS - - xli

TABLE OF CASES WITH CONTEMPORARY EEFERENCES - xlvii

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED . - - cclxxi

TABLE OF EULES OF SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO - ccxcix

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA - - - - - - ccci

VOLUME I.
CHAPTEE I.

AS TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE GENERAL CAPACITY TO BUY OR SELL REAL

ESTATE.

1. Who are generally incompetent to sell, p. 1.

Infants, 2 — lunatics, 6 — married women, 9 et seq. — effect of recent Acts,
14 — traitors, felons, &c., 15 — bankrupts, 17 — statutory powers of in-
capacitated owners, ib. — charity trustees, 19 — corporations, 20 — eccle-
siastical corporations, 21.

2. Who are relatively incompetent to sell, p. 22.

Persons having no transferable title, 22 — or standing in special relation
to proposed purchaser, 23.

3. Who are generally incompetent to purchase, p. 24.

Corporations, except by licence, &c., 24 — unincorporated classes, 25 —
aliens before the late Act, 26 — Naturalization Act, 1870.. .27 — infants,
29 — lunatics, 31 — married women, 32 — traitors, felons, &c., 33 —
bankrupts, 34.

4. Who are relatively incompetent to purchase, p. 35.
Division into two classes, 35 — principle of classification, 36 — character

of the disability affecting each class, 37 — cases falling within the first
class, ib. et seq. — cases falling within the second class, 43 et scq. — reme-
dies of cestuis que trust, 51 — confirmation and acquiescence may pre-
clude remedy, 54 — confirmation of voidable purchase, 55 — acquiescence
and confirmation distinguished, 57.

X CONTENTS.

CHAPTEE II.

AS TO SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

1. As to time for sale, p. 58.

By agents, 59 — trustee of bankrupt, ib. — mortgagees, ib. — statutory
owners, 61 — trustees for sale, 62 — executors under implied power of
sale, 65 — sale by trustees under power of sale, 67 — validity of unlimited
powers discussed, 68 — no sale after trusts are satisfied, 69 — date fixed
by trust instrument, how far binding, 70 — donees of conditional powers
of sale, 72 — conditions subsequent and precedent, ib.

2. As to manner of sale, p. 73.

Whether by auction or private contract, 73 — under Conveyancing Act,
74 — by estate agent, i b. — by trustee in bankruptcy, 75 — generally, ib. —
timber and minerals separately, 76 — for building purposes, 78 — by
mortgagee, 80 — oppressive sale, ib. — notice of sale to be given to whom,
ib. — sale under depreciatory conditions, 83 — sale by mortgagee under
Conveyancing Act, 84 — sale by mortgagee at request of mortgagor, 85
— sale under a power exercisable with a specified consent, 86 — power of
sale, how far affected by alienation, 87 — when it authorises a mortgage,
88 — whether a trustee with power to mortgage can give a power of
sale, 89 — power of sale authorises enfranchisement, ib.

3. As to price, p. 89.

Must be a gross sum, 89 — how the price should be ascertained, 90 —
adoption of contract of cestuis que trust, 91 — sales under Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act, 92.

4. General points relating to sales by fiduciary vendors, p. 94.
General liability, 94 — sales by, seldom restrained, 95 — liability of trustee
de son tort, ib. — may not make a profit out of the sale, ib.

5. As to purchases by trustees, p. 96.

Special authority required, 96 — what investments authorised, 97 — time,
98 — mode of investment, 99 — how far bound to require marketable
title, ib.

CHAPTEE III.

AS TO THE RELATIVE DUTIES OF VENDORS AND PURCHASERS PRIOR TO

THE SALE.

1. As to the disclosure, or concealment, of defects, incumbrances, &c., ly

vendor, p. 101.

Patent and latent defects, 101 — liability for non-disclosure by agent, 103
— matters of title, 105 — matters of which purchaser has notice, ib. —
what facts material, 107 — liability of vendor's solicitor for misrepre-
sentation, 108 — inquiry of incumbrancers and trustees, 109.

CONTENTS. XI

2. A3 to commendatory statements, &c. by vendor, p. 110.

Puffing statements, 110— whore the statements are false in fact, 111 —
as to valuation of estate, 112 — stranger when liable for, 113 — guarantee
of solvency, 115 — rescinding contract in Equity, 1 16 — misrepresentation
by a public company, 117.

3. As to concealment, &c. of advantages by purchaser, p. 118.

He need not disclose concealed advantage, 118 — but must not mislead
vendor, 119 — general statement of vendor's duties in this respect, ib.

4. As to depreciatory remarks, &c. by purchaser, p. 120.

A defence in Equity, 120 — how far a ground of action at law, ib. — agree-
ment with, not to bid against, legal, 121.

CHAPTEE IV.

AS TO THE PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE.
1. General matters relating thereto and their construction, p. 122.

How generally construed, 122 — verbal declarations at sale, 123 — altera-
tion of printed particulars, 125 — sale without reserve, 126.

2. As to the preparation and contents of particulars, p. 127.

Description of property, 127 — what particulars should state, 128 — what
estate and advantages implied, ib. — minerals, 130 — permanent charges
and easements, 131 — unless notorious or purchaser has notice, ib. —
must contain no misrepresentation, 133 — removal of buildings, 134 —
reference to plan, 135 — intended improvements, 136 — adjoining land
described as building land, ib. — meaning of particular descriptive ex-
pressions, 137 — precautions to be observed on sale of manor, 138.

3. As to the conditions, p. 139.

Against retracting biddings, 139 — for withdrawing lots, 140 — for reserved
biddings, ib. — as to the deposit, ib. — for delivery of abstract, ib. —
abstract means perfect abstract, 141 — for completion and interest, 142 —
for receipt of rents and profits, 144 — for conveyance, 146 — for cove-
nants by trustees, ib. — for apportionment of rent, ib. — as to crops,
fixtures, and timber, 148 — as to misdescriptions and compensation, 150
et seq. — as to deeds, attested copies, &c., 159 et seq. — as to title and
evidence of title, 163 — against production of lessors' title, ib. — as to
recitals being evidence, 166 — as to deeds twenty years old, ib. — as to
statutory declarations, ib. — as to lands held under different titles, 167 —

Xll CONTENTS.

as to title must be explicit, 168— as to identity, 174 — as to expense of
concurrence of parties, &c., 176 — as to indemnity against charges, 177 —
as to time for taking objections, 178— as to rescission, 178 et seq. — as to
resale and forfeiture of deposit, 184 — general rules as to framing special
conditions, 186.

4. What special conditions are generally requisite in various specified cases,

p. 186.

On sale of inclosed lands, 186 — lands formerly waste, 187 — encroachments,
188 — grants from the Crown, il>. — enfranchised copyholds, 189 — copy-
holds late waste, ib. — unstamped and unregistered documents, 190 —
leaseholds, ib. — what are usual covenants in a lease, 191 — as to the
evidence of covenants having been performed, 193 — as to apportion-
ment of rent and liabilities, 195 — as to title on sale of renewable lease-
holds, 196 — on sale of reversion, ib. — as to fire insurance, ib.

5. General remarks on special conditions, p. 197.

Use of, by fiduciary vendors, 197 et seq. — as to expenses on sale in lots,
199 — power to sell under, ib. — as to misdescriptions and compensation,
200 — costs, 201 — power to use conditions implied by statute, ib. — con-
cluding remarks on special conditions, ib.

CHAPTEE Y.

THE SALE AND MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH.

1. Auction, what it is, p. 203.
Defined, 203 — express direction to sell by, ib.

2. The auctioneer, his liabilities, power, and remuneration, p. 203.

"When liable as principal, 203 — cannot vary terms after sale, 204 — his
power, &c. as respects deposit, ib. — is stakeholder of it, 205 — commission,
207 — insolvency of, 208 — agent for parties within Statute of Frauds,
209 — revocation of his authority, ib. — if agent, right of, to sue prin-
cipal, ib.

3. Agents, p. 210.

How appointed, 210 — private instructions to, ib. — his general authority,
Ht — apparent agent, 211 — agency denied, may be established, ib. —
contract by agent, nominally as principal, or by nominal agent, ib.—
contract by, how to be signed, 212— when personally liable, ib. — has no
implied power to receive purchase-money, 213 — order to pay it over,
^.—commission, 214— authority of, may be revoked, 216— or unautho-
rised acts adopted, when, ib. — underhand bargain by, may be set aside,
217 — contracts by corporation, ib. — agent of corporation, how appointed,
ib. — contracts under Public Health Act, 218 — contract of corporation
may be ratified, 219— contract of trading corporation, ib.

CONTENTS. Xlll

4. The deposit, p. 220.

Its nature, 220 — how to be paid, i b.— cheque for, 221 — investment, 16. —
return of, 222— forfeiture, ib. — loss by insolvency of auctioneer, 223 —
lunacy of purchaser, 224 — tenant for life, not entitled to, on forfeiture
on sale of settled estate, ib.

5. Puffers and reserved biddings, p. 224.

Rule at Law as to employment of a puffer, 224 — rule in Equity, ib. —
purchasing by mistake, 225 — " Sale of Land by Auction Act, 1867," ib.

CHAPTEE VI.

AS TO THE AGREEMENT.

1. General necessity for a written agreement, p. 227.

Statute of Frauds, 227 — what sales not within, ib. — agreement for lease
and lease, 228 — effect of Judicature Act on agreement for lease, 229 —
parol licence, ib. — agreement for sale generally, 230 — collateral agree-
ment, 231 — transfer in writing of parol agreement, 232 — what agree-
ments are within, 233 et seq. — shares, 233 — growing crops, ib. — emble-
ments, 23<3— tenant's agreements, ib. — furnished lodgings, 236 — tenant's
fixtures, ib. — for increase or abatement of rent, 236 — agreement partially
void, when void in toto, ib. — parol variation makes new contract, 237.

2. Preparation of formal agreements, p. 237.

Agreement on sale by auction, 237 — on private sale, ib. — conditions sup-
plied by Vendor and Purchaser and Conveyancing Acts, 238 — on sale
to railway companies, &c., ib.

3. What informal documents may constitute an agreement, p. 239.

What a sufficient agreement, 239 — letters, receipts, ib. — as to contracts of
pre-emption, 240 — as to effect of notice to or by railway companies, &c.,
242 et srq. — a written agreement after, in pursuance of a parol agree-
ment before marriage, 250 — rent-rolls, abstract, &c., insufficient, ib. —
document must consist with alleged parol agreement, 251 — names of
parties, ib. — offer by letter, 253 — description of property, 254 — terms
must be fixed, 256 et seq. — price, 257 — determinable by valuation, ib. —
by arbitration under Common Law Procedure Act, 1854.. 259 — reference
to other documents containing terms sufficient, 261 — patent ambiguity
and defective reference distinguished, ib. — general reference to other
document insufficient, 262 — correspondence, when an agreement, 264 —
conditional acceptance, 265 — withdrawal and acceptance of offer, 267 —
agreement sent as instructions, 268.

XIV CONTENTS.

4. The signature, p. 269.

Of party charged sufficient, 269 — election by other party, ib. — signature
by agent, 270 — place for, ib. — as witness, 271 — approval of draft agree-
ment, &c., ib. — signature by public companies, 273 — alteration of
agreement, 274.

5. The stamps, p. 275.

As to the stamps on agreement, 275 — cases of exemption, ib. — several
stamps, when necessary, ib. — loss of unstamped agreement, 276 — agree-
ment in evasion of stamp laws, 277.

6. Illegal agreements, p. 277.

Agreements for illegal purpose void, 277 — for sale of pretenced titles, ib.
—champerty and maintenance, 279 — splitting votes for elections, 280 —
simony, ib. — contingent interests, &c., 281 — by companies before regis-
tration, 282 — by mortgagee at date of mortgage, ib.

CHAPTEE VII.

EFFECT OF THE CONTRACT ON RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.

1. Purchaser entitled to estate and vendor to purchase-money, p. 283.
Vendor, how far a trustee for purchaser, 283.

2. Purchaser's general rights under contract as against vendor, p. 284.

General nature of his interest, 284 — alienation of property, 285 — crops,
windfalls, timber, &c., ib. — accidental benefits and losses, 286 — restric-
tions on purchaser's right, 287 — compulsory power of purchase, 288.

3. Vendor's general rights under contract against purchaser, p. 289.

Vendor has a lien on estate, 289 — judgment against, ib. — effect of death
of purchaser intestate and without an heir, ib. — rights of, where pur-
chaser is his tenant, 290 — use and occupation, ib. — expenditure, 291.

4. Eights of vendor and purchaser, inter se, not affected by death, bank-

ruptcy, (fee. of either party , p. 291.

Election by assignees of bankrupt under the old law, 291 — disclaimer by
trustee of bankrupt under new law, 292.

5. Death of vendor before completion : its effect on relative rights of his real

and personal representatives, under old and under nciv law, p. 293.

Purchase-moneys go to personal, interim rents to real, representatives,
293 — legal estate formerly went to real representatives, ib. — effect of

CONTENTS. XV

sects. 4 and 30 of Conv. Act, 1881, on descent of estate contracted to bo
sold, 294 — under old law contract revoked prior devise in Equity, 295
— relative rights of representatives depended on vendor's liability to
perform contract, ib. — conversion, 296 et seq. — subsequent events im-
material, 300 — rescinding or abandonment of contract, ib. — estate con-
tracted to be sold, how affected by devise, 301 — 1 Viet. c. 26.. 303 —
Mortmain Act, 303.

6. Death of purchaser before completion : its effect on relative rights of his
real and personal representatives, under old and under new law, p. 303.

Such rights depended on his liability to perform contract, 303 et seq. —
claim of real representatives on personal estate, 305 — relative rights of
heir and devisee, 306 — election, ib. — devisee's right to have purchase-
money found, ib. — conveyance revoked will, when, ib. — devise of land
contracted for, &c., 307 — re-publication, ib. -1 Viet. c. 26.. 308 — pur-
chase of fee by termor, 310 — merger, ib.

7. Effect of contract under various special cases, p. 311.

Sale or purchase by mortgagee, 311 — equitable purchaser of lease, ib. —
lessor buying underlease, 312 — joint tenancy, ib. — dower, ib. — legacy
duty, 313 — succession duty, 314 — cases on the Succession Duty Act, 316.

CHAPTEE VIII.

AS TO THE ABSTRACT.

1. General matters relating to the abstract, p. 319.

Purchaser's right to, and to retain, 319 — where he buys a mere contract
for sale, ib. — who pays for, 320 — on sales to railway company, ib. —
charges for copy, ib.

2. When it is perfect; — vjhat it must contain and show, p. 321.

When perfect, 321 et seq. — should state consent of necessary parties, 322 —
who has legal estate, ib. — showing future title insufficient, 323 — incum-
brances, ib. — conveyance delayed, 324 — tenancy in tail, 325.

3. What should be furnished in various cases, p. 326.

On purchase by tenant in common, &c., 326 — of allotment, ib. — land
taken in exchange, ib. et seq. — when taken from a charity, 328 — estate

exonerated from tithes by exchanges, 329 — attendant terms, ib.

enfranchised copyholds, 330 — leaseholds, ib. — sales under Settled Land
Act, 332 — of shares in mines, ib. — of railway shares, 332 — or pews,

333 — must go back, how far, 334 et seq. — on sale of advowson, ib. of

a reversionary interest, 335 — of an old term, ib. — of tithes, 336 — rule
where estate is merely equitable, ib.

XVI CONTENTS.

4. Its preparation, contents, and delivery, p. 337.

It should commence -with what document, 337 et seq. — commencement
need not be a document, 340 — should be continued regularly, 340 — all
documents affecting legal estate should be abstracted, 341 — statements
of pedigree, ib. — documents evidencing immaterial or satisfied equities,
ib. et seq. — Drummond v. Tracey, 343 et seq. — liability of vendor's
solicitor for suppressing incumbrance, 344 — loss of deeds, 345 — should
notice all charges, ib. — and be accompanied by what documents, &c.,
ib. — counsel may be consulted as to compilation of, 34G — should be
copied legibly, '&c., 346 — non-delivery of, ib. — abstract of title to estate
with registered title, 347.

5. Its examination and perusal, p. 348.

When to be compared with deeds, 348— consulting counsel, ib. — as to
value of old opinions in favour of a title, ib. — acceptance of title shown
by, 350 — as to disclosure of effects where one solicitor employed by both
parties, ib.

6. Verification of the abstract, p. 350.

What evidence is requisite in proof of documents and facts, 351 — proof of
private Acts, ib. — of awards, ib. — of copyhold assurances, ib. — of deeds,
353— recitals of deeds, when evidence, 354 — proof made conclusive under
statutes, 355 — acknowledged deed, 356 — fines, ib. — recoveries, ib. — cer-
tified copies, 357 — public documents, ib. — reputation, 358 — proof under
Ernes and Recoveries Act, ib. — of grant from Crown, 359 — of proceed-
ings at Law and in Equity, ib. — in Bankruptcy, ib. — of awards under
Copyhold Enfranchisement Act, 360 — orders in lunacy, 361 — as to
notarial acts, ib. — as to parochial registers, 362 — proof of will, ib. et scq.
• — documents to be produced as negative evidence, 364 — deficiencies in
proof of documents, supplied by presumption, 365 et seq. — no presump-
tion of certain forms required by Law, 370 — general rule of presump-
tions, 371 — as to recitals being evidence under V. & P. Act, 1874, ib.—
under Conv. Act, 1881, ib. — evidence of matters of fact, 372 et seq—
negative evidence, &c., ib. — how far vendor must answer inquiries, 373
— as to adverse notice, not acted on, 374 — proof of will in Equity, ib.—
confidential communications, ib. — negative evidence, 375 — will of sur-
viving trustee or mortgagee, ib. — intestacy, 376 — statutory declaration,
377_want of proof of material facts, supplied by presumption, ib. et
Seq.—&s to identity of parcels, 378— of individuals, ib.— of seisin, ib.—
as to strips of waste, 379— of intestacy, 380— of descent, ib.— of legiti-
macy, 381— of marriage, 383 et seq.— of death, 385 et seq.—oi survivor-
ship, 390 — of failure of issue, ib. et scq. — of woman being past child-
bearing, 391— matters of pedigree, how proved by registers, 392— by

CONTENTS. XV11

declarations, &c., 393 — ante litem motam, 396 — recitals, 397 — land tax,
redemption of, 398— tithes, law respecting, under 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 100
. . 399 et seq. — tithes, how affected by Statute of Limitations, 403 —
Nature of title under Prescription Act, ib. — as to claims of light, 404 —
whether lost by enlargement or alteration, 405 — as to the extent to
which the right may be claimed, 407 — on sale of two adjoining tene-
ments by owner of both, 408 — as to easements other than light, 410 —
rights of way, public or private, 411 — way of necessity, 412 — how
private right may be lost, 413 — as to right of watercourse, 414 et seq.
— distinction between natural and artificial watercourses, 417 — as to
canals, 418 — as to ownership of bed of stream, 419 — as to right of
lateral support, ib. — when right of action accrues, 421 — as to right of
support for surface, ib. — railway company has none, 423 — rights of
common and profits a prendre, 424 — rights of fishery, 426 — right to get
coal, &c., 428 — right of sole pasturage, 429 — period for which possession
must be proved, ib. — enjoyment must be uninterrupted and as of right,
430 — except as to light, 431 — what is interruption, 432 — title by pos-
session under 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27 .. 432 et seq. — what is land within the
statute, 433 — what is rent, ib. — savings for disabilities, 434 — right
accrues when, 435 — in cases of express trust, 437 — in cases of fraud,
440 — charities within the Act, ib. — entry not possession, 441 — tenancy
at will, 442 — tenancy from year to year, 444 — right of action saved by
acknowledgment, ib. — possession of one joint tenant does not save
right of the other, 446 — when time begins to run in certain specified
cases, 446 et seq. — against remainderman, 446 — under lease in writing,
447 — against married woman, 448 — against remainders on estate tail, ib.
— against equity of redemption, 451 — against corporation sole, 452 —
against advowson, ib. — for recovery of money charged on land, 453 —
what are suits for, 455 — what is sufficient payment, ib. — what is
sufficient acknowledgment, 458 — arrears of rent, &c., 459 — purchaser
must accept title depending on statute, 462 — possession under Act bars
right, not remedy, 463 — operation of, against series of trespassers, 464
— rent extinguished by non-payment, 466 — operation of Act as to
copyholds, 467 — adverse possession as against the Crown, ib. — as to
purchase of foreclosed property, 468.

CHAPTEE IX.

AS TO THE PKODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DEEDS.

1. As to the time, place for, and expenses of production, p. 470.
Vendor bound to produce deeds, 470— where to be produced, ^.—ex-
penses, 471— notice of place, ib.— deeds producible only under covenant,
472 — grants from Crown, ib. — instruments on record, i b.— examination
of deeds before perusal of title, ib.— effect of, 409.

XV111 CONTENTS.

2. Production of deeds, who may compel, p. 473.

Owner of undivided share, 473 — of estate held under common title, ib. —
right of legal tenant for life, ib. — remainderman, 474 — unpaid mort-
gagee, whether bound to produce, 475 et seq. — lien of solicitor on, 47C — •
liability of mortgagee for their loss or destruction, 477 — no right of, to
copies on payment off, 478 — Court Eolls, ib. — statutory right to pro-
duction, ib.

3. Non-production of deeds, how far important, p. 478.
It may be notice of their deposit, 478.

4. Examination of deeds — matters to be observed in, p. 479.

CHAPTER X.

AS TO MATTERS ARISING BETWEEN DELIVERY OF ABSTRACT AND
PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

1. Time, luhen essential at Law and in Equity, p. 482.

Formerly essential at Law, 482 — effect of Judicature Act upon rule of
Law, ib. — not essential in Equity, unless by agreement, or under
special circumstances, ib. — as where vendor incurs liability by keeping
the property, 483 — or the property is of fluctuating value, 484 — or of a
determinable or wasting character, ib. — or is immediately required by
the purchaser, ib. — tendency of modern decisions, ib. — essential for
objections, not necessarily so for completion, 485 — undertaking to
deliver possession, 486 — effect of wilful delay, ib. — of protest without
active pressure, ib. — time for showing title, what is, 487 — time may
be limited by notice, ib. — contract cannot be determined without
notice, ib. — what is a sufficient notice, 488 — time, when held to remain
optional, 489 — may be enlarged or waived, ib. — effect of conditional
waiver, 490 — time for delivery of abstract, how waived in Equity, ib. —
effect of protest, 491—" month," 492.

2. Objections to title ; — negotiations upon and waiver of; — luhen possession
taken amounts to waiver, p. 492.

Effect of negotiations, 492 — solicitor cannot raise objections on purchase
from client which he did not raise on his client's purchase, ib. — danger
of frivolous objections, 493 — of withholding objections, 494 — costs, ib.
— as to requiring concurrence of other parties, ib. — requisition for
judicial construction of will, 495 — purchaser's primd facie right to good
title, ib.- — may be waived, ib. — counsel's opinion, when not binding, ib.
— qualified acceptance of title, ib. — waiver when implied, 496 et seq. —
preparation and approval of conveyance, whether a waiver, 497 — condi-

CONTENTS.

tional waiver, 498 — attempt to resell, ib. — taking of possession by
purchaser, 499 — long retention of possession, 500 — undertaking to
perfect title, 501.

3. As to the general rights and liabilities of a purchaser in possession, p. 501.

Acts of ownership, whether a waiver, 501 — waiver of title, but not of com-
pensation, 503 — modified waiver, ib. — purchaser ejected without com-
pensation for expenditure, ib. — what allowance in Equity, 504 — for
repairs and improvements, ib. — use and occupation, ib. — alteration of
premises, 505 — lien on estate, 506.

4. Vendor in possession, by altering property, avoids the contract, p. 507.

Material alteration of property by, may avoid contract, 507 — e. g. , felling
of ornamental timber, ib. — alterations on estate or failure of considera-
tion, ib.

5. As to entry and possession by railway companies before completion, p. 508.

Provisions of Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 . . 508 — deposit and
bond, ib. — application of deposit, 510 — what is entry, 511 — deposit
where land is in mortgage, ib. — where land claimed under an adverse
title, 512 — unlawful entry, ib. — remedy where possession refused, ib. —
within what period compulsory powers may be exercised, 513 — no
ejectment after lawful entry, 514 — lien on railway for unpaid purchase-
money, ib. — no lien for costs of arbitration, 515 — notice, ib.

CHAPTEE XI.

AS TO SEARCHES FOR, AND INQUIRIES RESPECTING INCUMBRANCES.

1. What inquiries should be made of vendor's solicitors, and of supposed
incumbrancers, trustees, and tenants, p. 516.

Inquiry to be made of vendor's solicitors, 516 — and supposed incum-
brancers, ib. — whether the incumbrancer need communicate his claim
to intending purchaser, 517 — inquiry to be made of trustees, 518 —
liability of trustee for wrong information, ib. — inquiry to be made of
tenants, ib. — reference to occupancy, effect of, 519 — as to undisclosed
easements and restrictive covenants, 520 — as to title deeds, ib. — phy-
sical fact may be notice of a charge, &c., ib.

2. What searches should be made for incumbrances — law respecting
judgments, &c., p. 521.

Official search under Conv. Act, 1882 . . 521— liability of solicitor, 522—
usual searches, ib. — drainage loans, 523 — certificate of search a part of

XX CONTENTS.

the title, 524 — general law respecting judgments, ib. et seq. — judgments
under old law, what they affected, 525 — what they did not affect, 526 —
docketing necessary as against purchasers, 527 — entry in local register,
528 — notice of, effect of, ib. — judgment creditor assisted in equity, ib.
— effect of bankruptcy, 529 — purchaser without notice protected by
legal estate, ib. — effect of judgment after contract, 530 — extended legal
operation of judgments under 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110 .. 531 — extended equit-
able operation of judgments under 23 & 24 Yict. c. 38 . . 532 — under 27
& 28 Yict. c. 112 . . 533 — what are judgments within the Acts, 534 et seq.
—what property affected by, 536— Russell v. M'Culloch, 537—18 & 19
Yict. c. 15 .. 538 et seq. — judgment a charge on unpaid purchase-money,
&c., 540 — not a sale for value under 27 Eliz. c. 4, ib. — nor on an
ecclesiastical benefice, 541 — nor on railway plant, ib. — creditor's ex-
tended rights at Law and in Equity, ib. et seq. — effect of registration,
543 — equitable remedy, sale or foreclosure, ib. — summary order for sale
under 27 & 28 Yict. c. 112, ib. — construction of this Act, 544 et seq.—
cases under it, 545 — Hatton v. Haywood, 546 — when a sale will be
ordered under the Act, 548 — judgment creditors take subject to equities
affecting debtor's lands, ib. — priorities inter se, 550 — remedies under
the new law depend on registration, 551 — under the 23 & 24 Yict. c. 38,
ib. — neglect to re-register, its effect, 55»3 — purchase with notice of un-
registered judgment, how far liable, 554 — local registers, whether
affected, 555 — satisfaction of judgments, how entered up, ib. — judg-
ments obtained in one part of the kingdom enforceable in other parts,
556 — summary of judgment Acts, ib. — what searches should now be
made, 557 — dangers not remedied by searches, ib. — legal execution
where elegit has not been registered, 558 — equitable execution, 559 —
Be Pope, its effect, ib. — in whose names searches to be made, 560 —
general remarks on the present state of the law, ib. — Crown debts and
accountantships, 562 — registration and re -registration of, 563 — satis-
faction of, how entered up, 564 — Us pendens, ib. — what is a, 566 — Court
Eolls and local registers, ib. — bankruptcy, 567— annuities, 568 — re-
covery deeds and acknowledgments by married women, ib. — land
drainage loans, 569.

3. Time for making searches and inquiries, p. 569.
Searches, &c., time for, 569 — unnecessary, costs of, not allowed, ib.

OHAPTEE XII.

AS TO THE PREPARATION OF THE CONVEYANCE.
1. General matters relating to, and the form of, p. 570.

Purchaser prepares conveyance, 570 — preparation of surrender of copy-
holds, ib. — equitable interest, 571 — preparation of, no acceptance of

CONTENTS. XXI

title, ib. — as to separate conveyance of outstanding interests, 572 —
disentailing deeds, 575 — statutory conveyance to railway company,
ib. — incumbrances, how to be dealt with, ib. — distinct estates, &c., 576
— Act for Merger of satisfied terms, ib. — how far a satisfied term
protects a purchaser, 577 — Doe v. Jones, ib. — Cottrell v. Hughes, 578 —
surrender of copyholds, 579.

2. As to the parties, p. 580.

Who must be, 580 — judgment creditors, how far, ib. — in case of sub-sale,
581 — unnecessary parties, ib. — rale by mortgagee, 582 — by mortgagor,
ib. — bankrupt, when a party, 583— dowress, ib. — assignment of term,
whether a sufficient bar of dower, ib. — effect of mortgage on right to,
584 — dower, how far a subject for compensation, ib. — concurrence of
dower trustee in conveyance, whether it can be required, 585 — Dower
Act, what it does and does not extend to, 586 — whether husband should
concur in conveyance by wife of her separate estate, 587 — or where
wife is a bare trustee, ib. — construction of M. W. P. Act as to married
women trustees, 588 — as to the arrangement and description of the
parties, 589 — admittance of one trustee on purchase of copyholds, ib.

3. As to the recitals, p. 589.

Object of, 589 — in disentailing assurances, 590 — in a release of claims,
591 — commencement and frame of, 592 et seq. — their effect on operative
part of deed, 594 — of vendor's title, 595 — of written agreement, ib. — of
objections, in deed of confirmation, 596.

4. .4s to the consideration, words of conveyance, and parcels, p. 596.

Consideration to be truly stated for stamp duty, 597 — fixtures, timber,
&c., ib. — chattels passing by delivery, ib. — recital of sale, ib. — appor-
tionment of consideration, ib. — on sale to sub-purchaser, 598 — on sale
by retiring to continuing partner, ib. — on sale of goodwill, 599 — stock
or annuity consideration, ib. — compensation, on sale to railway com-
pany, ib. — operative words, 600 — on sale by a corporation, ib. — words
of conveyance by trustees, ib. — parcels, how to be described, ib. —
reference to a plan, 601 — on sale of land adjoining highway, 602 —
reference to occupancy, ib. — "falsa demonstratio non nocet,"ib. — contract
not evidence to explain conveyance, 603 — description on surrender of
copyholds, 604 — on sale of mines, ib. — of reversions, ib. — general
words implied, 605 — fixtures, 606 — easements, 608 — when grant or
reservation implied, ib. — continuous and discontinuous, no distinction
between, 610 — effect of general words being implied, 611 — right to be
reserved must be expressly mentioned, ib. — what may be subject of
reservation, 612 — new easements, how created, ib. — deeds, 613 — rever-
sion and estate clause, ib. — estate clause, ib. — dower uses, ib.

XXli CONTENTS.

5. As to the covenants, p. 614.

Covenants for title, 614 — solicitor's liability respecting, ib. — implied by
Conv. Act, 615 — how constituted, ib. — covenants by beneficial owner,
ib. — on sale by Court or trustees, 617 — on sale to railway company, 618
— by tenants for life, 619 — by husband and wife, 620 — vendor of lease-
holds, 621 — by vendors of partial interest, ib. — by fiduciary vendors,
622 — by incurnbrancer releasing, 623 — by bankrupt joining in sale by
his trustee, 624 — by joint tenants and tenants in common, ib. — by
Crown, ib. — parties interested in purchase-money, ib. — against known
defect, 625 — for indemnity, ib. — for production of deeds, 626 — acknow-
ledgment under Conv. Act, 627 — with whom vendor covenants, 628—
mutual covenants on sale in lots, ib. — purchaser's covenants with
vendor, ib. — on purchase of equity of redemption, 629 — of a reversion,
ib. — of leaseholds, ib. — as to indemnity by purchaser of bankrupt's
leaseholds, ib. — on sale of leaseholds by executors, 630 — indemnity for
vendor's liabilities, 631 — covenant on purchase of minerals, 634 — in
consideration of annuity, ib. — purchaser not executing, yet bound in
Equity by covenants, ib. — what covenants proper, decided on Y. and P.
summons, 635 — "give" or "grant" implies no covenant, ib. — "demise"
implies a covenant for title, 636 — covenants implied when, ib. — covenant
for title, not an estoppel, ib.

6. As to draft and engrossment, p. 637.

Perusal of draft, 637 — alterations in draft should be communicated, 638
— engrossment, ib. — belongs to purchaser, ib. — executed, and then
contract rescinded, ib. — what is good delivery of a deed, 639.

YOLTTME II.
CHAPTEE XIII.

AS TO MATTERS RELATING TO THE COMPLETION OF THE PURCHASE.

1. The execution of the conveyance by married women, &c. ; conveyance of
trust estates under the Trustee Acts, p. 641.

Yendor must convey in person, 641 — assurances by married women, under
the old law, 642 — general doctrine of the separate estate, 643 — acknow-
ledgment, how taken, and general rules respecting, 645 — assurances of
a married woman's copyholds, 648— her reversionary interests, ib. — her
terms of years, 649 — concurrence of husband when dispensed with, ib.
— Malins' Act, 651 — assurances by married women, under M. W. P.
Act, 1882 . . 652 — assurances by executors, ib. — by promoters of public
undertakings to themselves, 653 — by trustees^ ib. — by mortgagees, 654

CONTENTS. XX111

— vesting orders under Trustee Acts, 655 et se</. — effect of sect. 30 of
Conv. Act, 659 — execution of instruments by nominee of Court, 660 —
escheat, 661 — stamps on vesting orders, ib. — vendor not a trustee
•within the Act, ib. — conveyance of lands on death of vendor, before
completion under Conv. Act, 663 — power of legal personal representa-
tives to convey under V. & P. Act, and Conv. Act, 664.

2. As to the discharge of incumbrances, p. 665.

Vendor liable for, until conveyance executed, 665 — retention of, out of
purchase-money, 666 — discharge of, under Conv. Act, ib. — succession
duty, 667 — on sale under S. L. Act, 669 — on timber, ib. — on sale by
trustees as apparent owners beneficially, ib. — quietus, 670 — L. C. C.
Act, 1845, ib.

3. As to the purchaser's liability to see to the application of trust purchase-
money, p. 670.

Statutory powers of giving receipts, 670 — Lord St. Leonards' Act, ib. —
Lord Cran worth's Act, ib. — Conv. Act, 671 — difference between their
provisions, ib. — purchaser's liability in ordinary cases tested by inten-
tion of author of trust, semble, 672 — as expressed or implied, ib. — how
implied, 673 — how not implied, 674 — subsequent events immaterial,
675 — cases where sale itself is a breach of trust, 677 — and purchaser
has notice that the sale is unauthorised, 679 — voluntary conveyance to
beneficial devisee, ib. — sale to provide for deficiency in personal estate,
680 — purchaser when entitled to evidence of sale being in due rotation,
ib. — purchase-money is payable to executor of vendor on his death,
681 — surviving trustees, when able to sell, ib. — continuing trustee
where no new trustee appointed, ib. — disclaimer by trustee extinguishes
powers, ib. — trustee irregularly appointed, 682 — CooJce v. Crawford, ib.
— when surviving trustee can transfer the trust, ib. — effect of Conv.
Act, 684 — all trustees should join in the receipt, ib. — trustees ap-
pointed by Court, 687 — power of trustees in cases of breach of trust to
sell or release, ib. — power in case of unauthorised purchase, 688 —
power to vary securities, 689 — whether as mortgagees they can release
without receiving purchase-money, ib. — Trustees' Relief Act, payment
into Court, under, 690 — application of purchase-money in payment of
charges, ib. — distinction where estate is intended to be continuing
security for legacy and where immediate sale is intended, 691 — gift of
residue, ib. — testamentary charge of debts, how created, 692 — executors
can sell, when, 693 — where there is mere charge of debts, 694 — lapse
of time does not destroy power of sale, ib. — Lord St. Leonards' Act,
sect. 16 . . 695 — sects. 14, 15 . . 696 — whether beneficial devisee can sell

CONTENTS.

under, 697 — Corser v. Cartwright, 699 — Lord St. Leonards' Act, s. 18 . .
700 — effect of Settled Land Act on sale under change of debts, ib. —
statutes making real estates assets not equivalent to charge of debts,
701 — right of creditor against equitable mortgagee or heir, 703 — receipt
under power of attorney, ib. — under L. C. C. Act, on sale of superfluous
lands, ib.

4. Amount payable in respect of purchase-money) how increased or
diminished, p. 704.

Purchase-money fixedjby arbitration, 704 — under L. C. 0. Act, 705 — provi-
sions of, as to arbitration, 706— increased by interest, rate of, 708 — when

• payable in cases of delay, ib. — on statutory purchase, 711 — right to
interest, how affected by wasting of particular estate, 712 — on valuation
of timber or fixtures, 713 — effect of appropriation of purchase-money,
716 — what is a sufficient appropriation of the purchase-money to relieve
the purchaser from payment of interest, 717 — express agreement to pay
interest, 719 — De Visme v. De Visme, 720 — later decisions, effect of, 722
— "wilful default," meaning of, 723 — conclusions to be drawn from
recent cases, 724 — delay from adverse claim, 726 — acquiescence, 727 —
deposit, ib. — quantity, ib. — variations in quality, 732 — purchase-money,
how diminished, ib. — by proceeds of estate received by vendor, ib.—
deteriorations, 733 — abatement in respect of original defects, 735 — for
deficiency in quantity, 'ib. — effect of expressions "more or less," or
" thereabouts," &c., 736 — Cordingley v. Cheeseborough, ib. — difference
in quality, 738 — interest on abatement, 739 — loss or gain on investment
of purchase-money, ib. — summary of law of compensation, ib. — in the
absence of condition, ib. — where condition excludes compensation, 740
• — where condition provides for it, ib.

5. As to execution by the parties, p. 741.

6. To whom, and how, purchase-money should be paid, p. 742.

Old law, 742 — present law, ib. — to trustees, 743 — Conv. Act, s. 56, does
not apply to, 745 — liability of trustees inter se, ib. — to agents, 746 — by
cheque, 747 — to joint vendors, ib. — where sale is made under power of
attorney, 748 — on sale in bankruptcy, ib. — lien of third party, ib. —
Trustees' Relief Act, 749 — sale to railway companies, 750 — application
of deposited moneys under the 69th section of L. C. C. Act, 750 — appor-
tionment as between tenant for life and remainderman, 754 — what
evidence necessary on application for payment out of Court, 757 — who
are persons absolutely entitled, 758 — service on incumbrancers, 759 —
re-investment, 760 — interest, 762.

CONTENTS. XXV

7. As to purchaser's right to deeds, attested copies, &c., p. 762.

Purchaser's right to deeds, &c., 762 — on purchase of only part of estate,
ib. — vendor not entitled to retain deeds because he is under a covenant
to produce them, 763 — where the sale is under a trust for sale in a
settlement, ib. — liability of mortgagee settling several mortgages by a
single deed, 764 — negative evidence, ib. — attested copies, ib. — covenant
for production, 765 — absence of documents should be explained, 766.

8. Matters necessary to ensure the fall effect of the executed conveyance ; —
registration, enrolment, &c., p. 767.

Eegistration in Middlesex, 767 — extends to what documents, &c., ib. et
iteq. — what interests are excepted from the Acts, 769 — local registries
superseded, where the land is registered under the Land Eegistry Act,
770 — registration of will, ib. — effect of not registering will within pre-
scribed period, 771 — 37 & 38 Yict. c. 78, s. 8 . . 772 — title marketable if
heir concur, ib. — memorial, its contents, 773 — attestation, ib. — York-
shire Eegistries Acts, 1884 and 1885.. 774 — Bedford Level Act, 776 —
Mortmain Act, ib. — enrolment of assurances omitted to be enrolled,
777 — on sale of land already in mortmain to a charity, 778 — Eeligious
Buildings Site Act, 1868, ib. — lands within the Duchy of Cornwall, ib.
— disentailing deeds, ib. — consent of protector, 779 — entries and enrol-
ments of disentailing deeds of copyholds, ib. — where tenant-in-tail is
bankrupt, 780 — consent of protector, ib. — entry on Court Eolls of copy-
hold assurances, 782 — indorsed notice of conveyance, when expedient,
783 — notice to trustees of purchase of equitable interest, ib. — to mort-
gagee on purchase of equity of redemption, 784 — admittance to copy-
holds, ib.

9. As to stamps, p. 785.

Deed unstamped not evidence, 785 — what is "conveyance on sale," ib. —
may be stamped after execution, ib. — duties under 17 & 18 Viet. c. 125
and 33 & 34 Viet. c. 97 .. 786 — ad valorem duty payable, 787 — on what
consideration, ib. — on valuation of timber and fixtures, 788 — on life
annuity or stock, 789 — assurances to friendly societies, 790 — building
leases, 791 — scale of duties under 33 & 34 Viet. c. 97.. 792 — commis-
sioners may determine proper amount, ib. — certain conveyances ex-
empted from increased duty, ib. — vesting orders, 793 — apportionment
of consideration, ib. — duty on sub-sale, ib. — none on deed of confirma-
tion, 794 — on collateral deeds, ib. — and duplicate, ib. — copies of Court
Eoll, ib. — conveyance by several owners, 795 — deed with double opera-
tion, ib. — matters not involving additional duty, 797 — deed stamp
unnecessary, although ad valorem duty less than deed stamp, ib. —
appropriate stamps to be used, ib. — presumption as to stamps, ib. —
alteration of instrument, 798 — land abroad, ib.

XXVI CONTENTS.

10. As to costs, p. 798.

Of conveyance, purchaser pays, 798 — of execution, vendor pays, ib. — •
getting in legal estate, 799 — of surrender and admittance to copy-
holds, 801 — of lease, 802 — of conveyance in consideration of rent-
charge, ib. — of sale under L. C. C. Act, ib. — of investing purchase-
money, &c., 804 — where there has been a re-settlement since the
purchase, 803 — what is a "wilful refusal" to convey under the 80th
section, 808 — what is "adverse litigation," 809 — costs of service and
appearance, ib. — how costs are apportioned where there are several
companies, 811 — costs under later Act, but incorporating earlier Act
than L. 0. 0. Act, 812 — jurisdiction as to costs not enlarged by Judi-
cature Act, 813 — costs of arbitration under L. 0. C. Act, ib. — additional
expenses if estate is encumbered, &c., 814 — trustee, solicitor, 815 —
taxation of conveyancing costs under 6 & 7 Viet. c. 73, ib. — at instance
of c. q. t., 819 — under general jurisdiction, 820 — under 8 & 9 Viet.
c. 119, ib. — Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870, ib. — Solicitors' Ke-
muneration Act, 821.

CHAPTEE XIV.

AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE CONVEYANCE ON THE RELATIVE EIGHTS OF
VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

1. Vendor's lien on estate for unpaid purchase-money, p. 824.

Vendor's lien, 824 — general nature of, and incidents to, 825 — is not an
express trust within 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27 .. 826 — nor within Locke
King's Act, 827 — but is within the Amendment Act, ib.— is assignable
by parol, 828 — marshalling for, ib. — how lost or waived, 829 — pre-
sumable intention either way may be rebutted, 832 — lien, how lost as
against third parties, 833 — none implied in favour of disqualified parties,
ib. — is protection against purchaser's judgment creditors, 834 — illegal
contract, ib. — on sale to railway company, 835 — how enforced, ib. —
against railway company, 836.

2. Whether the vendor has any remedy if estate has been sold at an under-
value, or more has been conveyed than was intended, p. 837.

Not for mistake as to extent or value of property, 837 — or extent of his
interest, ib. — aliter, if property not intended to be dealt with is con-
veyed, 838 — or if being ignorant or distressed he sell at undervalue, 840
— general rule as to distress, 841 — inadequacy of consideration, ib. —
mutual ignorance, 842 — uncertain amount of purchase-money, ib. —
want of professional advice, 843 — what relief formerly given on sales
of reversionary interests, 844 — what interests were reversionary within

CONTENTS. XXV11

the rule, ib. — King v. Hamlet, 846 — family arrangements not within
the rule, 847 — adequacy of consideration, how determined, 849 — change
made by 31 Yict. c. 4 . . 850 — effect of the Act, 851 — sale fraudulent as
against tenant-in-tail, set aside at suit of remainderman, 852 — terms
of relief, 853 — acquiescence and confirmation, 855 — distinction between
the right and the remedy, ib. — conveyance, when reformed in Equity,
856 — preservation of estate pendente lite, ib. — illegal, motive for pur-
chase, ib. — powers of Divorce Court to rectify marriage settlements,
857.

3. Vendor's riylits of pre-emption under Lands Clauses Consolidation

Act, 1845, p. 857.

Provisions of Act in respect of superfluous lands, 857 — sale must be
absolute, 858 — test of land being superfluous, ib. — cases where right
of re-purchase arises, ib. — adjoining owner may acquire title under
Stat. of Lim., 859 — cases where the right does not arise, ib. — what is a
"town," 860 — what is land "used for building purposes," 861 — who
are " adjoining owners," ib.

4. Vendor's remedies at Law and in Equity on purchaser's covenants, p. 862.

Covenants classified, 862 — distinction between affirmative and negative,
ib. — true principle of negative covenants running with land, 863 —
instances of negative covenants running, 864 — not affected by rule
against perpetuities, 865 — burden of affirmative covenants never runs,
ib. — benefit of covenants made with owner of land, ib. — restrictive
covenants on sale of building estate, ib. — principle of these cases, 866 —
constructive notice of covenant, sufficient, 868 — remedy upon, 869 —
how far affected by acquiescence, 870 et seq. — covenants offending
against rule of perpetuities, 875 — covenants for title and production,
876 — liability on, how affected by bankruptcy, 877 — not affected by
alienation, ib.

5. Purchaser's remedies on vendor's covenants, p. 877.

Who entitled to benefit of, 877 — benefit of covenants for title runs
with seisin, ib. — alienee must claim by privity of estate, 878 — coven-
antor need have no estate, ib. — in reference to copyholds, 879 — appor-
tionment of benefit of, on sale in lots, ib. — remedy on equitable
assignment, 880 — inability to give legal covenant for production, ib.
— breach of covenants for title, 881 — Statute of Limitations, ib. —
ordinary covenants for title, how broken, ib. — meaning of common
expressions in, 884 — covenants against known defects, 886 — for further
assurance, 887 — covenants for title, how usually restricted, 888 — •
classification of, 889 — who may sue for breach, 891 — damages, 892 —

XXV111 CONTENTS.

whether the value of improvements can be recovered, 894 — restriction
on liability of tenants in common, 895 — release by mortgagee, ib. —
action against devisee, ib. — damages when claimable as debt in ad-
ministration action, 896 — not apportioned, 897 — covenants relieved
against in Equity, ib. — vendor's covenants other than for title, ib. —
execution of deed by plaintiff unnecessary, ib.

6. Purchaser's remedy in Equity tinder special circumstances, if title prove

defective, p. 898.

Purchaser with defective title, when relieved in Equity, 898 — fraudulent
concealment, ib. — distinction between rescission and setting aside after
completion, ib. — what sufficient to set aside, 900 — fraud of agent, ib. —
terms of relief, 903 — allowed to follow purchase-money, ib. — action for
compensation not sustainable in absence of condition, 904 — effect of
condition after conveyance, ib. — remedy on condition barred after six
years, 905 — action for damages after conveyance, ib.

7. As to purchaser's right to pay off incumbrances out of unpaid purchase-

money, p. 905.

Purchaser's right to pay off incumbrances out of, 905 — out of money
paid to common agent, 906 — purchaser buying up incumbrances, 907.

8. Purchaser's remedy in Equity if he buy his own estate, or if lands are

omitted from conveyance, and as to further assurance in Equity, and by
Statute, p. 907.

Purchaser buying his own estate, relieved, 907 — whether so if he buy
estate which has no existence, ib. — or which the vendor knows to be
utterly worthless, 908— lands shown to him, or accidentally omitted,
ib. — subsequently acquired interests, 909 — further evidence, 911—
estoppel, ib. — voidable estate, how confirmed by tenant in tail, 912—
indemnity, 913 — fire policies, ib.

9. As to the general rights and liabilities of purchaser under conveyance,

p. 914.

Purchaser's right to rent, 914 — Apportionment Act, 915 — to sue for breach
of covenant, 916 — to re-enter, ib. — severance of reversion, effect of,
917 — purchase by lessee, 918 — use and occupation, ib. — purchaser's
will, how affected by conveyance, ib. — purchase of equity of redemp-
tion, ib. — provisions of, and cases under, Locke King's Act, 920 — the
Amendment Act, 1867.. 923 — Amending Act, 1877, ib. — criticism on the
Act, 924 — law prior to 1877, ib. — conveyance of equitable estates, 925
— conditional conveyance and mortgage distinguished, ib. — damage by
prior act of vendor, 926.

CONTENTS. XXIX

CHAPTER XV.

AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE CONVEYANCE ON THE ADVERSE RIGHTS OF

THIRD PARTIES.

1. Purchaser without notice, protected by legal estate against prior claimants,

p. 927.

If equities equal, legal estate prevails, 927 — purchaser buying without
notice, protected by legal estate, when, ib. — where fraud procured by
stranger, 929 — where fraud is by person in fiduciary position, ib. —
where vendor's title depends on forged deed, 930 — where legal estate
acquired by different title to that deduced, 931 — notice of better right
to call for legal estate, 932 — legal estate got in from unsatisfied incum-
brancer, 933 — no distinction on principle between satisfied and unsatis-
fied incumbrancer, ib. — distinction between tacking and depriving owner
of legal estate of his rights, 934 — best right to call for legal estate is
protection, 935 — rule as to notice extends to further advances, 936 —
endorsed receipt under Building Societies Acts, ib. — defence of pur-
chaser for value without notice, 939 — the doctrine explained, ib. — Lord
Westbury's classification, 940 — effect of Judicature Acts, ib. — relation
of the doctrine to the administrative jurisdiction in Equity, 941 — pos-
session of legal estate not necessary to defence, ib. — Ind, Coope & Co.
v. Emmerson, ib.

2. Purchaser ivith mere equitable title is postponed to prior equitable

claimants, p. 942.

Between mere equitable claimants prior title prevails, 942 — mortgagees
by deposit bound by secret trust, ib. — no priority by notice to owner
of legal estate of land, 943 — premature notice on equitable assignment
of chose in action, 944 — concealed incumbrance thrown wholly on puisne
equitable purchaser, ib. — charities, ib. — purchaser of equitable estate
from trustees postponed to cestuis que trust, 945 — effect of negligence on
priority of equities, ib.

3. Purchaser, hoiu far protected against defective execution of powers ; against
prior claimants who have encouraged him to purchase; and by Statute
in various cases, p. 946.

Belief against defective execution of powers, 946 — 22 & 23 Yict. c. 35,
ib. — against incumbrancers encouraging purchase, 947 — effect of mis-
representation, 948 — of standing by while expenditure is being made
on the property, ib. — reversioners, whether bound, 949 — omission to
take deeds, 950 — effect of negligence as to deeds on priorities, 952 —
protection of purchaser from bankrupt against his trustee, 954 — what

XXX CONTENTS.

arc within order and disposition of bankrupt, 954. — reputed ownership,
955 — purchaser of equitable interest, how far protected against prior
bankruptcy, ib. — protection against judgment creditors, 956 — defects
in fines or recoveries, 957 — and in other cases, ib.

4. As to priority under Registration Acts, p. 958.

Under old law protection against unregistered deeds, 959 — prior registra-
tion conclusive at Law, but not in Equity, ib. — rule in Equity, ib. —
notice necessary to postpone registered deed, 960 — priorities of registered
instruments, inter se, 961 — effect of Yorkshire Eegistries Acts, 1884
and 1885, on rule as to priorities, ib. — purchaser's title, how impeach-
able under the Acts, 963 — priorities under Fines and Recoveries
Abolition Act, 965.

5. As to notice; what it is, how it may be proved, and its effect; of void
or voidable estates, and voluntary or fraudulent conveyances ; equitable
relief against purchaser, ivith notice, 965.

Notice of unregistered assurance or judgment must be actual, 965—
notice to trustees, 966 — to solicitor, is notice to client, ib. — when, by
whom, and how, to be given, 967 — of construction of doubtful instru-
ment, 969 — constructive notice, nature of, ib. — propositions of Wigram,
Y.-O., as to, 971 — negligence may amount to, 972— notice of fact
leading to other facts, &c., 973- — from physical facts, 974 — from posses-
sion or occupation, 975 — from payment of rents, 976 — of late occupa-
tion, 977 — of legal estate being outstanding, ib. — of facts which ought
to have been known, ib. — from deed being executed in unusual way,
978 — from neglect to inquire, ib. — from neglect to inquire for deeds,
979 — condition for short title does not preclude notice of everything on
full title. 980 — cases where purchaser is not affected with notice, 981—
Us pendens, 982 — effect of notice of past tenancy, 983 — extent of notice
from occupation, 984 — none, from deed not forming necessary part of
title, 985 — from ambiguous recitals and statements, 986 — neglect to
examine title deeds, 987 — notice to counsel, &c., is notice, ib. — altera-
tion of law by Conv. Act, 1882, s. 3. .988 — client, how far affected by
notice of fraud of solicitor, 991 — classification of the cases, 992 —
tendency of recent cases to restrict doctrine, 993 — privileged communi-
cations, ib. — who are, and who are not, within the rule, 994 — to whom,
and to what documents, the privilege extends, 995 — effect of notice,
996 — of void or voidable estates, agreements, &c., 997 — Maguire v.
Armstrong, 999 — purchaser can avoid, when, 1000 — purchaser of void-
able lease, entitled by estoppel, 1001 — of fraudulent or voluntary con-
veyances, &c., immaterial, 1002 — 27 Eliz. c. 4, ib. — who are purchasers
within the -statute, 1003 — what conveyances are fraudulent within the

CONTENTS. XXXI

statute, ib. — adequacy of consideration not material, 1005 — assignment
of leaseholds, how far a consideration, per se, 1006 — post-nuptial settle-
ment, when supported, 1007 — conveyance to charity, 1008 — marriage a
sufficient consideration, ib. — doctrine of election, ib. — invalid marriage,
not a consideration, 1009 — distinction between ante-nuptial and post-
nuptial settlements as to parties to sue upon them, 1010 — limitations in
a marriage settlement in favour of collaterals may be supported, when,
1011 et seq. — marriage settlement maybe fraudulent, 1017 — bond fide
settlement by indebted settlor, ib. — consideration, not expressed, may
be proved, 1018 — distinction between creditors' and other trust deeds,
1019 — heir or devisee cannot set aside voluntary deed, 1021 — settle-
ments with power of revocation, fraudulent, ib. — expediency of
inserting power of revocation, 1022 — settlements of personalty not
within the Act, 1023 — purchaser protected by his vendor's want of
notice, ib. — settlements to defraud creditors void under 13 Eliz. c. 5,
1024 — what property is within, 1025 — tests of validity, 1026 — who may
impeach, 1028 — voluntary settlements voidable under Bankruptcy Act,
1031 — on what terms purchaser evicted, 1032 — if estate belong to infant,
1034 — Statute of Limitation begins to run on conveyance by trustees, ib.

6. As to contribution to paramount charges, p. 1035.

Contribution by purchasers inter se, 1035— consolidation of mortgages
extends how far, 1036 — arises in foreclosure and redemption action
equally, 1037 — effect of Oonv. Act, 1038 — effect of common charge
supposed to be invalid, ib.

7. As to rights of third parties, after conveyance in various cases, p. 1039.

Provision in L. C. 0. Act, 1845, for purchase of omitted interests, 1039 —
incumbrancer has no claim against vendor for purchase-money, when,
ib. — conveyance of equity of redemption to mortgagee, 1040 — limits of
the doctrine of Toulmin v. Steere, ib. — mortgagor buying from mort-
gagee may not defeat mesne incumbrancers, 1042 — mortgagee selling
after foreclosure cannot revert to collateral securities, ib. — purchaser
from mortgagee bound by agreement with mortgagor for redemption,
1043 — effect of purchase by judgment creditor of part of lands extended,
ib. — of purchase by one of several tenants in common of manor, ib. —
conveyance determines parol licence, ib. — purchaser of part of rent-
charge may distrain, 1044 — effect of release of part of lands from rent-
charge, ib. — purchaser, when liable for nuisance, 1045 — liability of
leaseholder after sale, ib.

XXX11 CONTENTS.

CHAPTEE XYI.

AS TO THE RIGHTS, UNDER THE CONVEYANCE, OF JOINT PURCHASERS,
AND PERSONS OTHER THAN THE NOMINAL PURCHASERS.

1. As to joint purchasers, p. 1047.

Purchasers joint tenants at Law, when so in Equity, 1047 et scq. — joint
tenant's lien for expenditure, 1050 — liability of tenant in common to
account, 1051 — advantage secured by partner enures to benefit of co-
partners, ib. — partner in speculation must conform to agreement, 1052
— land bought for partnership purposes is personal estate, ib. — where
the partnership trade is merely ancillary to the land, ib.— land of sur-
viving partner when re-converted into realty, 1053 — trust for co-pur-
chasers, how proved against nominal purchasers, ib. — declaration of
trust, by whom to be signed, 1054.

2. As to purchases in the name of a nominal purchaser, p. 1054.

If third persons pay the consideration, a trust results, 1054 — payment
proveable by parol, 1056 — conveyance may be shown to be a mortgage,
1057 — primd facie, no trust results on purchase in name of wife or child,
ib. — presumption of advancement may be rebutted, 1059 — by what
contemporaneous acts or circumstances, 1060— prior advancement,
whether material, 1061 — by what subsequent acts or circumstances,
1062 — election, ib.- — investment of money as part of settlement fund,
1063 — purchases in name of child or wife not within the 27th or 13th
Eliz., semble, ib. — whether valid in case of bankruptcy, 1064 — resulting
trust may be rebutted on purchase in name of stranger, 1065 — purchase
with trust money, ib. — purchase with wife's separate estate, 1066 —
remedies of cestitis qne trust on purchase in breach of trust, 1067—
purchase, when taken to be in performance of liability to settle, 1068—
who are bound by the equity, 1069 — expenditure on settled land, not a
satisfaction of covenant, 1070 — covenant to settle, who may enforce, ib.

CHAPTEE XVII.

REMEDIES AT LAW FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.

1. Purchaser's remedies against vendor, p. 1071.

Vendor in default, purchaser's right of action, 1071 — agents may sue and
be sued, when, 1072 — their powers and liabilities, 1073 — signature by
agent, form of, 1074 — auctioneer may be sued for deposit, 1075 — what
recoverable, ib. — what damages purchaser can recover in action on con-
tract, 1076 — what he cannot, 1077 — damages generally for breach of
contract, ib.— what, on sale of land, 1078— Bain v. Fothenjill, 1081—
limits of the rule, 1083— death of purchaser, personal representatives
may sue, 1084.

CONTENTS. XXX111

2. Vendor's remedies at Law against purchaser, p. 1084.

Right of action in vendor or his representatives against purchaser and his
representatives, 1084 — vendor cannot recover whole purchase-money, if
no conveyance, ib. — can recover title deeds, 1085 — purchaser in posses-
sion, how far liable for use and occupation, ib.

3. Plaintiff, Jww far bound to perform his part of the agreement before.

action, p. 1086.

Performance of contract on part of plaintiff, how far necessary to support
action, 1086 — mutual agreements, when dependent, 1087 — maybe inde-
pendent, ib. — refusal to perform is immediate breach, 1088 — action on
security for consideration, what a defence to, 1089 — deposit, ib.

4. As to the agreement, how affected by parol evidence, p. 1090.

Part performance, doctrine of, not recognised at Law, 1090 — parol evidence
inadmissible to vary contract, ib. — how far admissible to explain, ib. —
Lyle v. Richards, 1092 — in case of collateral agreement, 1094 — subse-
quent acts immaterial, ib. — undated instrument operates from what
date, ib.

5. Grounds of defence at Law, the agreement being admitted, p. 1095.

Original invalidity of contract, 1095 — or subsequent waiver, 1096 — or
release, 1097 — or satisfaction, ib. — or Statute of Limitations, ib. — or
impossibility of performance, ib.

6. Reiiiedy by Mandamus against Railway Companies, &c., p. 1098.
When granted, 1098 etseq. — action of mandamus, 1101.

CHAPTEE XVIII.

AS TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
1. Matters relating to the jurisdiction, p. 1103.

Specific performance, the primary remedy in Equity, 1103 — damages may
now be awarded in Equity, 1104 — only given when a suit for specific
performance would lie, ib. — inadequacy of damages, the principle on
which specific performance is decreed, 1105 — jurisdiction not confined
to contracts for sale of land, ib. — extends to what chattels, ib. — where
the land is out of the jurisdiction, 1107 — vendor may sue no less than
]). c

XXXIV CONTENTS.

purchaser, 1107 — building contracts, 1108 d seq. — contract for sale of
goodwill, 1111 — contract of partnership for yearly tenancy, 1112 — •
against railway company, ib. — plaintiff can now obtain legal and equit-
able relief, 1113 — specific performance, when decreed, although con-
tract may vest estate in purchaser, il>. — the relief is purely discre-
tionary, ib.

2. By whom specific performance may be enforced, p. 1114.

At suit of purchaser or his representatives in interest, 1114 — or of vendor
or his representatives in interest, ib. — contracts under Settled Land
Act by successor, ib. — Commissioners of Woods and Forests cannot
sue or be sued, 1115.

3. Against whom specific performance may be enforced, p. 1115.

Against vendor and parties claiming under him by subsequent title
(except purchasers without notice), 1115 — or under prior title which he
might have displaced by conveyance, 1117 — contract for sale l>y one of
several executors, 1118 — contract for sale by a voluntary settlor, ib. —
disability of married women to contract at common law, 1119 — effect
of Fines and Eecoveries Act, ib. — contract as to separate estate or under
power, 1120 — effect of restraint on anticipation, 1121 — husband may
enforce wife's contract for purchase, 1121 — wife, how far bound after
his death by husband's contract as to her chattels real, 1122 — power to
contract under M. W. P. Act, 1870, ib.— M. W. P. Act, 1882. . 1123—
power of married woman to contract under the Act, 1124 — power to
contract as to land-tax, 1125 — whether wife may adopt husband's
contract, ib. — vendor's contract not enforced against parties claiming
under prior absolute title, ib. — purchaser's contract enforced against

himself and his representatives, 1126.

/

4. As to the parties to the suit, p. 1126.

Practice under present rules as to parties, 1126 — parties to contract in
general, sole necessary parties to suit, 1127 — purchaser cannot join, as
co-defendants, receiver or steward, ib. — or parties claiming adverse
interests prior to the contract, 1128 — person interested in contract, and
bound to convey, not a necessary party to vendor's suit, ib. — purchaser
of one lot, how far necessary to action as to other lot, 1129 — agent or
auctioneer, ib. — death of vendor, effect of, upon parties, 1130 — aliena-
tion of vendor's interest, 1131 — cestuis que trust, when unnecessary
parties, ib. — death of purchaser, ib. — alienation of purchaser's interest,
1132 — purchaser when not a necessary party to the vendor's suit, ib. —
third-party procedure, and by counterclaim, ib.

CONTENTS- XXXV

5. As to how the plaintiff's case may be sustained in the absence of a written

agreement, — -fraud, part performance, admission by defendant of parol
agreement, parol variation of written agreement, p. 1133.

Written agreement when dispensed with, 1133 — on the ground of, 1st,
fraud, ib. — 2nd, part performance, 1134 — principle of the doctrine, ib.
— its limits, 1135 — what acts sufficient, 1136 — what insufficient, 1138 —
application of the doctrine to contracts of corporations, 1139 — change
of residence, whether sufficient, ib. — marriage is not, 1140 — part per-
formance of parol ante-nuptual agreement may be, 1141 — expenditure
by tenant insufficient, 1142 — Mnndy v. Jolliffe, 1143 — retention of pos-
session with verbal notice of intention to exercise option of taking
lease, 1144 — ejectment by vendor after acquiescence in expenditure
restrained, ib. — remainderman not bound by parol contract of pre-
decessor, 1145 — plaintiff how far bound to show precise terms of con-
tract, ib. — separate lots, 1147 — sales by auction and in bankruptcy are
within the statute, ib. — 3rd, admission of agreement, and statute not
insisted on, 1148 — purchaser cannot in general enforce specific per-
formance of written contract with parol variation, 1149 — subsequent
parol variation, enforceable only if part performed, 1150 — statement of
claim should allege performance of condition precedent, ib. — prayer for
general relief under old practice, 1151 — present practice, ib.

6. As to grounds of defence negativing plaintiff's right to specific perform-

ance, except luith a variation of the original written agreement ; viz.,
fraud, mistaJce, misrepresentation, unfulfilled promise, parol variation^
(fee., p. 1153.

1st, Fraud or mistake, affecting the terms of the agreement, 1153 — 2ndly,
fraud, mistake, or surprise, inducing defendant to enter into agreement
misapprehending its effect, ib. — but mere suspicion of fraud insufficient,
1155 — and mistake if relied on must be clearly proved, 1156 — 3rdly,
misrepresentation or unfulfilled promise, inducing defendant to enter
into agreement, knowing its terms and effect, ib. — effect of non-per-
formance by plaintiff of parol representation, distinct from contract,
1157 — 4thly, subsequent parol variation part performed, 1159.

7. As to grounds of defence negativing in toto plaintiff's right to specific

performance; viz., personal incapacity, nature of contract or fraud,
&c., &c., attending its execution; matters relating to the estate, title, or
consideration, plaintiff's conduct, tfcc., after contract; election of other
remedy, p. 1160.

1st, Personal incapacity to contract on part of defendant, 1160 — intoxica-
tion, ib. — personal incapacity on part of plaintiff, how far a defence,
1161 — 2nd, matters relating to the contract, &c. : illegality, 1162 —
interference with rights of a third party, 1163 — inability of Court to

c2

XXX VI CONTEXTS.

execute contract, 1164 — impolicy, ib. — breach of trust, 1165 — agree-
ments for separation, ib. — improvident contract by agent, 1166— agree-
ment for a partnership, ib. — contract containing negative and positive
terms, 1167 — principle of jurisdiction proposed by Lord Selborne, 1168
— contracts between brewers and publicans, 1169 — hardship, 1170 —
breach of trust, when a defence on ground of hardship, 1172 — hardship
when not available as a defence, 1173 — hardship on members of a cor-
poration, ib. — hardship, when ascertained, ib. — mistake, 1174 — fraud,
1175 — duress, ib. — misrepresentation, ib.— -want of mutuality of re-
medy, whether a defence, 1176 — theory of the foundation of the doctrine,
1177 — where vendor having no title contracts to sell, 1179 — where pur-
chaser repudiates on discovery, 1180 — contract depending on condition
precedent, ib. — difficulty on assignment of contract for lease, 1181 —
nominal contractor, 1182 — insertion of penalty, ib. — inability to recover
damages at Law, 1183 — contract incapable of complete performance,
1184 — 3rd, matters relating to the estate: original defects in, ib. —
public nuisance, ib. — public inconvenience, 1185 — destruction of estate,
ib. — 4th, matters relating to the title : want of, considered as a vendor's
defence, ib. — where available, 1186 — impossibility the true ground of
the decisions, ib. — or mistake, 1187 — vendor generally bound to con-
vey part of estate with abatement, ib. — rights of vendor under condition
for rescission, 1190 — no abatement for defective title, 1191 — difficulties
and exceptions to rule, 1192 — indemnity neither given nor taken, 1194
• — vendor's and purchaser's rights as to abatement, not reciprocal, ib. —
purchaser's right to, when lost by knowledge of defect, 1195 — when not
so lost, 1197 — vendor how far bound to make good interest contracted
for out of his own higher interest, 1198 — distinction between rights of
purchaser as plaintiff and defendant, ib. — want of title, where a defence
for purchaser declining abatement, 1199 — several lots, 1203 — benefit of
defence, how lost to purchaser, ib. — immaterial defects in title, not a
purchaser's defence, 1205 — 5th, matters relating to consideration, 1207
— inadequacy of, when a vendor's defence, ib. — on sale of reversionary
interests, 1208 — sale of unascertained interest, 1209 — whether question
of inadequacy excluded by uncertainty of consideration, ib. — failure of
contingent consideration, 1210 — excess of purchase-money, when a
purchaser's defence, ib. — future consideration which cannot be enforced,
1211 — when price fixed by valuation, ib. — 6th, conduct of plaintiff
after contract, when a defence, 1212 — release, waiver of, or delay to
enforce the contract, ib. — what delay in bringing action a defence, 1213 —
conduct of plaintiff, waste of estate, 1215 — ejectment of purchaser right-
fully in possession, 1216 — inability of vendor to perform material stipu-
lation under contract, ib. — or act of forfeiture by purchaser in posses-
- sion, 1217 — election of remedy, action brought and damages reco-
vered, ib.

CONTENTS. XXX Vll

8. As to the proceedings in the action; — viz., payment of purchase-money into
Court, reference of title and proceedings thereon, decree for plaintiff,
conveyance, decree dismissing action, p. 1217.

Purchaser in possession, when ordered to pay purchase-money into Court,
1217 — or allowed to elect either to pay or vacate possession, 1219 —
receiver, 1220 — where railway company has entered into possession,
before payment of purchase-money, ib. — occupation-rent, 1221 — public
body not proceeding under statutory powers, treated as ordinary indi-
vidual, 1222 — injunction against waste, ib. — against exercise by vendor
of his legal rights, ib. — on sale of next presentation, 1223 — reference
of title before hearing, ib. — frivolous defence, 1225 — question of title con-
cluded by decree, 1226 — practice under V. and P. summons, ib. — no con-
tract, ib. — objections to title, what are, for purposes of motion, ib. —
order refused on ground of delay, 1227 — or waiver of title, ib. — order of
reference, subject-matter and form of, ib. — proceedings on reference, 1228
— purchaser need not accept doubtful title, 1229 — meaning of " doubt-
ful title," ib. — practice as to, ib. — various classes of doubts, 1230 —
classification of decisions, 1231 — i. titles too doubtful to be forced on
purchaser, ib. — ii. titles which the Court will force on purchaser, 1234 —
the general practice as to doubtful titles, 1236 — third parties may be bound
under Land Transfer Act, 1238 — questions of title maybe decided under
Y. & P. summons, ib. — outstanding interest, when ground for reporting
against title, 1239 — certificate when absolute, only opened on special
grounds, ib. — where certificate in favour of title, 1240 — fresh reference,
when directed, ib. — dismissal of action, 1241 — fresh objections, ib. —
certificate against title, 1242 — reference back, when directed, ib. —
removal of objections at hearing, 1243 — purchaser's general right of
reference of title, how wraived, ib. — purchaser, after great delay, not
forced to take clearly bad title, ib. — decree for specific performance,
its form, 1244 — plaintiff may take a decree adopting parol variation
proved by defendant's agent, 1245 — may elect to take defective title,
ib. — decree for specific performance no bar to adverse claims, 1246 —
plaintiff not allowed to take decree against his own contention, ib. —
defendant may take decree with parol variations of contract, when,
1247 — decree should direct accounts, &c., ib. — abstraction of subject-
matter of contract pendente lite, 1248 — decree, in vendor's suit, may
direct re-sale, &c., ib. — direction for concurrence of necessary parties,
unnecessary, ib. — as to conveyance being settled by Judge, 1249 —
course of proceedings, ib. — conveyance under Statutes, 1251 — where
party refuses, 1252 — no interest on money refunded on appeal, 1253—
ne exeat, ib. — vendor's remedy for payment of purchase- money, 1254 — ;.„
return of deposit on dismissal of vendor's action, 1255 — saving of legal
remedy, 1256 — writ of possession, ib.

XXXV111 CONTENTS.

9. As to costs, p. 1256.

Costs, unsuccessful litigant generally pays, 1256— cases where general
rule is strictly enforced, 1257 — where enforced with more than ordi-
nary stringency, ib. — when general rule is allowed to operate, 1258 —
purchaser's costs of successful action, deducted from purchase-money,
ib. — where it is modified, 1260 — where the successful litigant has to
pay costs, 1264 — vendor liable, till good title shown, ib. — costs of action
include costs of proper inquiries, 1267 — where the defendant submits
to the plaintiff's demand, ib. — where he disclaims, 1269 — where the
title is perfected pendente lite, 1270 — costs of case sent to Law, 1271 —
mortgagee when refused his costs, ib. — costs on V. and P. summons,
1272 — where the suit might have been brought in the County Court, ib.
• — cases where the title has been held good, bad, or doubtful, on ques-
tions of construction, law, or fact, classified, ib. et seq.

CHAPTEE XIX.

AS TO THE POWER OF THE COURT TO SELL UNDER RECENT STATUTES.

1, The Settled Estates Act, 1877, p. 1278.

Court may authorize sale of settled estates, 1278 — may reserve minerals,
1279 — may authorize dedication of part for roads, ib. — what is a settle-
ment within the Act, 1280 — order for sale, how and by whom obtained,
1282 — difficulty of obtaining consent now provided for, 1283 — in case
of infant tenant in tail, ib. — notice to be given to persons whose con-
sent has not been obtained, ib. — notice, when dispensed with, 1284 — •
consent may be dispensed with, how far, ib. — order may save rights of
parties, 1285 — notice must be served on trustees, 1286 — advertisements,
ib. — evidence required at hearing, 1287 — application of sale moneys, ib.
— Act is retrospective, 1289 — purchaser acquires indefeasible interest, ib.
• — procedure where parties are under disability, 1290 — infants, 1291 —
infant tenants in tail, ib. — lunatics, 1292 — persons of unsound mind, ib.
— married women, ib. — extension of powers of Act by Settled Land
Act, 1294 — cases where Act is still necessary, 1295.

2. Confirmation of Sales Act, p. 1296.

General provisions of the Act, 1296 — Buckley V. Hoivell, ib. — cases and
mode of procedure, 1297.

3. Partition Acts, 1868 and 1876, p. 1298.

Partition Act, 1868, ss. 3, 4 and 5... 1298— construction of them as a
whole, 1299— of sect. 3, ib.— of sect. 4... 1300— of sect. 5... 1301-
power of Court as to mode of sale, 1302 — incorporation of sect. 30 of

CONTENTS. XXXIX

Trustee Act, ?7>.— of sects. 23 — 25 of Settled Estates Act, 185G, ib.—
order may bo inado in the absence of some of the parties interested,
1303 — service of notice maybe dispensed with, 1304 — practice where
notice has been dispensed with, ib. — rights of parties saved, 1305 —
former difficulties where some parties were under disabilitjr, 1306 —
remedy provided by Act of 1876, ib. — present practice, 1307 — infants, ib.
— persons of unsound mind, ib. — married women, ib. — lunatics, 1308 —
suit for partition no longer necessary to give jurisdiction, ib. — sale,
when ordered at hearing, ib. — practice where all persons interested are
not before the Court, 1309 — Court may adopt previous contract, 1310 —
costs, 1311.

CHAPTER XX.

AS TO SALES BY THE COURT OF CHANCERY, OR THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF THE HIGH COURT.

1. As to time for the conduct of and manner of sale, p. 1313.

Sale by Court, how made, 1313 — in administration action, 1314 — before
decree, ib. — in foreclosure action, 1316 — who may bid at, 1322 — who
conducts, 1323 — Court executing trust, cannot anticipate time thereby
fixed for sale, 1324 — sale may be in town or country, ib. — relative
duties of vendors and purchasers prior to, 1325 — preparation of par-
ticulars and abstract, ib. — Court will not knowingly allow defective
title, 1326 — reserved bidding, 1327 — deposit, ib. — highest bidding by
person incompetent, &c., ib. — bidding after estate bought in, 1328.

2. As to the rights and liabilities of the highest bidder after the sale, but
before the certificate becomes absolute ; and as to the late practice of
opening biddings, p. 1328.

Highest bidder not the purchaser until certificate of sale is absolute : his
rights in the interim, 1328 — prior death of, 1329 — subsale at profit,
1330 — opening biddings, ib. — practice of opening biddings now discon-
tinued, except in what cases, 1331.

3. As to the certificate of sale becoming absolute ; and as to the purchaser's
subsequent rights and liabilities, p. 1332.

Upon certificate becoming absolute, purchaser is entitled to estate, 1332
— may apply to pay in his purchase-money, or to discharge incum-
brances, 1333— substitution of purchaser, 1334.

xl CONTENTS.

4. As to the investigation of title, payment and application of purchase-
money^ possession, and preparation and execution of the conveyance,
p. 1335.

Abstract and title, 1335 — costs of reference, 1336 — purchase-money when
paid in without accepting title, 1338 — its application and distribution,
1339 — is legal assets, 1340 — application of, where there are incum-
brances, ib. — deeds should be handed over, 1342 — costs of appearing on
petition for distribution, ib. — investment of, ib. — possession, when pur-
chaser entitled to, ib. — on purchase of life estate or annuity, 1344 — as
to abstract, &c., ib. — conveyance when to be settled by Court, ib. —
executor of lessee entitled to indemnity, 1345 — purchaser may require
concurrence of all necessary parties, ib. — who are such, 1346 — party
refusing may be ordered to convey, ib. — against whom order will be
made, 1347 — party refusing may be declared a trustee, ib.

5. Purchaser's rights after completion, p. 1348.

Purchaser, after conveyance executed, may claim deeds, 1349 — as to
attested copies, ib. — will be protected against all parties to action, 1350
— unless Court exceed its jurisdiction, ib. — order for sale not now in-
validated as against purchaser, 1352 — allowed compensation for mis-
description of estate, ib.

6. As to the practice when the purchaser fails to complete, p. 1353.

Course to be adopted if purchaser refuse to complete, 1353 — if supposed
to be irresponsible, ib. — if supposed to be responsible, 1354 — purchaser
whether allowed to forfeit deposit and abandon contract, 1355.

APPENDIX.

Ind, Coope & Co. v. Emmerson, p. 1357.

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS,

A. & E Adolphus & Ellis' Reports.

Act Acton's Eeports.

Add Addams' Reports.

Al Aleyn's Reports.

Ale. & N Alcock& Napier' sReports (Ireland)

Amb Ambler's Reports.

And Anderson's Reports.

Andr Andrews' Reports.

Ann Annaly's Reports, temp. Hard-

wicke, K. B.

Anst Anstruther's Reports.

Ap. Ca Law Reports, Appeal Cases.

Arn Arnold's Reports.

Ast. Ent Aston's Entries.

Atk Atkyn's Reports, Sanders' ed.

Am. & Fer Amos & Ferard on Fixtures, 3rd ed.

Amer. L. C American Leading Cases, by Hare

& Wallace, 5th ed.

Ann. Pr Annual Practice.

Beavan's Reports.

\. & Ad Barnewall & Adolphus' Reports.

J. & Aid Barnewall & Alderson's Reports.

B. & B Ball & Beatty's Reports (Ireland).

B. & C Barnewall & Cresswell's Reports.

B. & D Benloe & Dalison's Reports.

B. & P Bosanquet & Puller's Reports.

B. &P. N.R Bosanquet & Puller's New Reports.

B. & S Best & Smith's Reports.

B. N. C Brooke's New Cases.

Bac. Ab Bacon's Abridgment.

Barn. C Barnardiston's Reports, Chancery.

Barn. K. B Barnardiston's Reports, K. B.

Barnes Barnes' Notes.

Bat Batty's Reports (Ireland).

Beat Beatty's Reports (Ireland).

Bel Bellewe's Reports.

Bell Bell's Appeal Cases (Scotch).

Belt Belt's Supplement to Vesey, sen.

Benl Benloe's (or Bendloe's) Reports.

Bing Bingham's Reports.

Bing. N. C Bingham's New Cases.

Bitt Bittleston's Practice Cases.

H. Bl Blackstone's (Henry) Reports.

W. Bl Blackstone's (Sir William) Reports

Bli Bligh's Reports.

Bli., N.S Bligh's Reports, New Series.

Br. Abr Brooke's Abridgment.

Br. Ent Browne's Entries.

Br. C. C Brown's Chancery Cases.

Br. P. C Brown's Cases in Parliament.

Br. & B Broderip & Bingham's Reports.

Bridg Bridgman's (Sir John) Reports.

Bridg. O Bridgman's (Orlando) Reports.

Brownl. & G. . . .Brownlow & Goldsborough's Re-
ports.

Buck Buck's Bankruptcy Reports.

Bulst Bulstrode's Reports.

Bunb Bunbury's Reports.

Burr Burrow's Reports.

Benjamin Benjamin on Sales (3rd ed.).

Bl. Com Blackstone's Commentaries.

Blackburn Blackburn on Sales (2nd ed.).

Bray Bray on Discovery. . . .

Blight's H. & W. Bright on Husband and Wife.

Browne & T Browne & Theobald on Railways.

Buckley Buckley on the Companies Acts

(4th ed.).

Burt. Comp Burton's Compendium.

C. & E Cababe & Ellis' Reports.

C. & F Clark & Finnelly's Reports.

C. & J Crompton & Jervis' Reports.

C. & K Carrington & Kirwan's Reports.

C. & M Crompton & Meeson's Reports.

C. & P Carrington & Payne's Reports.

C. B Common Bench Reports.

C. B., N. S Common Bench Reports, New

Series.

C. L. R Common Law Reports, 1854, 1855,

published by Spottiswoode.

C., M. & R Crompton, Meeson & Roscoe's

Reports.

C. P. D Law Reports, Common Pleas

Division.

C. t. H Cases time of Hardwicke, K.B., by

[See Lee.] Lee.

C. t. T Cases time of Talbot.

Calth Calthorpe's Reports.

xlii

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS.

Camp Campbell's Reports.

Car Gary's Reports.

Car. & M Carrington&Marsliman's Reports.

Cart Carter's Reports.

Garth Carthew's Reports.

Ch Law Reports, Chancery Appeals.

Ch. Ca Cases in Chancery.

Ch. D Law Reports, Chancery Division.

Ch. Free Precedents in Chancery.

Ch. R Reports in Chancery.

Chit Chitty's Practice Reports.

Clay Clayton's Reports.

Clift Cliffs Entries.

Co Coke's Reports.

Coll Collyer's Reports.

Colles Colles' Privy Council Cases.

Com Comyn's Reports.

Comb Comberbach's Reports.

Con. & L Connor & Lawson's Reports (Ire-
land) .

C. P. Coop C. P. Cooper's Practice Cases.

Coop. t. Broug. .C. P. Cooper's Reports, time of
Lord Brougham.

Coop. t. Cott....C. P. Cooper's Reports, time of
Lord Cottenham.

G. Coop Gr. Cooper's Reports.

Coo. & Al Cooke & Alcock's Reports.

Corb. & D Corbett & Daniell's Reports.

Cowp Cowper's Reports.

Cr. & Ph Craig & Phillip's Reports.

Crawford & Dix. Crawford & Dix's Abridged Cases.

Cro. Eliz Croke'sReports, time of Elizabeth.

Cro. Jac Croke's Reports, time of James.

Cro. Car Croke's Reports, time of Charles.

Callis Callis on Sewers.

Calvert Calvert on Parties (2nd ed.).

Challis Challis on Real Property.

Ch. Pow Chance on Powers.

Co. Litt Coke upon Littleton (Hargreaves

& Butler's Edn. 1832).

Com. Dig Comyn's Digest.

Coote Coote on Mortgages (5th ed.) .

Cordery Cordery on Solicitors.

Craig Craig on Trees.

Cruise Cruise's Digest.

D. & J. De Gex & Jones' Reports.

D. & L Dowling & Lowndes' Practice

Cases.

D. & Mer Davison & Merivale's Reports.

D. & R Dowling & Ryland's Reports.

D. & Wai Drury&Walsh'sReports(Ireland).

D. & War Drury & Warren's Reports (Ire-
land) .

D. F. & J De Gex, Fisher & Jones' Reports.

D. J. & S De Gex, Jones & Smith's Reports.

D. M. & G De Gex, Macnaghten & Gordon's

Reports.

D. M. &G.Bank.De Gex, Macnaghten & Gordon's

Bankruptcy Cases.

Dal Dalison's Reports.

Dan Daniel's Reports.

Davis Davis' (Sir John) Reports.

Davy Davy's Reports (Ireland).

Dea. & Ch Deacon & Chitty's Reports.

Dea. & Sw Deane & Swabey's Reports.

Deac Deacon's Bankruptcy Cases.

Dick Dickens' Reports.

Dod Dodson's Reports.

Doug Douglas' Reports.

Doug. Q. B Douglas' Reports, Queen's Bench.

Dow Dow's Reports.

Dow & Cl Dow & Clark's Reports.

Dowl .Dowling's Practice Reports.

Dowl. N. S Dowling's Practice Reports, New

Series.

Dr Drewry's Reports.

Dr. & S Drewry & Smale's Reports.

Dru Drury's Reports (Ireland).

Dyer Dyer's Reports.

Dan. C. F Daniell's Chancery Forms, 4th ed.

Dan. C. P Daniell's Chancery Practice, 6th ed.

Dav Davidson's Conveyancing, 4th ed.

Dav. C. Prec. ..Davidson's Concise Precedents,
13th ed.

Duke's Char. Tr. Duke on Charitable Trusts,
Bridgman's ed., 1805.

E. & A Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Re-

ports.

E. & B Ellis and Blackburn's Reports.

E. & E Ellis and Ellis' Reports.

E. B. & E Ellis, Blackburn, & Ellis' Reports.

E. B. & S Ellis, Best, and Smith.

Ea East's Reports.

Ed Eden's Reports.

Eq Law Reports, Equity Cases.

Eq. Ca. Ab Equity Cases Abridged.

Eq. R Equity Reports, 1854-5, published

by Spottiswoode.
Esp Espinasse's Reports.

Ex Welsby, Hurlstone, and Gordon's

Exchequer Reports.

Ex. D Law Reports, Exchequer Division.

Elph Interpretation of deeds by El-

phinstone, Norton & Clark.

Elph. & C Elphinstone & Clark on Searches.

Elton Elton on Copyholds.

F. & F .Foster and Finlason's Reports.

F. B. C Fonblanque's Bankruptcy Cases.

F. N. B Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium.

Finch . . . Cases in time of Finch.

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS.

xliii

Fitz Fitzherbert's Abridgment.

Fitzg Fitzgibbon's Keports.

Fl FJeta.

Fl. & K Flanagan and Kelly's Keports

(Ireland) .

For Forrest's Reports.

Fort Fortescue's Reports.

Fox & S Fox and Smith's Reports (Ireland) .

Freem Freeman's Chancery Reports.

Freem. K. B. . . .Freeman's King's Bench Reports.

Farwell Farwell on Powers.

Fearne Fearne on Contingent Remainders.

Fearne, P. W. . .Fearne's Posthumous Works.
Fisher Fisher on Mortgages (4th ed.).

Frend & W Frend & Ware's Railway Con-
veyancing (2nd ed.).

Fry L. J. Fry on Specific Performance

(2nd ed.).

G. & D Gale & Davison's Reports.

}if Giffard's Reports.

rilb. R Gilbert's Reports in Equity.

11. & J Glyn & Jameson's Bankruptcy Re-
ports.

rodb Godbolt's Reports.

Gould GouldsborOugh's Reports.

Gow Gow's Nisi Prius Cases.

Gale Gale on Easements (Gth ed.).

Goddard Goddard on Easements (3rd ed.).

II. & C Hurlstone & Coltman's Reports.

H. & M Hemming & Miller's Reports.

II . & N Hurlstone & Norman's Reports.

II. & Tw Hall & Twells' Reports.

II. L. C House of Lords Cases.

Ha Hare's Reports.

Hag. Consist. . . .Haggard's Consistorial Reports.

Hag. EC Haggard's Ecclesiastical Reports.

liar. & R Harrison & Rutherford's Reports.

Har. & W Harrison & Wollaston's Reports.

Hard Hardres' Reports.

Hay Hayes' Reports (Ireland).

Hay. & J Hayes & Jones' Reports (Ireland).

Het Hetley's Reports.

Hob Hobart's Reports.

Hodg Hodges' Reports.

Hog Hogan's Reports (Ireland).

Holt Holt's (Sir John) Reports.

Holt, N. P Holt's Nisi Prius Reports.

Holt, Eq Holt's Equity Reports.

Horn & H Horn & Hurlstone's Reports.

Hov. Sup Hovenden's Supplement to Vesey,

jun.

Hud. & B Hudson & Brooke's Reports (Ire-
land) .

Hugh Hughes' Entries.

Hunt Hunt's Annuity Cases.

Hut Button's Reports.

Hanson Hanson on Probate, Legacy, and

Succession Duty (3rd ed.).

Hayes & Jarm. . .Hayes & Jarman on Wills (9th ed.).
Hayes Conv Hayes on Conveyancing (5th ed.).

Hood & C Hood & Challis on the Convey-
ancing Acts (2nd ed.).

Hub. on Ev Hubback on Evidence of Succes-
sion.

Ir. Eq. R Irish Equity Reports, \ 1839—1852

Ir. L. R Irish Law Reports. )

Ir. Ch. R Irish Chancery Re-

ports' J 1852—1867.

Ir. C. L. R Irish Common Law

Reports.

I. R, Eq Irish Reports,

Equity, 1867-1878.

I. R. C. L Insh Reports, |

Common Law. '
Ir. Jur. , . . Irish Jurist.

J. & C Jones & Carey's Reports (Ireland) .

J. & H Johnson & Hemming's Reports.

J. & L Jones & Latouche's Reports (Ire-
land) .

J. & W Jacob & Walker's Reports.

Jac Jacob's Reports.

Jebb & B Jebb & Bourke's Reports.

Jebb & S Jebb & Syine's Reports.

Jenk Jenkyn's Reports.

John Johnson's Reports.

Jon Jones' Reports (Ireland).

Jones, T Jones' (Sir T.) Reports.

Jones, W Jones' (Sir W.) Reports.

Jur Jurist.

Jur. N. S Jurist, New Series.

Jarman Jarman on Wills (4th ed.).

Jarm. Conv Bythewood & Jarman, edn. by

Sweet.

K. & J Kay & Johnson's Reports.

Kay Kay's Reports.

Ke Keen's Reports.

Keb Keble's Reports.

Keil Keil way's Reports.

Kel Kelyng's (Sir John) Reports.

Kel. W Kelynge's (William) Reports.

Ken Kenyon's Notes, by Hanmer.

Kn Knapp's Privy Council Cases.

K. & E Key & Elphinstone's Precedents

(2nd ed.).

Kerr, Inj Kerr on Injunctions (2nd ed.).

Kerr, Rec Kerr on Receivers (2nd ed.).

xliv

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS.

L. & G. t. PI. . .Lloyd & G oold's Reports, time of
Pluiiket (Ireland).

L. & G.-t. S Lloyd & Goold's Reports, time of

Sugden (Ireland).

L. J Law Journal Reports, New Series.

L. J. O. S Law Journal Reports, Old Series.

L. R. A. & E. . .Law Reports, Admiralty and Ec-
clesiastical.

L. R. C. C Law Reports, Criminal Cases.

L. R. C. P LawReports, Common Pleas Cases.

L. R. Ex Law Reports, Exchequer Cases.

L. R. H. L Law Reports, English ard Irish

Appeals.

L. R. Ir Law Report : Irish, commencing in

1878.

L. R. P. & D. . .Law Reports, Probate and Divorce
Cases.

L. R. P. C Law Reports, Privy Council.

L. R. Q. B LawReports, Queen's Bench Cases

L. R. Sc. & D. . .Law Reports, Scotch and Divorce
Appeals.

L. T Law Times Reports, New Series.

L. T. O. S Law Times Reports, Old Series.

La Lane's Reports.

Lat Latch's Reports.

Ld. Ken Lord Kenyon's Reports.

Le. & C Leigh & Cave's Reports.

Lee Lee's Cases, time of Lord Hard-

wicke.

Leon Leonard's Reports.

Lev Levinz's Reports.

Ley Ley's Reports.

Lil Lilly's Entries.

Lit Littleton's Reports.

Lofft Lofft's Reports.

Long. & T Longfield & Townsend's Reports.

Low. & M Lowndes & Maxwell's Reports.

Lutw Lutwyche's Reports.

Lewin Lewin 011 Trusts (8th ed.).

Lindley Lindley on Partnership (4th ed.).

M. & A Montagu & Ayrton's Reports.

M. & C Mylne & Craig's Reports.

M. & G Macnaghten & Gordon's Reports.

M. & K Mylne & Keen's Reports.

M. & M Moody & Malkin's Reports.

M. & S Maule & Selwyn's Reports.

M. & W Meeson & Welsby's Reports.

M. D. &D Montague, Deacon, & De Gex's

Reports.

M'Cl M'Cleland's Reports.

M'Cl. & Y M'Cleland & Younge's Reports.

Mac. & R Maclean & Robinson's A ppeals

(Scotch).

Macq Macqueen's Appeal Cases (Scotch).

Mad Maddock's Reports.

Mad. & G Maddock & Geldart's Reports.

Man. & G Manning & Granger's Reports.

Man. & R Manning & Ryland's Reports.

Mar March's Reports.

Marr Marriott's Reports.

Marsh Marshall's Reports.

Mer Meri vale's Reports.

Mil Milward's Reports (Ireland).

Mo Moore's (Sir F.) Reports, K. B.

Mo. & P Moore & Payne's Reports.

Mo. & R Moody & Robinson's Reports.

Mo. & S Moore & Scott's Reports.

Mo. C. P Moore's Common Pleas Reports.

Mo. Ind. Ap. . .Moore's Indian Appeals.

Mo. J. B Moore's (J. B.) Reports.

Mo. P. C Moore's Privy Council Cases.

Mod Modern Reports.

Mol Molloy's Reports (Irish).

Mont Montague's Reports.

Mont. & Ch Montagu & Chitty's Reports.

Mont. & M Montagu & Macarthur's Reports.

Mood Moody's Chancery Cases.'

Morrell Morrell's Bankruptcy Reports.

Mos Mosely's Reports, time of King.

Mur. & H Murphy & Hurlstone's Reports.

MacSwinney. . . .MacSwinney on Mines.'

Manw Man wood's Forest Laws.

Maxwell Maxwell on Statutes, 2nd' ed.

Mayne Mayne on Damages, 4th ed.

Middleton Middleton on the Settled Estates

Act (2nd ed.).

Morgan Morgan's Chancery Acts, 6th ed.

Morgan & W. ..Morgan & Wurtzburg on Costs,

2nd ed.

N. & M Neville & Manning's Reports.

N. & P Neville & Perry's Reports.

N. R New Reports.

Nels Nelson's Reports.

Nev. & Mac Neville & Macnamara's Railway

Cases.
Noy Noy's Reports.

Owen Owen's Reports.

P. & D Perry & Davison's Reports.

P. D Law Reports, Probate Division.

P. W Peere Williams' Reports.

Pal Palmer's Reports.

Par Parker's Reports.

Pat. Ap. Ca Paton's Appeal Cases (Scotch).

Pea Peake's Reports.

Pea. A. C Peake's Additional Cases.

Pea. N. P Peake's Nisi Prius Cases.

Ph Phillips' Reports.

Phil. Phillimore's Reports.

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS.

xlv

Plowd Plowden's Reports.

Poll Pollexfen's Reports.

Pop Popham's Reports.

Pr Price's Reports.

Pract. R Lowndes, Maxwell, & Pollock's

Reports.

Pask Pask on Registration of Judg-
ments.

Phil. EC. Law . .Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law.

Pitt-Lewis Pitt-Lewis' County Court Prac-
tice (2nd edition).

Platt Platt on Leases.

Pollock Pollock on Contracts (4th ed.).

Preston Ab Preston on Abstracts.

Preston Conv. . . Preston on Conveyancing.

Preston Est Preston on Estates.

Prideaux Prideaux's Precedents (13th ed.).

Prid. J Prideaux on Judgments (4th ed.).

Note. — References to peerage claims, where no
report is cited, n.re to the printed minutes of evidence
taken before the Committee of Privileges, and
printed by authority.

Q. B Adolphus & Ellis' Reports, New

Series.

Q. B. D Law Reports, Queen's Bench Divi-
sion.

R. & M Russell & Mylne's Reports.

R. C Railway Cases.

R. L. & S Ridgeway, Lapp & Schoales' Re-
ports (Ireland).

Rast Rastell's Entries.

Raym Lord Raymond's Reports.

Raym. T Sir T. Raymond's Reports.

Ridg. t. Hard. . . Ridgeway 's Reports, time of Lord
Hardwicke.

Ridg Ridgeway 'sParliamentary Reports

(Ireland).

Rob. Ap Robinson's Appeals (Scotland). '

Rol. Ab Rolle's Abridgment.

Rol. R Rolle's Reports.

Rose Rose's Reports.

Rus Russell's Reports.

Ry. & Mo Ryan & Moody's Reports.

Rop. H. & W. . .Roper on Husband and Wife (2nd
ed.).

Russell Russell on Arbitration (6th ed.).

S. & G Smale & Giffard's Reports.

S. & S Simons & Stuart's Reports.

Salk Salkeld's Reports.

Sau. & Sc Sausse & Scully's Reports.

Saund Saunders' Reports.

Sav Saville's Reports.

Say Sayer's Reports.

Sc Scott's Reports.

Sc. N. R Scott's New Reports.

Sch. & L Schoales & Lef roy's Reports.

Scot. L. R Scottish Law Reporter.

Sel. Ca Select Cases, Anon.

Sh. Ap Shaw's Scotch Appeals.

Show Shower's Reports.

Show. Q. B Shower's Queen's Bench Cases.

Si Simons' Reports.

Si. N. S Simons' Reports, New Series.

Sid Siderfin's Reports.

Skin Skinner's Reports.

Sm. & B Smith & Batty's Reports (Ireland) .

Smith Smith's Reports.

Smy Smythe's Reports. ...

Sol. J Solicitors' Journal. . . .

Stark Starkie's Reports.

Str Strange's Reports.

Sty Style's Reports.

Sw Swanston's Reports.

Sw. & Tr Swabey & Tristram's Reports.

Sand. Uses .... Sanders on Uses & Trusts (5th ed.) .

Scriven Scriven on Copyholds (4th ed.).

Shelf. Tithes . . . .Shelf ord on Tithes (3rd ed.).

Shep. T Sheppard's Touchstone by Preston.

Simpson Simpson on Infants.

Sm. L. C Smith's Leading Cases (9th ed.).

Story Ag Story on Agency (9th ed.).

Sug Sugden's (Lord St. Leonards)

Vendors and Purchasers (14th
ed.).

Sug. H. L Sugden on the Law of Property as

administered by the House of
Lords.

Sug. Pow Sugden (Lord St. Leonards) on

Powers (8th ed.).
Sug. R. P Sugden (Lord St. Leonards) on

Real Property Statutes (2nd ed.) .

T. & G Tyrwhitt & Granger's Reports.

T. & R Turner & Russell's Reports.

T. R Term Reports by Durnf ord & East.

Tarn Tamlyn's Reports.

Taun Taunton's Reports.

Tot Tothill's Reports.

Tyr Tyrwhitt' s Reports.

Taylor Taylor on Evidence (8th ed.) .

Tud. L. C Tudor's Leading Cases in Real

Property (3rd ed.).

V Vesey's (junior) Reports.

V. sen Vesey's (senior) Reports.

V. & B Vesey & Beames' Reports.

V. & S Vernon & Scriven's Reports.

Vaug Vaughan's Reports.

Vent Ventris' Reports.

Vern Vernon's Reports.

xlvi

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS.

Vin. Ab Viner's Abridgment.

Vin. Sup Viner's Supplement.

W. N Law Eeports, Weekly Notes.

W. E Weekly Eeporter.

Wai Wallace's Eeports (Ireland).

West West's Eeports, House of Lords.

West, t. Hard. ..West's Eeports, time of Hard wicke.

Wight Wightwick's Eeports.

Willes Willes' Eeports.

Wilm Wilmott's Notes and Opinions.

Wils Wilson's Eeports.

Wils. Ch Wilson's Chancery Eeports.

Wils. Ex Wilson's Exchequer in Equity

Eeports.

Watk. Cop Watkins on Copyholds.

Wh. & T. L. C. . .White & Tudor's Leading Cases in
Equity (Gthed.).

Wms. Commons.. Williams on Commons.

Wms. Exors Williams on Executors.

Wolst. C. A Wolstenholme on the Convey-
ancing Act (4th ed.).

Wolst. S. L. A. . .Wolstenholme on the Settled Land

Act (2nded.).
Woodfall Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant

(13th ed.).

Y. & C Younge & Collyer's Eeports.

Y . & C. C. C. . .Younge & Collyer's Chancery Cases

Y. & J Younge & Jervis' Eeports.

Yelv Yelverton's Eeports.

You Younge' s Eeports.

Yate-Lee Yate-Lee on Bankruptcy (3rd ed.)

TABLE OF CASES.

Abb — Ada. PAOB

ABBOTT, In re (18 B. 393 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 955 ; 2 W. E. 379) - - 817

v. Calton (22 L. J. Ch. 936) - - - 1265

- v. Darnell (2 Jur. N. S, 631 ; 4 W. R. 314) - 161
v. Geraghty (6 Ir. Jur. 49) - - 159

v. Stratten (3 J. & L. 616 ; 9 Ir. Eq. E. 233) 277, 352

v, Sworder (4 De G. & S. 448 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 235 ; 19 L. T.

0. S. 311) 105, 1210, 1265

Aberaman Ironworks Co. v. Wickens (4 Ch. 107 ; 20 L. T. 89 ; 17

W. E. 211) 507, 1128, 1132

Aberdeen E. Co. v. Blaikie (1 Macq. 461 ; 23 L. T. 315 ; 2 Eq. E.

1281) - 37, 39, 50

- (Tailors of) v. Coutts (1 Eob. Ap. Ca. 296) 865, 1169
Abergavenny (Earl of), Ex parte (19 B. 153 ; 3 W. E. 142) - - 17
v. Brace (L. E. 7 Ex. 145 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 121 ;

26 L. T. 514 ; 20 W. E. 462) 449

Abney v. Wordsworth (9 Si. 317, n.) - - 469

Acker's Trust, In re (9 Jur. N. S. 224 ; 7 L. T. 525; 11 W. E. 182) - 812
Ackroyd v. Smith (10 C. B. 164 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 315 ; 14 Jur. 1047) 605, 612
Acland v. Gaisford (2 Mad. 28) - 221, 709, 732

Acraman v. Corbett (1 J. & H. 410 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 624 ; 4 L. T. 203 ;

9 W. E. 409) - - 1017, 1024

Acton v. Blundell (12 M. & W. 349 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 289 ; 1 L. T. 0. S.

207) - 415, 416

. v. Woodgate (2 M. & K. 492) - - 1004, 1019, 1020

Adairs' Settled Estates, Re (16 Eq. 124; 42 L. J. Ch. 841) - - 1281

Adams' Settled Estate, Re (9 Ch. D. 116 ; 38 L. T. 877 ; 27 W. E. 110) 1279

Trusts, Re (35 W. E. 770) - - 656

Adam's Trusts, In re (12 Ch. D. 634 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 613 ; 4 L. T. 667 ;

28 W. E. 163) - - - - 660

Adams and Kensington Vestry, Re (27 Ch. D. 394 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 87 ;

51 L. T. 382; 32 W. E. 883) 241, 302, 305, 1157, 1273

Adams v. Andrews (15 Q. B. 284 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 33 ; 15 Jur. 149;

15 L. T. 499) - 230, 1044

v. Angell (5 Ch. D. 634 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 352 ; 36 L. T. 334 ; 25

W. E. 139) 576, 1040
v. Blackwall E. Co. (2 M. & G. 118 ; 2 H. & T. 285; 6 Ey.

Ca. 271 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 557 ; 13 Jur. 621 ; 14 Jur. 679; 16 L. T.

0. S. 277) 242, 243, 297, 514, 1108

xlviii TABLE OF CASES.

Ada— Aid. PAGE

Adams v. Broke (1 Y. & 0. C. C. 627) - - 1180

— v. Gamble (12 Ir. Ch. E, 102) - - 12, 643

— v. Hagger (4 Q. B. D. 480 ; 41 L. T. 224 ; 27 W. E. 402) - 229
v. Heathcote (10 Jur. 301 ; 7 L. T. 317) - - 1219

- v. Lindsell (1 B. & Aid. 681) - - 254
v. Taunton (5 Mad. 435) - 685, 1275

- v. Weare (1 Br. C. C. 567) - - 1211
Adamson v. Evitt (2 E. & M. 72 ; 9 L. J. Ch. 1) - 107, 108

- v. Jarvis (4 Bing. 66 ; 5 L. J. C. P. 68) - - - 114

Adderley v. Dixon (1 S. & S. 610) - - 1105, 1108

Addie's Charity, Exparte(3 Ha. 22 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 513; 1 L. T.

O. S. 227, 252) - - 320

Addis v. Campbell (1 B. 262 ; 4 B. 401 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 305 ; 10

L. J. N. S. Ch. 284) 596, 844, 845, 846, 996

Addison v. Walker (4 Y. & C. 447 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 73) - - 475

Adnam v. Earl of Sandwich (2 Q. B. D. 485 ; 46 L. J. Q. B. 612) - 435
Adsetts v. Hives (33 B. 52 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1063 ; 9 L. T. 110 ; 2 N. E.

474; 11 W. E. 1092) - - - 274

Advocate-General v. Smith (1 Macq. 760; 17 Dunl. 14) - 313

Agar v. Athemeum, &c. Soc. (3 C. B. N. S. 725 ; 27 L. J. C. P. 95 ;

4 Jur. N. S. 211 ; 30 L. T. 0. S. 302 ; 6 W. E. 277) - 218

v. Fairfax (17 V. 542) - - 1311

v. Macklew (2 S. & S. 418 ; 4 L. J. Ch. 16) - - 257

Agg-Gardner, Re (25 Ch. D. 600 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 347 ; 49 L. T. 804 ; 32

W. E. 356) - 160, 478, 627

Agra Bank v. Barry (L. E. 7 H. L. 135)- 479, 952, 960, 961, 967, 971,

973, 980, 984, 986, 987

Ahearne v. Ilogan (Dr. 310)- 24, 842

Aicken v. Macklin (1 D. & Wai. 621) - - - 1035

Airey v. Hall (3 S. & G. 315 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 658 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 196)- 1018
Airth Earldom (Hub. on Ev. 668) - - 396

Aislabie v. Eice (3 Mad. 260) - 1260

Alberici, Re (4 W. E, 208) - - 650

Albert Assurance Co., Re, Ex parte Western Life Assurance Soc. (11

Eq. 178 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 166 ; 23 L. T. 726 ; 19 W. E. 321) - 830, 832
Albion Co. v. Martin (1 Ch. D. 580 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 173 ; 33 L. T. 660 ;

24 W. E. 134) 37

Alcock v. Delay (4 E. & B. 660 ; 24 L. J. Q. B. 68 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 498) 263

- v. Sparhook (2 Vern. 228 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 198, pi. 4) - - 693
Aldborough (Lord) v. Trye (7 C. & F. 436 ; 4 Jur. 1149) - 847, 849
Alder v. Boyle (4 C. B. 635 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 232 ; 11 Jur. 591 ; 9 L. T.

O. S. 246) - 207, 214

Alderson v. Elgey (26 Ch. D. 567 ; 50 L. T. 505 ; 32 W. E. 632) - 654
- v. White (2 D. & J. 97 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 125 ; 30 L. T. 297 ;

6 W. E. 242) - 241, 925

- (3 Jur. N. S. 1316 ; 30 L. T. 0. S. 206) - - 485
Aldred's Estate, Re (21 Ch. D. 228 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 942 ; 46 L. T. N. S.
379; 30 W. E. 777) 97,752

TABLE OF CASES. xlix

Aid— All. PAOB

Aldrich v. Cooper (8 V. 394) 562

Aldridge v. Ferae (17 Q. B. D. 212 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 587 ; 34 W. E.

578) - 137, 192

— v. "Westbrook (5 B. 188) - - -1341

Alexander, Ex parte (2 M. & A. 492 ; 1 Dea. 273) - - - 37

v. Crosbie (2 Ir. Eq. E. 141 ; 1J. & L. 666) - 319, 350, 494,

530, 1277

v. Crosby (1 J. & L. 666 ; 7 Ir. Eq. Eep. 445) - - 355

v. Crystal Palace E. Co. (30 B. 556; 8 Jur. N. S. 833 ;

31 L. J. Ch. 500) - - 245

v. Mills (6 Ch. 124 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 73 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 206 ;

19 W. E. 310) - - 88, 1234, 1236, 1238

- v. Newman (2 C. B. 122 ; 1 Lutw. Eeg. Gas. 404 ; 15 L. J.

C. P. 134 ; 10 Jur. 313; 6 L. T. 0. S. 373) - - - 280
Alison, Be (11 Ch. D. 284 ; 27 W. E. 389, 537 ; 40 L. T. 234) - 35, 41,

439, 445, 452
Allan v. Bower (3 B. C. C. 149) - 1145

v. Gomme (11 A. & E. 759 ; 3 P. & D. 581 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Q. B.

258) - - - 414

Allason's Trusts, Re (36 L. T. 653) - - 391

Allcard v. Skinner (36 Ch. D. 145) - - 855

Allcock v. Moorhouse (9 Q. B. D. 366) - 917

Allday v. Fletcher (1 D. & J. 82 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 519 ; 29 L. T. 190 ;

5 W. E. 584) - - - 1067

Allen, Ex parte (20 Ch. D. 341 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 724 ; 47 L. T. 65 ; 30

W. E. 601) - 629

— , Ex parte (7 L. E. Ir. 124) - - 805

-, Re (34 Ch. D. 433 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 487 ; 56 L. T. 6 ; 35 W. E.

218) - 823

- v. Aldridge (5 B. 401 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 155 ; 8 Jur. 435) - - 819

- v. Allen (2 D. & War. 307 ; 1 Con. & Law. 427 ; 4 Ir. Eq. E.

472) 2, 354

Vm (21 W. E. 842 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 839) 1300, 1310

— v. Anthony (1 Mer. 282) 518, 976
v. Ayres (W. N. 1884, 242) - - 871

— v. Bennet (3 Taun. 169) 261, 263

v. Cameron (1 C. & M. 832) - - 1092

v. Jarvis (4 Ch. 616; 21 L. T. 280 ; 17 W. E. 943) - - 820

v. Knight (5 Ha. 272; 11 Jur. 527; 15 L. J. Ch. 430; 16

L. J. Ch. 370) - 935, 950

— v. Martin (5 Jur. 239) 493, 582

— v. Eichardson (13 Ch. D. 524) - - - 905

v. Seckham (11 Ch. D. 790; 48 L. J. Ch. 611) 520, 975

v. Taylor (16 Ch. D. 355 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 178) 137, 409

Alley v. Deschamps (13 V. 225) - 1213, 1215

Alleyn v. Alleyn (Mos. 262) - - 303

Alleyne v. Alleyne (2 J. & L. 544) - - 1062

Allgood v. Gibson (34 L. T. 883 ; 25 W. E. 60) - - - 425

D. d

1 TABLE OF CASES.

All — Ang. PAGE

Allgood v. Merrybent E, Co. (33 Ch. D. 571 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 743 ; 35

W. E. 180 ; 55 L. T. 835) - 514, 836, 1221

Allingham, Ee (32 Ch. D. 36; 55 L. J. Ch. 800; 54 L. T. 905; 34

W. E. 619) - - - 819

Alloway v. Braine (26 B. 575 ; 33 L. T. 0. S. 100) - - 1215

Allum v. Dickinson (9 Q. B. D. 632 ; 47 L. T. 493 ; 30 W. E. 930) - 192
Alsop v. Lord Oxford (1 M. & K. 566 ; 2 L. J. N. S. Ch. 174) - 471
Alston's Estate, In re (5 W. E. 189 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 337) - 366, 757

Alston v. Eastern Counties E. Co. (1 Jur. N. S. 1009 ; 26 L. T. 0. S.

51 ; 3 W. E. 559) - 512

v. Grant (3 E. & B. 128; 2 C. L. E. 933; 23 L. J. Q. B. 163;

18 Jur. 332) - - - 926

Alton v. Harrison (4 Ch. 662 ; 20 L. T. 1001 ; 17 W. E. 1034) - 1026
Alvanley v. Kinnaird (2 M. & G. 1 ; 14 Jur. 897) - 42, 729, 902, 1154,

1156, 1338

Alven v. Bond (Fl. & K. 196 ; 3 Ir. Eq. E. 365) - 43, 1322

Alves v. Bunbury (4 Camp. 28) - - - 359

Ambrose v. Ambrose (1 Cox, 194) - - 1333

Ames v. Mannering (26 B. 583) - - - 457

Ancaster (Duke of) v. Mayer (1 Br. C. C. 454; 1 Wh. & T. L. C.) - 919
Anderson v. Baigent (4 W. E. 265 ; 26 L. T. 237) - - 1088

— v. Bank of British Columbia (2 Ch. D. 650 ; 45 L. J. Ch.

449 ; 35 L. T. 76 ; 24 W. E. 624) - 994

v. Elsworth (3 Giff. 154 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 922 ; 9 W. E. 888) - 1022

v. Higgins (1 J. & L. 718) - 169, 332

- v. Pignet (8 Ch. 180 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 310 ; 27 L. T. 740 ; 21

W. E. 150) - - 330, 578

v. Eadcliffe (E. B. & E. 806 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 128 ; 6 Jur.

N. S. 578 ; 31 L. T. O. S. 213 ; 6 W. E. 655) - - 279

- v. Wallace (3 C. & F. 26) - - 704
Anderton v. Arrowsmith (2 P. & D. 408) - - 893
Andrew v. Aitken (22 Ch. D. 218 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 294 ; 48 L. T. N. S.

148 ; 31 W. E. 425) - 108, 112, 191

v. Andrew (3 Si. 390 ; 4 W. E. 520 ; 8 D. M. & G. 336 ; 25

L. J. Ch. 779 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 719 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 161) - 300,

301, 1240

v. Wrigley (4 Br. C. C. 125) - 673

Andrews v. City Benefit Building Society (44 L. T. 641) - - 574

v. Hailes (2 E. & B. 349 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 409 ; 17 Jur. 621 ;

1 Com. L. E. 1034 ; 21 L. T. O. S. 151 ; 1 W. E. 366) 188

v. Paradise (8 Mod. 318) - - 882

Anelay v. Lewis (17 C. B. 316; 25 L. J. C. P. 121 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

164 ; 26 L. T. 0. S. 273 ; 4 W. E. 286) - - 288

Angell, JSxparte (4 Y. & C. 496) - - 812

v. Duke (L. E. 10 Q. B. 174 ; 44 L. J. Q. B. 78 ; 32 L. T. 25 ;

23 W. E. 307) 231, 232, 237, 1094

Angier v. Stannard (3 M. & K. 566 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 216) - 94

Anglo-Italian Bank, In re (L. E, 2 Q, B. 452 ; 16 L. T. 412) - - 260

TABLE OF CASES. H

Ang— Ard. PAGE

Anglo-Italian Bank v. Davies (9 Ch. D. 275 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 833 ; 39

L. T. 244; 27 W. E. 3) - - 541, 542, 543, 545, 546, 581

Angove, Re (46 L. T. 280) - - 816

Angus v. Dalton (6 Ap. Ca. 740 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 689 ; 44 L. T. 484 ;

30 W. E. 191) - - 420

Anker v. Franklin (43 L. T. 317) - - - - - 145

Annesley v. Ashurst (3 P. W. 282) - - 1325

- v. Muggeridge (1 Mad. 593) 205, 208, 1077

Anon, (cited 6 Ves. 632) - - 54

- (cited 6 Madd. 10) - 80

(cited 3 De G. & S. 419, 420) - - 247

(cited 7 V. 437) - 293

(cited 2 Sch. & Lef. 604) - - - 485

(cited 1 Esp. 116) - 641

(cited Freeman C. 0. 106) - - - 736

(cited 6 V. 24; B. C. C. 158) - 842, 1209

(Freeman Ch. E. 137) - - 977

— (Freeman Ch. E. 107) - - 905

(Moore, 124) - - 887

(20 L. T. 0. S. 60) - 103

(Sug. 105) - - - 1339

(2 Y. 335) - 1329

v. Anon. (22 Beav. 481 ; 23 Beav. 273) - - 382, 383

v. Collinge (3 V. & B. 143, n.) - - 1260

v. Handcock (17 V. 383) - 2

v. Walford (4 Euss. 372) - 1132

Anson (Lord) v. Hodges (5 Si. 227) - - 1255

v. Lee (4 Si. 364) - 279

. v. Towgood (1 J. & W. 639) - 123, 1329, 1344

Anspach (Margravine of) v. Noel (1 Mad. 310) - 497, 1227, 1243, 1258
Anstruther v. Aralbin (6 Mo. P. C. 286 ; 12 Jur. 883) - 1113

Apperton, In re (1 C.. B. 447 ; 3 D. & S. 26) - - 646

Appleby v. Duke (1 Ha. 303 ; 11 L. J. Ch. 194 ; 6 Jur. 189) - 1269

Appleton v. Binks (5 Ea. 148 ; 1 Sm. 361) - 212, 1073

Vm Campbell (2 C. & P. 347) - 1096

Arabin's Trusts, Re (52 L. T. 728) - - 1293

Archard v. Coulsting (6 Man. & G. 75) - - 615

Archbold v. Commissioners of Charitable Donations, Ireland (2 H.

L. C. 440) - 1151

v. Howth (Lord) (1 1. E. C. L. 608) - - - 1137

Archer v. Baynes (5 Ex. 625 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 54) - 264

v. Hudson (7 B. 560; 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 380; 8 Jur. 701 ;

3 L. T. 320) - 43

v. Slater (10 Si. 624 ; 11 Si. 507) - - 362

Archibald v. Wright (9 Si. 161 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 120) - 946

Arden v. Arden (29 Ch. D. 702 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 655 ; 52 L. T. 610 ; 33

W. E. 593) 550, 770

Hi TABLE OF CASES.

Ark— Ash. PAGE

Arkwriglit v. Gell (5 M. & W. 203; 2 H. & H. 17; 8 L. J. N. S.

Ex. 201) - - 418

Anniger v. Clarke (Bunb. Ill) - - 1177

Armitage v. Armitage (3 Eq. 343) - - 384

v. Askham (1 Jur. N. S. 227 ; 3 W. E. 331) - - 800, 1263

Armstrong v. Armstrong (21 B. 71) - - 1055

v. Armstrong (3 M. & K. 64; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 101) - 1096

- v. Armstrong (3 Eq. E. 973 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 251 ; 3 W. E.

563) - - 1163

v. Lewis (2 C. & M. 298 ; 4 M. & Sc. 1) - - 1096

v. Milburn (54 L. T. 247, 723) - 881

v. Waterford & Limerick E. Co. (10 Ir. Eq. E. 60) - 511

Arnald v. Arnald (1 Br. C. C. 401 ; 2 Dick. 645) - - 295

Arnold, In re (32 B. 591 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 883; 8 L. T. 623; 2 N. E.

257 ; 11 W. E. 793) 243, 298, 1099

— , Re (14 Ch. D. 270; 42 L. T. 705; 28 W. E. 635) 985, 1184, 1200

v. Arnold (14 Ch. D. 270 ; 42 L. T. N. S. 705 ; 28 W. E. 635) - 128,

134, 136, 152, 155, 156, 157

- v. Dixon (19 Eq. 113 ; 23 W. E. 314) 299, 1303

- v. Garner (2 Ph. 231 ; 16 L. J. N. S. Ch. 329 ; 11 Jur. 339) 96, 208

- v. Gravesend, Mayor of (25 L. J. Ch. 776 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 706 ;

27 L. T. 282 ; 4 W. E. 763 ; 2 K. & J. 574) - - 93, 541
v. Eidge (13 C. B. 745 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 235 ; 17 Jur. 896 ; 1 C.

L. E. 309) - - 541
v. Woodhams (16 Eq. 29 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 578 ; 28 L. T. 351 ;

21 W. E. 694) - - 13, 947

Arnot v. Biscoe (1 Y. sen. 96) - 108

Arrowsmith, In re (6 W. E. 642 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 704 ; 4 Jur. N. S.
1123 ; 31 L. T. O. S. 243) - - 656

Arthur Average Association (10 Ch. 542 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 569 ; 32 L. T.

713; 23 W. E. 939) - ' - - 1163

Ashburnham v. St. John (Cr. Jac. 85) - 526

Ashbury Carriage Co. v. Eiche (L. E. 7 H. L. 653 ; 44 L. J. Ex.
185 ; 33 L. T. 450 ; 24 W. E. 794) - 20

Ashby v. Ashby (1 Col. 553 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 86) - - - 1122

Asher v. Whitlock (L. E. 1 Q. B. 1 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 925 ; 13 L. T. 254;

14 W. E. 26) 464, 465

Ashley v. Waugh (4 Jur. 572 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 31) - 308

Ashton's Charity (22 B. 288) - - 19, 1351
Ashton v. Jones (28 B. 460 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 970 ; 3 L. T. 49 ; 8 W. E.

633) - - 778
v. Stock (6 Ch. D. 719; 25 W. E. 862) - - 448

v. Wood (3 S. & G. 436 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1164)- 682, 683, 1191, 1240,

1274

Ashwell's Will (John. 112 ; 33 L. T. O. S. 300) - 462

Ashwin v. Burton (9 Jur. N. S. 319 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 196 ; 7 L. T. 589;

11 W. E. 103)- - - 943

Ashworth v. Mounsey (9 Ex. 175 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 73 ; 22 L. T. 0. S.

121 ; 2 Com. L. E, 418 ; 2 W. E. 41) - - 169

TABLE OF CASES. liil

Ash — Att. PAGE

Ashworth v. Outram (5 Ch. D. 939 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 687 ; 37 L. T. 85 ;

25 W. E. 896) - 14

Askew v. Woodhead (14 Ch. D. 27 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 320 ; 41 L. T. 670;

42 L. T. 567 ; 28 W. E. 874 ; 44 J. P. 570) - - 755, 809

Aspden v. Seddon (1 Ex. D. 496; 46 L. J. Ex. 353; 36 L. T. 45; 25

W. E. 277) 634, 862

Astbury, Exparte (4 Ch. 630 ; 20 L. T. 997 ; 17 W. E. 997) - 607, 608
Astley v. Essex (Earl of HI 8 Eq. 290 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 817 ; 30 L. T.

485 ; 22 W. E. 620) - 446
v. Manchester, Sheffield & Line. E. Co. (2 D. & J. 453 ; 27

L. J. Ch. 478 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 567 ; 31 L. T. 0. S. 188 ; 6 W. E. 561) 860
Aston v. Meredith (11 Eq. 601 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 241 ; 24 L. T. 128) - 1308
Atcherley v. Yernon (10 Mod. 518 ; Com. 381 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 209 ;

1 P. Wms. 783 ; 3 Br. P. C. 107) - 306, 307

Atchison v. Le Mann (23 L. T. 0. S. 302) - - 643

Atchley v. Sprigg (33 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 144 ; 10 L. T. 16 ;

3 N. E. 360 ; 12 W. E. 364) - 382

Athenaeum Life Ass. Soc. v. Pooley (3 D. & J. 294 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 127 ;

5 Jur. N. S. 129 ; 32 L. T. O. S. 247 ; 7 W. E. 167) - 943

Athill, Re (16 Ch. D. 211 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 123 ; 43 L. T. 581 ; 29 W. E.

309) - - - 921, 922

Atkins v. Eowe (Mos. 39) - - 1053

Atkinson, In re (2 D. M. & G. 140 ; 16 Jur. 1003) - 956, 981

— v. Anderson (21 Ch. D. 100) - 318

v. Smith (3 D. & J. 186 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 2 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1160;

32 L. T. O. S. 140 ; 7 W. E. 42) - 1006,1120

- v. - - (14 M. & W. 695 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 59) - 1087

Attenborough v. Edwards (3 Eq. E. 124 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 86 ; 3 W. E.

39) - - - - 1174

Atterbury v. Wallis (2 Jur. N. S. 344 ; 8 D. M. & G. 454 ; 26

L. T. 0. S. 318 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 301 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 792 ; 4 W. E.

734) 991, 992

Attorney-General v. Ailesbury (Marquis of) (16 Q,. B. D. 408 ; 55

L. J. Q. B. 257 ; 54 L. T. 921 ; 34 W. E. 261) 314

v. Andrew (Hard. 23) - - 525

v. Backhouse (17 Y. 293) - 978, 984

v. Brettingham (3 B. 91) - - 19

- v. Brown (3 Ex. 662)- - 597, 791

v. Brunning (8 H. L. C. 243 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 379 ;

6 Jur. N. S. 1083 ; 8 W. E. 362 ; 3 L. T. 37) 296,

314

v. Campbell (L. E.5H. L. 524 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 611 ;

21 W. E. 34, n.) - 317
v. Cashel (Corp. of) (3 D. & War. 294 ; 2 Con. &

L.I) - - 188
v. Chambers (4 D. M. & G. 206 ; 4 D. & J. 55 ;

18 Jur. 779 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 745 ; 23 L. T. O. S.

23 ; 33 L. T. O. S. 189 ; 2 W. E. 636 ; 7 W. E.

404; 23 L. J. Ch. 662 ; 2 Eq. Eep. 1195) - 419

v. Christchurch (13 Si. 214 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 28) 710,

711

v. Christ's Hospital (3 M. & K 344) - - - 944

Hv TABLE OF CASES.

Att.

Attorney- General v. Clarendon (Lord) (17 V. 491)

v. Coventry (Mayor of) (2 Vern. 399) 441,

v. Culverwell (cited Hub. on Ev. 769)

v. Dalton (13 B. 141 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 569 ; 15 Jur.

412 ; 16 L. T. 0. S. 530) - 380
v. Davey (4 D. & J. 136 ; 33 L. T. 158 ; 7 W. E,

429) - 19, 441

v. Day (1 Y. sen. 218) 227, 295, 1134, 1148, 1190,

1200, 1330
v. Bowling (6 Q. B. D. 177 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 192 ;

44 L. T. 234 ; 29 W. E. 327)- - 314
v. Drapers' Co. (6 B. 382 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 421 ;

8 Jur. 1060) - - 20

— v. Ewelme Hospital (17 B. 366 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 846 ;

1 Eq. Eep. 563 ; 1 W. E. 523) - 139, 365, 366

- v. Fishmongers' Co. (5 M. & C. 25 ; 5 Jur. 285) - 365

- v. Flint (4 Ha. 147) - 437, 942, 974
v. Floyer (9 H. L. C. 477 ; 7 H. & N. 238 ; 31 L. J.

Ex. 304 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1 ; 7 L. T. 47 ; 10 W.E.
762) - 315, 318

- v. Forster (10 Y. 338) - - 378

- v. Gardner (2 De G. & S. 102 ; 12 Jur. 65) - 777

- v. Gell (3 H. & C. 615 ; 34 L. J. Ex. 145 ; 11 Jur.

N. S. 566 ; 12 L. T. 461 ; 13 W. E. 900) - 315

v. Glynn (12 Si. 84) - - - 778

r v. Green (6 Y. 452) - - 19

- v. Gt. Eastern Ey. Co. (6 Ch. 572 ; 19 W. E. 788) 248
v. Hall (16 B. 388 ; 20 L. T. 230 ; 1 W. E. 117) 20, 974,

978
v. (11 Pr. 760) - 434

- v. Holford (1 Pr. 426) - - 314
v. Hubbuck(13 Q. B. D. 278 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 146;

50 L. T. 374) 296, 1049

— v. Kerr (2 B. 420 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 190) - - 853

- v. Lambe (3 Y. & C. 162 ; 2 Jur. 698) - - 473
v. Leeds (Corporation of) (5 Ch. 583 ; 39 L. J. Ch.

711 ; 19 W. E. 19) - - 417

- v. Littledale (L. E. 5 H. L. 290 ; 40 L. J. Ex.

241 ; 24 L. T. 921 ; 20 W. E. 473) - - 317

- v. London (Corporation of) (2 M. & G. 259 ; 19

L. J. Ch. 314 ; 14 Jur. 205) - - 440
v. Lonsdale (Earl of) (7 Eq. 377 ; 38 L. J . Ch. 335 ;

20 L. T. 64; 17 W. E. 219) - - 419

v. Ludlow (Corp. of) (1 H. & Tw. 218) - - 708

• v. Magdalen College (18 B. 223 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 844 ;

18 Jur. 363 ; 24 L. T. 7 ; 2 W. E. 349 ; 2 Eq.

Eep. 1007) - 19, 20
v. Magdalen College (6 H. L. C. 189 ; 3 Jur. N. S.

675; 29 L. T. 238; 5 W. E. 716) - - 19

TABLE OF CASES. lv

Att. P.A.QE

Attorney-General v. Mangles (5 M. & W. 120; 2 H. & H. 74; 3

Jur. 281) - - 313
v. Mathias (4 K. & J. 579 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 628 ; 31

L. T. 367 ; 6 W. E. 780) 425, 428, 429
v. Metcalfe (6 Ex. 43 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 329 ; 16 L. T.

O. S. 417) - - 313
v. Mitchell (6 Q. B. D. 548 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 406 ;

44 L. T. 580 ; 29 W. E. 683) - 315
v. Munro (2 De G. & S. 122; 12 Jur. 210; 11

L. T. 0. S. 348) 777

v. Newark (Corp. of) (1 H. 395 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch.

270; 6 Jur. 387) 19, 1351

v. Newark (Corp. of) (8 Si. 71) "- - 1337

v. Newcastle (Corp. of) (5 B. 307 ; 6 Jur. 789 ; 12

C. & P. 402) - 1008, 1067
v. Noyes (8 Q. B. D. 125; 51 L. J. Q. B. 135; 45

L. T. 520 ; 30 W. E. 434) - - 314

v. Pargeter (6 B. 150; 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 81) 19, 985

v. Parkhurst (1 Ch. Ca. 112 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 278) - 32

v. Parsons (2 M. & W. 23) - - 467

v. Payne (27 B. 168) - - - 441

v. Persse (2 D. & War. 69) - 441

v. Pilgrim (14 Jur. 1053 ; 2 M. & G. 414) - - 19

v. — - (12 B. 57) - 1351

v. Plymouth (Corp. of) (9 B. 67 ; 15 L. J. Ch.

109) 22,415

v. Portsmouth (Mayor of) (25 W. E. 559)- - 366

v. Potter (9 Jur 241 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 16) - - 673

v. Pretyman (4 B. 466) - - 20

v. Sefton(Earlof)(llH. L. C. 257)- - - 318

v. Simcox (1 Ex. 749; 18 L. J. Ex. 61) - - 313

• v. Sittingbourne & Sheerness E. Co. (1 Eq. 636;

35 L. J. Ch. 318 ; 14 L. T. 92 ; 14 W. E. 414) 835

v. Sitwell (1 Y. & C. 559 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq.

86) - 86, 350, 496, 729, 1149

v. South Sea Co. (4 B. 453) 19, 1351

v. Stephens (1 K. & J. 748; 24 L. J. N. S. Ch.

694; 1 Jur. N. S. 1039; 6 D. M. & G. Ill ;
2 Jur. N. S. 51 ; 26 L. T. 0. S. 189 ; 4 W. E.
191) 118, 948, 976

v. Terry (9 Ch. 423 ; 30 L. T. 285 ; 22 W. E. 395) 419

Vt Thames Conservators (1 H. & M. 1 ; 8 Jur. N. S.

1203; IN. E. 121) - - 412

v. Tomline (5 Ch. D. 750 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 654 ; 36

L.T. N. S. 684; 25 W. E. 803) 130, 358,443

: v. (14 Ch. D. 58 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 377 ; 42

L. T. 880 ; 28 W. E. 870) - - 49

v. (15 Ch. D. 150; 43 L. T. 486) - - 188

„. Upton (L. E. 1 Ex. 224 ; 35 L. J. Ex. 138 ; 12

Jur. N. S. 489 ; 14 L. T. 334 ; 14 W. E. 732 ;

4 H. & C. 336) - - - - 315

Ivi TABLE OF CASES.

Att— Ayl. TAGE

Attorney-General v. Vigor (8 Y. 256) - - - 307

- v. Ward (6 Ha. 477) - 777
v. Welsh Granite Co. (35 W. E. 617)- - - 130

v. Whorwood (1 V. sen. 534) - 1068, 1070

v. Wilkins (17 B. 285 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 830 ; 17 Jur.

885 ; 21 L. T. O. S. 260 ; 11 W. E. 472) 441, 927

- v. Wilson (2 Ke. 680) - 1163
v. (9 Si. 30 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 76 ; 1 Jur.

890) - - 22

v. Worcester (Bishop of) (9 Ha. 328 ; 21 L. J. Ch.

25 ; 16 Jur. 3) - 327

Attorney-General for Isle of Man v. Mylchreest (4 Ap. Ca. 294 ; 4S
L. J. P. C. 36 ; 40 L. T. N. S. 764) 130

Attorney- General of Prince of Wales v. Lambe (11 B. 213 ; 12 Jur.
386; 10 L. T. 0. S. 498) - - 473

Attwater v. Attwater (18 B. 330 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 692 ; 18 Jur. 50 ; 22
L. T. 150 ; 2 W. E. 81) - - 22

Attwood v. Small (6 C. & F. 232 ; 2 Jur. 226, 246) 112, 116, 117, 154, 1112

- v. Taylor (1 Man. & G. 279 ; 1 Sc. N. E. 611) - 708
Aubin v. Holt (2 K. & J. 66 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 36 ; 4 W. E. 112) - - 1162
Aubrey, In re (17 Jur. 874 ; 1 W. E. 464) - - 807

- v. Fisher (10 Ea. 446) - - - 149
Austen v. Halsey (6 V. 475) - - 832
Austerberry v. Oldham Corporation (29 Ch. D. 750) - - - 865
Austin v. Chambers (6 C. & F. 1) - 46, 211

- v. Croome (Car. & M. 653) • 762, 826
v. Guardians of Bethnal Green (L. E. 9 C. P. 91 ; 43 L. J.

C. P. 100 ; 29 L. T. 807 ; 22 W. E. 406) - 273

- v. Llewellyn (9 Ex. 276 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 11 ; 2 C. L. E, 409) - 449

- v. Martin (29 B. 523 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 871 ; 9 W. E. 674) - 681
v. Tawney (2 Ch. 143 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 339 ; 15 W. E. 463) - 241,

485, 1235

Australasia (Nat. Bank of) v. United Hand-in-Hand Co. (4 Ap. Ca.

391 ; 48 L. J. P. C. 50 ; 40 L. T. N. S. 697 ; 27 W. E. 889) - 40
Avarne v. Browne (14 Si. 303 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 30; 8 Jur. 1037) 323, 1239
Aveling v. Knipe (19 V. 441) 1047, 1048, 1055

Averall v. Wade (L. & G. temp. Sug. 252) - - 944

Avery v. Griffin (6 Eq. 606 ; 18 L. T. 849) - - 1120

v. Langford (Kay, 663; 23 L. T. 0. S. 227 ; 2'W. E. 615) 1111, 1113

Avison v. Holmes (1 J. & H. 530; 30 L. J. Ch. 564; 7 Jur. N. S.

722; 4 L. T. N. S. 617; 9 W. E, 550) - - 23, 531, 538

Awbrey v. Middleton (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 497) - - 693

Awbry v. Keen (1 Yern. 472 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. pi. 16)- - 666

Ayerst v. Jenkins (16 Eq. 275 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 690 ; 29 L. T. 126 ; 21

W. E. 878) - - 1009, 1010, 1096

Ayles v. Cox (16 B. 23; 20 L. T. O. S. 4) - 154, 1199

— v. Cox (17 B. 584 ; 22 L. T. O. S. 232) 659, 1348

Aylesford (Earl of) v. Morris (8 Ch. 484 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 546 ; 28 L. T.

841 ; 21 W. E. 424) - - - - - - 146

TABLE OF CASES. Ivii

Ayl— Bai. PAGE

Aylesford Peerage (11 Ap. Ca. 1) - - 382

Aylett v. Ashton (1 M. & C. 105) - 1119, 1121, 1194

Aynsley v. Glover (18 Eq. 544 ; 10 Ch. 283; 43 L. J. Oh. 777; 44
L. J. Ch. 523 ; 31 L. T. 219 ; 32 L. T. 345 ; 23 W. E. 107, 157) - 405,

406, 408, 871

Back v. Andrew (2 Vern. 120 ; Prec. in Ch. 1) - 1057, 1058

Backhouse v. Bonomi (9 H. L. C. 503 ; 34 L. J. Q. B. 181 ; 7 Jur.

N. S. 809 ; 4 L. T. 754 ; 9 W. E. 769) - 421

— v. Charlton (8 Ch. D. 444) - - - 1321

- v. Taylor (2 Pract. E. 75 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 233) - - 704

Bacmeister v. Fenton (C. & E. 121) - - 1073

Badart's Trusts, In re (10 Eq. 288 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 645 ; 18 TV. E. 885) 317

Badcock, In re (2 TV. E, 386) - - - 664

Badeley v. Consolidated Bank (34 Ch. D. 536 ; 55 L. T. 635 ; 35

TV. E. 106) - - 550, 957

v. Vigurs (4 E. & B. 71 ; 2 C. L. E. 1627 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 377 ;

1 Jur. N. S. 159) 880, 916

Baden v. Countess of Pembroke (2 Yern. 213; 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 241,

pi. 3 ; 3 Eep. in Ch. 217) - - 293

Badham v. Marris (45 L. T. 579) - - 404

Bage, Ex parte (4 Mad. 459) - 50

Baggett v. Meux (1 Ph. 627 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 262 ; 10 Jur. 213 ; 7
L. T. 0. S. 41) 10, 644

Baglehole v. Walters (3 Camp. 156) - 102, 103

Bagley v. Searle (35 W. E. 404 ; 56 L. T. 300) - - - 1225

Bagot v. Bagot (10 Jur. N. S. 1169 ; 11 L. T. 437 ; 13 W. E. 169) - 919
Bagshawe, In re (2 De Gv & S. 205 ; 12 Jur. 510) - - 816

Baikie v. Chandless (3 Camp. 17) - - 522

Bailey v. Appleyard (8 A. & E. 161 ; 3 N. & P. 257 ; 1 W. W. & H.

208 ; 2 Jur. 872) - - 424
v. Badham (30 Ch. D. 84 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1067 ; 53 L. T. 13 ;

33 W. E. 770 ; 49 J. P. 660) - 400
v. Bailey (12 Ch. D. 268 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 628 ; 41 L. T. 157 ;

27 TV. E. 909) - - 693
v. Collett (18 B. 179 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 230 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. 313 ;

2 W. E. 216) 642, 712
v. De Crespigny (L. E. 4 Q. B. 181 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 100 ; 19

L. T. 681 ; 17 W. E. 494) - 1098

— v. Maude (7 C. & F. 121, n.) - - 1322

— v. Eichardson (9 Ha. 734) - 313, 518, 976, 984, 1040

— v. Sweeting (9 C. B. N. S. 843 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 150 ; 9 W. E. 273) 239
Baillie v. Jackson (10 Si. 167) - 1314
v. Treharne (17 Ch. D. 388 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 295 ; 44 L. T. 247 ;

29 W. E. 729) - - 1117

Bain v. Fothergill (L. E. 7 H. L. 158 ; 43 L. J. Ex. 243 ; 31 L. T.

389 ; 23 TV. E. 261) - 893, 1078, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1272

Bainbridge v. Kinnaird (32 B. 346; 8 L. T. 447 ; 2 N. E. 5 ; 11

W. E. 608) 585, 1194

Iviii TABLE OF CASES.

Bai — Ban, PAGE

Bainbrigge v. Browne (18 Ch. D. 188 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 522 ; 44 L. T.

704 ; 29 W. E. 782) - - 848
v. Moss (3 Jur. N. S. 58) - 279

Baird v. Fortune (4 Macq. 127 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 926 ; 5 L. T. 2 ; 10

W. E. 2) 429, 639, 977

Baker v. Bent (1 E. & M. 224) - 845

v. Bradley (7 D. M. & G. 597 ; 25 L. J. Oh. 7 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

98 ; 26 L. T. O. S. 160 ; 4 W. E. 78) - - - 848

v. Carter (1 Y. & C. 250 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq. 12) - - 54

v. Loader (16 Eq. 49; 42 L. J. Ch. 113; 21 W. E. 167) - 24

v. Monk (33 B. 419 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 624, 691 ; 10 L. T. 86,

630 ; 12 W. E. 521, 779) 843, 1209

v. Eead (18 B. 398 ; 3 W. E. 118) 40, 54

v. Eichardson (6 W. E. 663) - - 601

v. Sowter (10 B. 343 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 333) - - - 1350

— v. Wetton (14 Si. 426 ; 9 Jur. 98 ; 4 L. T. O. S. 451) - 436
Baldwin v. Belcher (1 J. & L. 18 ; 6 Ir. Eq. E. 424) - - 285, 529

v. Boulter (cited 9 Y. 234) - - 288

v. Peach (1 Y. & C. 453) - - 371

v. Society for Diffusing Useful Knowledge (9 Si. 393; 2 Jur. 961) 1169

Balfour v. Welland (16 V. 151) - 673, 676, 677, 1273

Ball v. Bridges (22 W. E. 552 ; 30 L. T. 430) - 264

• v. Burnford (Ch. Free. 113 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 354, pi. 5) - - 1004

v. Harris (4 M. & C. 267 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 114; 3 Jur. 140) 699, 703

v. Kemp-Welch (14 Ch. D. 512; 49 L. J. Ch. 528; 43 L. T. 116) 1311

v. L. &N. W. E. Co. (15 B. 548; 19 L. T. 0. S. 292) - - 828

v. Mannin (3 Bli. N. S. 1 ; 1 Dow & 01. 380) - - 32

Ballacorkish Silver Mining Co. v. Harrison (L. E. 5 P. C. 49) - - 423
Ballard v. Shutt (15 Ch. D. 122 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 618 ; 43 L. T. 173 ;

29 W. E. 73) - - 710

v. Tomlinson (29 Ch. D. 115; 54 L. J. Ch. 127, 454; 52 L. T.

942 ; 33 W. E. 533 ; 49 J. P. 692) - - - 417

v. Way (1 M. & W. 520; 2 Gale, 61 ; Tyr. & G. 851 ; 5 L. J.

Ex. 207) - - 131

Balls v. Margrave (4 B. 119) - - - 476

Balmanno v. Lumley (1 V. & B. 224) - 1194, 1223

Bamford v. Bamford (5 Ha. 203) - - 459

v. Shuttleworth (11 A. & E. 926) - - 1075

• v. Turnley (3 B. & S. 66 ; 6 L. T. 721 ; 10 W. E. 803) - - 875

— v. Watts (2 B. 201) - - 1342
Banbury (Lord) v. Briscoe (2 Ch. Ca. 42) - - 473
Banbury Peerage Case (1 S. & S. 153) - 382
Bandon (Earl of) v. Becher (9 Bl. N. S. 532 ; 3 C. & F. 479) - - 1351
Banister, Re (12 Ch. D. 143 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 837 ; 40 L. T. N. S. 828 ;

27 W. E. 826) - 106, 164, 168, 169, 170, 171, 175, 338, 1228, 1244,

1326, 1336

Bank of England Case (3 D. F. & J. 645 ; 30 L. J. Bank. 25) - - 1050
Bankart v. Bowers (L. E. 1 C. P. 484) - 1087
v. Tennant (10 Eq. 141 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 809 ; 18 W. E, 639) - 1144

TABLE OF CASES. Ifx

Ban— Bar. PAGE

Bankes v. Small (34 Ch. D. 415 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 254, 832 ; 56 L. T.

21 ; 35 W. E. 288, 765) - 325, 888, 911, 946, 1118, 1348

Banner v. Berridge (18 Ch. D. 254 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 630 ; 44 L. T. 680 ;

29 W. E. 844) 437, 438, 458

v. Jackson (1 Do G. & S. 472) - 995

Bannerman v. Clarke (3 Dr. 632 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 77 ; 28 L. T. O. S.

96 ; 5 W. E. 37) - - 144, 722, 799, 1262

Barber's Settled Estates, Re (18 Ch. D. 624; 50 L. J. Ch. 769; 45

L. T. 433 ; 29 W. E. 909) - - 755

Barber, Re (34 Ch. D. 77 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 216 ; 55 L. T. N. S. 882 ; 35

W. E. 326) 95

v. Brown (1 C.B.N.S.121; 26 L. J. C. P. 41; 3Jur.N.S.18) 1034

v. Houston (14 L. E. Ir. 273) - - - 881

Barclay, Ex parte (5 D. M. & G. 403 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1145; 26 L. T.

97 ; 4 W. E. 80) - - 607
v. Messenger (43 L. J. Ch. 449; 30 L. T. 351 ; 22 W. B.

522) 485, 490

v. Eaine (1 S. & S. 449) - 626, 1276

Bardell v. Spinks (2 C. & K 646) - - 114

Bareham, Re (17 Ch. D. 329; 29 W. E. 525) 806, 809

Barfield v. Eogers (8 Jur. 229) - - - 1348

Barham v. Clarendon (Earl of) (10 Ha. 126 ; 17 Jur. 336; 1 W. E. 96) 1070

v. Thanet (Earl of) (3 M. & K. 607 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 228) - 919

Barker's Trusts (1 Ch. D. 43 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 52 ; 24 W. E. 264) - - 660

Barker, In re (7 H. & N. 109 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 404 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1061 ;

5 L. T. 206) - - - - - - 315

, Re (17 Ch. D. 241 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 334 ; 44 L. T. 33 ; 29 W. E.

873) - 8, 1301, 1303
v. Cox (4 Ch. D. 464 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 62 ; 35 L. T. 662 ; 25 W.

E. 138) - - 585, 1117, 1190, 1197
v. Greenwood (2 Y. & C. 414 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq. 54 ; 1

Jur. 541) - 221, 746

v. Harper (G. Coop. 32) - 1343

v. Harrison (2 Coll. 546)- - - 1174

v. North Staff. Ey. Co. (5 E. C. 401 ; 12 Jur. 589 ; 2 De G.

6 S. 55) - - 243, 247, 508, 1100

v. Eichardson (4 B. & Aid. 579) - - - 368

v. Smark (3 B. 64) - - 836

v. Vansommer (1 B. C. C. 149) - - - 852

Vm Yenables (13 W. E. 803; 11 Jur. N. S. 480; 34 L. J. Ch.

420) 800, 1263

Barkshire v. Grubb (18 Ch. D. 616 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 731 ; 45 L. T. 383 ;

29 W. E. 929) - 520, 609, 610, 611

Barkworth v. Young (4 Dr. 1 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 34 ;

28 L. T. O. S. 199; 5 W. E. 156)- 227, 240, 249, 250, 1053, 1141, 1148
Barling v. Bishopp (29 B. 417 ; 2 L. T. 651 ; 8 W. E. 631) - - 1027
Barlow v. Osborne (6 H. L. C. 566 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 308 ; 4 Jur. N. S.

367; 31 L. T. O. S. 45 ; 6 W. E. 315) '- - : 1313, 1331

— v. Ehodes (1 Cr. & M. 439 ; 3 Tyr. 280)- ' ;-:, - 609

Barnard, In re (2 D. M. & G. 359) - - - - 816

Ix TABLE OF CASES.

Bar. PAGE

Barnard v. Bagshaw (3 D. J. & S. 355 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 220 ; 7 L. T.

544) - - - 745

v. Caye (26 B. 253 ; 7 W. E. 158) - - 1155

Vt Hunter (5 W. E. 34 ; 19 Jur. 1065 ; 26 L. T. 70 ; 2 Jur.

N. S. 1213) - - 44, 846

Barnardiston v. Lingood (2 Atk. 133 ; Barn. Ch. Eep. 337) - - 845

Barnes v. Crowe (1 V. 486) - 307, 308

v. Loach (4 Q. B. D. 494 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 756 ; 41 L. T. 278 ;

28 W. E. 32) - 410

— v. Eacster (1 Y. & C. C. C. 401 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 228) - 1035

v. Southsea E. Co. (27 Ch. D. 536 ; 51 L. T. 762 ; 32 W. E.

976) - - - 246

- v. Stuart (1 Y. & C. 119 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq. 25)- - 401
v. Wood (8 Eq. 424 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 683 ; 21 L. T. 227 ; 17 W.

E. 1080) - 1116, 1117, 1189

Barnett v. Sheffield (1 D. M. & G. 371 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 692 ; 16 Jur.

942) - 943

v. South London Tramways Co. (18 Q. B. D. 815 ; 56 L. J.

Q. B. 452 ; 35 W. E. 640) - - 104, 1095

v. Weston (12 V. 130) - 933

- v. Wheeler (7 M. & W. 364 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ex. 102) - 165, 1243
Barnfather v. Jordan (Doug. 452) - 32
Barnhart v. Greenshields (9 Mo. P. C. 18) -967, 975, 976, 984
BarnweU v. Harris (1 Taun. 430) - 147, 196
v. Iremonger (1 Dr. & S. 255 ; 3 L. T. 462 ; 9 W. E. 88) - 304,

827, 921
Barr, In re (4 K. & J. 219 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 548 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1013 ;

6 W. E. 424) 956, 981

- v. Gibson (3 M. & W. 399) - - 908

Barrack v. McCulloch (3 K. & J. 110; 26 L. J. Ch. 105; 3 Jur.
N. S. 180; 28 L. T. 0. S. 218; 5 W. E. 38) 1025, 1026, 1064

Barratt v. Wyatt (30 B. 442 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 652; 8 Jur. N. S. 1045 ;
6 L. T. 801 ; 10 W. E. 454) - - - 594

Barraud v. Archer (2 E. & M. 751 ; 2 Sim. 433; 9 L. J. Ch. 173) - 132,

668, 972

Barrell, Ex parte (10 Ch. 512; 33 L. T. 115; 23 W. E. 846) - 185, 222,

1089, 1126

- v. Sabine (1 Vern. 268) . - - 926
Barrett, Ex parte (19 L. J. Ch. 415; 15 Jur. 3) - - 753

— v. Birmingham (El. & K. 556 ; 4 Ir. Eq. E, 537) - - 459

v. Eees (1 Ke. 405 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 360) - - 1244

v. Eing (2 S. & G. 43) 1118, 1185, 1188

- v. Eolph (14 M. & W. 348 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 308) - - - 228
Barrow, In re (17 B. 547 ; 18 Jur. 181 ; 22 L. T. 217 ; 2 W. E. 109) 816

- v. Barrow (3 W. E. 587) - - 801

- v. Barrow (4 K. & J. 409 ; 27 L. J. Ch, 678 ; 4 Jur. N. S.

1049 ; 6 W. E. 714) - - 13

- v. Griffith (11 Jur. N. S. 6 ; 13 W. E. 41)- - 679

- v. Wadkin (24 B. 1 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 129 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 679 ;

29 L. T. 320 ; 5 W. E. 695) - - - 26

TABLE OF CASES. Ixi

Bar— Bat. PAGE

Barrow v. White (2 J. & H. 580) - - 208
Barrs-Haden's Settled Estate (32 W. E. 194 ; 49 L. T. 661) - - 1279

Barry v. Croskey (2 J. & H. 1) 110, 518, 902

v. Harding (1 J. & L. 475) - - 919

— v. Lowry (11 I. E. C. L. 483) - 431
v. Marriott (2 De G. & S. 491) - - - 760

v. Nesham (3 C. B. 641 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 21 ; 10 Jur. 1010 ;

8 L. T. O. S. 139) - 145

Bartlett, Be (16 Ch. D. 561 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 205 ; 44 L. T. 17 ; 29 W.

E. 279) - - 1332

v. Bartlett (1 D. & J. 130; 3 Jur. N. S. 705 ; 29 L. T.

0. S. 135; 5 W. E. 541)- - 956

— v. Greene (30 L. T. 553) - - 266

v. Pickersgill (1 Cox, 15 ; 1 Ed. 515) 1055, 1056, 1149

v. Purnell (4 A. & E. 792 ; 6 N. & M. 299 ; 2 II. & W. 19;

5 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 169) - - 209
v. Salmon (1 Jur. N. S. 277 ; 6 D. M. & G. 33 ; 26 L. T. 82 ;

4 W. E. 32) - 116, 134, 138, 155, 164, 1198, 1202

- v. Vinor (Garth. 251) - 1096

Bartley v. Bartley (3 Dr. 384) - - - 687

Barton, Ex parte (4 D. M. & G. 112 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 670) - - 816

v. Dawes (10 C. B. 261 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 302) - - 601

v. Downes (Lord) (Fl. & K. 505) - - 1234, 1337

v. Fitzgerald (15 Ea. 530) - 889, 890

v. Latour (18 B. 526) - 1342

Barwell v. Barwell (34 B. 371) - 53, 54

Barwick v. English and Joint Stock Bank (L. E. 2 Ex. 259 ; 36 L.

J. Ex. 147 ; 16 L. T. N. S. 461 ; 15 W. E. 877) - 103, 1095

Basingstoke (Mayor of) v. Bolton (Lord) (3 Dr. 50 ; 3 W. E. 142) - 328
Baskcomb v. Beckwith (8 Eq. 100 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 536 ; 20 L. T. N.

S. 862 ; 17 W. E. 812) - 127, 134, 136

v. Phillips (6 Jur. N. S. 363 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 380 ; 1 L. T.

N. S. 288) 106, 1266

Baskett v. Cafe (4 De G. & S. 388) - - 40

Basnett v. Moxon (20 Eq. 182 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 557 ; 23 W. E. 945) - 1302
Bass v. Welsted (12 Jur. 347 ; 10 L. T. 0. S. 480) - - 584

Bassett v. Nosworthy (Finch 102 ; 2 Wh. & T. L. C. 1) - 928

Bassford v. Blakesley (6 B. 131) - - 996

Batchelor v. Middleton (6 Ha. 75) - - 451

Bateman's Estate, Re (21 L. J. Ch. 691) - - 753

Bates v. Bonnor (7 Si. 427) ------ 1343

v. Brothers (2 S. & G. 509 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 150, 782 ; 22 L. T.

O. S. 196; 23 L. T. O. S. 305 ; 2Eq. E. 435, 803; 2W.

E. 116, 636 ; 18 Jur. 465) - 541

v. Johnson (John. 304 ; 33 L. T. 233 ; 7 W. E. 512) - 933

v. Mackinley (31 B. 280; 31 L. J. Ch. 389; 8 Jur. N. S.

297 ; 5 L. T. 783 ; 10 W. E. 241) - - 915

Batstone v. Salter (19 Eq. 250 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 209 ; 31 L. T. 600; 23

W. E. 289) - 1058

Battersbee v. Farrington (1 Sw. 106) - - - 1004

Ixii TABLE OF CASES.

Bat — Bea. PAGE

Battersby v. Eochfort (2 J. & L. 431) - 964

Battishill v. Eeed (18 0. B. 696 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 290 ; 4 W. E. 603) - 431

Baugli v. Price (1 Wils. 320) - 52

Baumann v. James (3 Ch. 508 ; 18 L. T. 424 ; 16 W. E. 877) - - 263

Bawdes v. Amhurst (Ch. Prec. 402) - - 1138

Bawtree v. Watson (3 M. & K. 339) - - 845, 854

Baxendale v. McMurray (2 Ch. 790 ; 16 W. E. 32) - - 417

v. Seale (19 B. 601 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 385 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 581 ;

24 L. T. 0. S. 306) - - 842, 1174
Baxter v. Conolly (1 J. & W. 576) - 163, 1111
Bayley, In re (18 B. 415 ; 2 W. E. 404)- - - 817
v. Chadwick (39 L. T. 429) - - 214

v. Great Western E. Co. (26 Ch. D. 434 ; 51 L. T. 337) 520, 609,

610, 611, 859

Baylies v. Baylies (1 Coll. 546) - 1165

Baylis v. Newton (2 Vern. 28) - - - 1061

v. Usher (7 Bing. 153 ; 4 M. & P. 790) - 1097

Baynton v. Collins (27 Ch. D. 604 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1112; 51 L. T. 681 ;

33 W. E. 41) - - - 1237

Bayspool v. Collins (6 Ch. 228 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 289 ; 25 L. T. 282 ; 19

W. E. 363) - 1005, 1018

Beaden v. King (9 Ha. 499; 22 L. J. Ch. Ill) - - 17, 42, 54, 958

Beadon v. King (17 Si. 34 ; 13 Jur. 550) - - 996

Beale, In re (11 B. 600) - - - 818

v. Symonds (16 B. 406 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 708 ; 1 W. E. 137) 289,

1277
Bealey v. Stuart (7 H. & N. 753 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 281 ; 8 Jur. N. S.

389) 1087

Beanland v. Bradley (2 S. & G. 339 ; 2 W. E. 602) - - 23

Beardmer v. London & North Western E. Co. (1 M. & G. 112; 5

Ey. C. 728 ; 1 H. & T. 161 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 432 ; 13 Jur. 327) - 242
Beatson v. Beatson (12 Si. 281) - 1018

v. Nicholson (6 Jur. 620) - - 1144

Beauchamp v. Great Western E. Co. (3 Ch. 745 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 162 ;

19 L. T. 189 ; 16 W. E. 1155) - - 860

(Earl) v. Winn (L. E. 6 H. L. 234 ; 22 W. B, 193) - 1155

Beauclerk v. Ashburnham (8 B. 322 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 241 ; 4 L. T. 431,

490) - ... 96

Beaufort (Duke of) v. Glynn (25 L. T. 0. S. 171 ; 3 S. & G. 213 ; 1

Jur. N. S. 890) 642, 1077, 1181

v. Neeld (12 C. & P. 248 ; 9 Jur. 813) - - 327

v. Patrick (17 B. 75 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 489 ; 17 Jur.

682 ; 1 W. E. 280) 949, 950, 1144

v. Phillips (1 De G. & S. 321 ; 11 Jur. 600 ; 9 L.

T. 0. S. 352) - - - 535, 1248

v. Swansea (Mayor of) (3 Ex. 413) - 377

Beaumont's Estate, Re (12 Eq. 86 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 400; 19 W. E.

767) - - - - 1297
Beaumont, Ex parte (1 M. & A. 304 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 45) - 50
v. Bramley (T. & E. 41) - 838

JAHLE OF CASES. Ixili

Bea — Bel. PAGE

Beaumont v. Dukes (Jac. 422) - 136

v. Mountain (10 Bing. 404 ; 4 M. & Sc. 177 ; 3 L. J. N. S.

C. P. 118) - - - - - - - 351

v. Salisbury (Lord) (19 B. 198 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 94 ; 10 Jur.

458; 24 L. T. O. S. 166 ; 3 Eq. R. 369) - 824, 1273, 1274

Beavan v. M'Donnell (9 Ex. 309 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 94 ; 22 L. T. 243 ; 2

Com. L. R. 474) - 6, 224
v. Oxford (Lord) (6 D. M. & G. 507 ; 3 S. & G. 11 ; 24 L. J.

Ch. 311 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 299; 1 Jur. N. S. 154; 2 Jur. N. S. 121;

24 L. T. 0. S. 207 ; 26 L. T. 0. S. 277 ; 3 W. R. 154 ; 4 W. R. 275 ;

2 Eq. R. 445) - 530, 540, 549, 551, 553, 1003
Bebb v. Bunny (1 K. & J. 216 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 203) - 727, 1333
Becher v. Delacour (11 L. R. IT. 187) - 457
Beck v. Kantorowicz (3 K. & J. 230) - 217, 1051
Becke & Flower, Inre (5 B. 406 ; 8 Jur. 505) - 818
Beckett v. Buckley (17 Eq. 435 ; 22 W. R. 294) - - - 548
v. Cordley (1 Br. C. C. 353) - 942, 985

v. Sutton (19 Ch. D. 646; 51 L. J. Ch. 432 ; 46 L. T. 481 ; 30

W. R. 490) -------- 1362

Beckford v. Beckford (Lofft, 490) - - 1057

Beddington v. Atlee (35 Ch. D. 317 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 655 ; 56 L. T. 154 ;

35 W. R. 799) - - 408, 409

Bedford & Camb. Ry. Co. v. Stanley (2 J. & H. 746 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 60 ;

9 Jur. N. S. 152 ; 7 L. T. 477 ; 1 N. R. 162 ; 11 W. R. 139) - - 510

Bedford (Duke of) v. Bacchus (cited Amb. 680) - - - 959

v. British Museum (Trustees of) (2 M. & K. 552)- 870,

874

v. Dawson (20 Eq. 353 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 549 ; 33 L. T.

156) - - - 404

v. Forbes (1 C. & K. 33) - - 535

Beech, In re (4 Mad. 128) - - 1347
v. Keep (18 B. 285 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 539 ; 23 L. T. 0. S. 54 ; 2

W. R. 316) - - - - - - 1018

Beer v. Beer (12 C. B. 60 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 124 ; 16 Jur. 223) - 914, 915

v. London and Paris Hotel Co. (20 Eq. 412 ; 32 L. T. 715)- 209, 253

Beere v. Head (3 J. & L. 340) -554, 555

Beeston v. Weate (5 E. & B. 986 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 115 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

540 ; 26 L. T. 272 ; 4 W. R. 325) - 417, 430

Beete v. Bidgood (1 Man. & R. 143 ; 7 B. & C. 453)- - 145

Beevor v. Luck (4 Eq. 537 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 865 ; 15 W. R. 1221) - 574, 784,

1037

v. Simpson (Taml. 69) - 492

Begbie v. Fenwick (8 Ch. 1075, n.) - - 608

Beggan v. McDonald (2 L. R. Ir. 560) - 430

Beioley v. Carter (4 Ch. 230 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 283 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 381 ;

17 W. R. 300) 86, 1234

Belaney v. Belaney (2 Ch. 138 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 265 ; 16 L. T. 269 ; 15

W. R. 369) - - 310

Belcher v. Vardon (2 Coll. 162 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 427 ; 9 Jur. 546 ; 5 L. T. *

0. S. 344) - - - - 145

Belchier v. Renforth (5 Br. P. C. 292) - 933

Ixiv TABLE OF CASES.

Bel— Ben. PAGE

Belchier v. Eeynolds (2 Ken. pt. 2, 87) - - 258, 1212

Belfast Banking Co. v. Doherty (4 L. E. Ir. 124) - 6

Belfast Dock Act, Ee (I I. E. Eq. 128) - - - 378

Belfast Harbour Commissioners, Ex parte (5 Ir. Jur. 35) - - 555

Bell's Estate, Re (11 L. E. Ir. 512) - - 1005

Bell v. Ahearne (12 Ir. Eq. E. 576) - 853, 854

— v. Carter (17 B. 11 ; 17 Jur. 478 ; 21 L. T. O. S. 41 ; 1 W. E. 270) 539

v. Denvir (34 W. E. 638 ; 54 L. T. 729) - 1251

v. Holtby (\b Eq. 178 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 266 ; 28 L. T. 9 ; 21 W. E.

321) - - - 1235
v. Love : see Love v. Bell.

v. Sunderland Building Society (24 Ch. D. 618 ; 53 L. J. Ch.

509 ; 49 L. T. 555) - - 1042

- v. Turner (2 Ch. D. 409 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 681 ; 24 W. E. 451) - 1314

v. Wilson (1 Ch. 303 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 337 ; 12 Jur. 263 ; 14 L. T.

N. S. 115 ; 14 W. E. 493 ; 2 Dr. & S. 395) 130, 429

Bellamy, Ee (25 Ch. D. 620; 53 L. J. Ch. 174; 49 L. T. 658; 32

W. E. 358) - - 9

and Metropolitan Board of Works, Ee (24 Ch. D. 387 ; 52

L. J. Ch. 870 ; 48 L. T. 801 ; 31 W. E, 900 ; 47 J. P. 439) 685,

745

- v. Breckender (4 K. & J. 670) - 1249
v. Cockle (18 Jur. 465 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 456 ; 2 Eq. E. 435 ;

23 L. T. 20 ; 2 W. E. 326) - -42,1317

- v. Liversedge (Sug. 439) 364, 1130
v. Sabine (2 Ph. 425 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 105; 10 L. T. 181)- 45, 842,

847, 852, 853, 1176
v. (1 D. & J. 566 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 943 ; 26 L. J. Ch.

797 ; 6 W. E. 1) - -972, 982, 983

Bellas v. Harmer (3 De G. & S. 454) - - - 1077

Bellasis (Lady) v. Compton (2 Yern. 294 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 381, pi. 5) - 1055
Bellis' Trusts, Ee (5 Ch. D. 504 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 353; 36 L. T. 644 ; 25

W. E. 456) - - - 1274

Bellringer v. Blagrave (1 De G. & S. 66; 11 Jur. 407) - 1165

Belvedere v. Eochfort (5 Br. P. C. 299) - - - 919

Bel worth v. Hassell (4 Camp. 140) - - 128

Benbowv. Davies (11 B. 369) - - -1269

- v. Townsend (1 M. & K. 506 ; 2 L. J. N. S. Ch. 215) - 1065

Bench v. Biles (4 Mad. 187) 692

Bending v. Bending (3 K. & J. 257 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 469 ; 3 Jur. N. S.

535 ; 29 L. T. 0. S. 224 ; 5 W. E. 435) - - 614

Benest v. Pipon (1 Kn. 60) - 366

Benet v. Costar (8 Taun. 187 ; 2 J. B. Moore, 83) - - 427

Benfieldside Local Board v. Consett Iron Co. (3 Ex. D. 54 ; 47 L. J.

Ex. 49; 38 L. T. 530; 26 W. E. 114) - - - 422

Benham's Trusts, Ee (4 Eq. 416 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 502 ; 16 L. T. 349 ; 15
W. E. 741) - 388

Benham v. Keane (3 D. F. & J. 318 ; 1 J. & H. 685 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 129 ;
8 Jur. N. S. 604 ; 5 L. T. 439 ; 9 W. E. 765 ; 10 W. E. 67) - 528, 550,

553, 555, 961, 965

Benington v. Metr. Board of Works (54 L. T. 837 ; 50 J. P. 740) - 247

TABLE OF CASES. IxV

Ben— Ber. PAGE

Bonnet's case (Cro. Eliz. 9) - - 888

Bonnet's Trusts, Re (19 Eq. 245 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 244 ; 31 L. T. 720 ;

23 W. E. 229) - - - 34

Bennet v. Bennet (10 Ch. D. 474 ; 40 L. T. 378 ; 27 W. E. 573) - 1058

- v. Mayhew (cited 1 Br. C. C. 232) - - 1066
Bennett's Estate, Re (18 Jur. 33 ; 2 Eq. E. 4) - - - - 1250
Bennett College v. Carey (3 Br. C. C. 390) - - - - 223
Bennett, Ex parte (10 V. 395) - - 37, 39, 52, 210

-, In re (8 B. 467 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 403) 816, 818

- v. Cooper (9 B. 252) ; 15 L. J. Ch. 315 ; 10 Jur. 507 ; 7 L. T.

O. S. 299) - - - 911

- v. Fowler (2 B. 302) - 1245, 1264

- v. Ingoldsby (Finch, 262) - - 888

- v. Eees (1 Ke. 401 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 360) 1223, 1227, 1228

- v. Eeeve (Willes, 231) - 427

- v. Smith (16 Jur. 421) 1108, 1113

- v. Tankerville (Lord) (19 V. 178) - 295, 300

- v. Wheeler (1 Ir. Eq. E. 18) - - - 1326

- v. Womack (7 B. & C. 627 ; 3 C. & P. 96; 1 M. & E. 624 ;

6 L. J. Q. B. 175) - 192

- v. Wyndham (23 B. 521 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1143 ; 29 L. T. 138 ;

5 W. E. 410) - - 76, 88

Bensley v. Burdon (2 S. & S. 519 ; 4 L. J. Ch. 164) - 911

Benson v. Glastonbury Canal Co. (1 C. P. Coop. t. Cott. 350) - - 1228

v. Lamb (9 B. 502 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 7 L. T. 0. S. 385) 488,

582

— v. Paull (6 E. & B. 273) - 1101, 1102

Bentham v. Wiltshire (4 Mad. 44) - - 694

Bentley v. Craven (17 B. 204 ; 21 L. T. 0. S. 215) 496, 1233

- v. — — (18 B. 75) 23, 135
Berdoe v. Dawson (11 Jur. N. S. 254 ; 12 L. T. 103 ; 13 W. E. 420) 848
Berkeley v. Dauh (16 V. 380) - 321

- Peerage case (4 Camp. 412) - 394, 395, 396
Berkeley's (Earl of) Will, In re (10 Ch. 56 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 3 ; 23 W.

E. 195) - - 807

Bermingham's Estate, Re (5 I. E. Eq. 147) - - 446, 454

Bermingham v. Burke (2 J. & L. 699 ; 9 Ir. Eq. E. 86) - 896

Berndston v. Strang (3 Ch. 588 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 665 ; 19 L. T. 40 ; 16

W. E. 1025) - - - 825
Berridge v. Ward (10 C. B. N. S. 400 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 218 ; 7 Jur.

N. S. 876) - 411, 412, 602

Berrington v. Evans (1 Y. & C. 434) - - - 454

Berrisford v. Milward (2 Atk. 49 ; Barn. Ch. E. 101) 517, 947

Berry v. Armistead (2 Ke. 221 ; 5 L. J. N. S. 370) - 116, 898

v. Gibbons (15 Eq. 150; 42 L. J. Ch. 231) - - - 1314

v. Hebblethwaite (4 K & J. 80) - - - 1341

v. Johnson (2 Y. & C. 564 ; 1 Jur. 474) - 1337

]). e

1XV1 TABLE OP CASES.

Ber— Bil.

Berry v. Young (2 Esp. 640, n.) - 159, 347, 482, 765, 1086

Bertie v. Abingdon (Lord) (3 Mer. 567) - 434

Berwick-on-Tweed (Mayor of) v. Oswald (1 E. & B. 295 ; 22 L. J.

Q. B. 129; 17 Jur. 1148) - - 1097
Besley v. Besley (9 Oh. D. 103 ; 38 L. T. 844 ; 27 W. E. 184) - - 905
Best v. Drake (11 Ha. 369) - - 1223
v. Hamand (12 Ch. D. 1 ; 48 L. J. Oh. 593 ; 40 L. T. 769; 27

W. E. 742) - - 170, 185, 860

Bethell v. Green (34 B. 302) - - 702

Bethlehem and Bridewell Hospitals, Ee (30 Ch. D. 541 ; 54 L. J.

Ch. 1143; 53 L. T. 558) - - 754

Bethlem Hospital, In re (19 Eq. 457) - 751

Betts v. Burch (4 H. & N. 506 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 267 ; 33 L. T. 0. S.

151 ; 7 W. E. 546) - - 222

v. Great Eastern E. Co. (3 Ex. D. 182 ; 47 L. J. Ex. 461) - 858

Betty v. Nail (6 Ir. C. L. 17) - 395

Bettyes v. Maynard (31 W. E. 461 ; 49 L. T. N. S. 389) - 90, 849

Bevan v. Bevan (1 Coop. t. Cott. 381) - 1339

. v. Habgood (1J. & H. 222 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 107 ; 7 Jur. N. S.

41 ; 3 L. T. N. S. 209) 37, 47

Beverley v. Lincoln Gas Co. (6 A. & E. 829 ; 2 N. & P. 283 ; W. W.

& D. 519 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 113) - 220, 273

- (Mayor of) v. Craven (2 Mo. & E. 140) - - 356

Bewley v. Atkinson (13 Ch. D. 283) - 404

v. Hancock (6 D. M. & G. 391 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 289 ; 26 L. T.

264 ; 4 W. E. 334) - - - 1051

Beynon v. Cook (10 Ch. 389 ; 32 L. T. 353 ; 23 W. E. 531) - - 852

Bickerton v. Burrell (5 M. & S. 383) - - 1072

v. Walker (31 Ch. D. 151 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 227 ; 53 L. T. 731 ;

34 W. E. 141) - 931, 945, 953

Bickett v. Morris (L. E. 1 Sc. & L. 47 ; 4 Macph. (H. L.) 44 ; 14 L.

T. 835 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 803) - - 419, 602

Bickford v. Page (2 Mass. 455) - 892

— v. Parson (5 C. B. 920 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 193 ; 12 Jur. 377 - 917
Bidder v. North Staffordshire E. Co. (4 Q. B. D. 412 ; 48 L. J. Q. B.

248 ; 40 L. T. 801 ; 27 W. E. 540) - 705

Biddle v. Perkins (4 Sim. 135) - - 68, 1275

Bidlake v. Arundel (1 Ch. E. 50) - - 367

Bigg v. Strong (3 S. & G. 592 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 983 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 98 ;

6 W. E. 536) - 216

v. Whisking (14 C. B. 195 ; 2 Com. L. E. 617) - - - 275

Biggs v. Bree (51 L. J. Ch. 263 ; 46 L. T. 8 ; 30 W. E. 278) 205, 206

v. Peacock (22 Ch. D. 284 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 47 L. T. N. S. 341 ;

31 W. E. 148) 68, 1301

Bignell v. Buzzard (3 H. & N. 217 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 355) - 120

Bignold, In re (9 B. 270) - 817, 818

v. Audland (11 Si. 28 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 266) - 205

Billage v. Southee (9 Ha. 534 : 21 L. J. Ch. 472 ; 16 Jur. 188) - 24
Billing v. Webb (1 D. G. & S. 716) - - 643, 1348

TABLE OF CASES. IxVli

Bin — Bla. PAGE

Bingham v. Bingham (1 V. sen. 126) - 907

Bingley School, In re (2 Dr. 283 ; 18 Jur. 668 ; 23 L. T. 0. S. 139 ;

2 Eq. R. 635 ; 2 W. R. 433) - - - 1351

Binks v. Lord Rokeby (2 Sw. 222 ; 2 Mad. 227) 499, 674, 709, 711, 733,

1201, 1206, 1277

Binns v. NichoUs (2 Eq. 256 ; 14 W. R. 727 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 635) - 456

Birch, In re (17 B. 358) - - 384

— , Be (Sug. 119) - - 1355

v. Blagrave (Amb. 264) - - - 1061

v. Joy (3 H. L. C. 565) - 710, 711

- — v. Padmore (cited 1 Jur. N. S. 123) - - 1271

v. Podmore (Sug. 635) - - 719

v. Wright (1 T. R. 385) - - - 914

Bird, In re (16 Eq. 203 ; 28 L. T. 658 ; 21 W. R. 725) - 743

v. Bird (L. R. 1 P. & D. 231 ; 35 L. J. P. & D. 102 ; 14 L. T.

860 ; 14 W. R. 1023 - • - - - 857.

- v. Boulter (1 N. & M. 313 ; 4 B. & Ad. 446) - 209, 217

v. Eggleton (29 Ch. D. 1012 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 819 ; 53 L. T. N. S.

87; 33 W. R. 774) ... 131, 404

v. Fox (11 Ha. 40) - - 73, 173

v. Higginson (4 N. & M. 505 ; 1 H. & W. 61 ; 2 A. & E. 696 ;

4 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 124) - - 230

v. Johnson (18 Jur. 976 ; 23 L. T. 320 ; 2 W. R. 692) - - 22

v. Lake (1 H. & M. 338) - 873

v. Wenn (33 Ch. D. 215; 55 L. J. Ch. 722; 54 L. T. 933; 34

W. R. 652) - - 574, 654, 784, 1037

Birds v. Askey (24 B. 618) - 829, 1067

Birkbeck Society, Re (24 Ch. D. 119 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 777 ; 49 L. T. 265 ;

31 W. R. 716) 190, 480

Birkenhead R. Co., In re (2 Jur. N. S. 793; 27 L. T. 0. S. 163; 4

W. R. 582) - - - 805
v. Pilcher (5 Ex. 127 ; 6 Ry. Ca. 564 ; 19 L. J. Ex.

207 ; 14 Jur. 297) - - 30

Birmingham Canal Co. v. Cartwright (11 Ch. D. 421 ; 48 L. J. Ch.

552 ; 40 L. T. 784 ; 27 W. R. 597) 241, 875

(Corp. of) v. Allen (6 Ch. D. 284 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 673 ; 37

L. T. 207 ; 25 W. R. 810) - - 420

Corporation v. Baker (17 Ch. D. 782 ; 46 J. P. 52) - 524

Birt v. Burt (11 Ch. D. 773, n.) - 1066

Bisco v. Banbury (Earl of) (1 Ch. Ca. 287) - - 973

Biscoe v. Perkins (1 V. & B. 485) - - 1236

— v. Wilks (3 Mer. 456) - 1257, 1263

Bishop Monk's Charity (Trustees of), Exparte (29 W. R. 462 ; 43 L. T.

793) - - - 759

Bishop's Waltham R. Co., In re (2 Ch. 382 ; 15 W. R. 96) - - 548

Blachford v. Kirkpatrick (6 B. 232 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 108) 1138, 1243
Black v. Ballymena Commissioners (17 L. R. Ir. 459) - 416

Blackboard v. Lindigren (1 Cox, 205) - - - 1328

Blackburn v. Gregson (1 Br. C. C. 420 ; 1 Cox, 90) - - 825

v. Scholes (2 Camp. 343) - 204, 213

e2

Ixviii TABLE OF CASES.

Bla— Ble. PAGE

Blackburn v. Smith (2 Ex. 783 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 187) - 31, 142, 178, 321, 345

- v. Stace (6 Mad. 69) - 1217

Blackett v. Bates (2 H. & M. 610 ; 1 Oh. 117 ; 34 L. J. Oh. 515 ; 35

L. J. Ch. 324; 11 Jur. N. S. 500; 12 Jur. N. S. 151; 11 L. T.

703; 13 L. T. 656; 13 W. E. 736; 14 W. E. 319)- 261,1164,1211

Blackham v. Pugh (2 C. B. 611 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 290) - 120

Blackie v. Clark (15 B. 603) 13, 838, 1350

Blacklow v. Laws (2 Ha. 40; 6 Jur. 1121) - 70, 142, 184, 496, 1227, 1276,

1324, 1351

Blackmore, In re (13 B. 154 ; 15 Jur. 784) - 816, 818

Blackmur v. Blackmur (3 Ch. D. 633 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 710 ; 24 W. E.

900) - - - - 645
Blackston v. Moreland (2 Ch. Ca. 20) - 784
Blackwell v. Blackwell (7 Jur. 9) - - 1348
Blackwood v. Borrowes (4 D. & War. 441 ; 2 Con. & L. 459) 71, 216
v. London Chartered Bank of Australia (L. E. 5 P. C. Ill ;

43 L. J. P. C. 25 ; 30 L. T. 45 ; 22 W. E. 419) - - 928
Blades v. Blades (1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 358) - - 959, 960
Blagden v. Bradbear (12 V. 466) 209, 216, 227, 240, 256, 261, 1147, 1148
Blair v. Bromley (2 Ph. 354 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 495 ; 11 Jur. 617) - 440
v. Nugent (3 J. & L. 673) - - - 458

v. Ormond (1 Be G. & S. 428 ; 11 Jur. 665 ; 9 L. T. 0. S. 431) 276,

370, 434

Blake, Ex parte (16 B. 471) - - 1186

, In re (2 Ir. Ch. E. 643 ; 3 J. & L. 265) - - 459, 1348

v. Blake (15 Ch. D. 481 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 393 ; 42 L. T. 724 ; 28

W. E. 647) - - 300

v. Gale (31 Ch. D. 196; 32 Ch. 571; 55 L. J. Ch. 319, 559;

53 L. T. 689 ; 55 L. T. 234 ; 34 W. E. 177, 555) - 440, 456

• v. Hungerford (Ch. Prec. 158) - 935

v. Mowatt (21 B. 603) - - 23, 1174

- v. Phinn (3 C. B. 976 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 159) - 164, 1194

Blakeley v. Brady (2 D. & Wai. 311) - - - 1018

Blakeney v. Bagott (3 Bli. N. S. 248 ; 1 D. & C. 405) - 998

Blakesley v. Whieldon (1 Ha. 176; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 164; 6 Jur.

54) - - 634, 1249

Blanchard v. Bridges (4 A. & E. 176 ; 5 N. & M. 567 ; Har. & W.

630 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 78) - - - 137
Bland v. Crowley (6 Ex. 522 ; 6 Ey. Ca. 756 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 218 - 1088
v. Lipscomb (3 C. L. E. 261 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 92 ; 3 W. E. 57 ;

4 E. & B. 712, n. ; 24 L. J. Q. B. 155, n.) - - - 425

Blandy v. Herbert (9 B. & C. 396) - - 789

Bleakley v. Smith (11 Si. 150) - - 254, 270

Blenkhorn v. Penrose (29 W. E. 237 ; 43 L. T. 668) - 169

Blenkinsopp v. Blenkinsopp (10 B. 277 ; 2 Ph. 607 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 81 ;

17 L. J. Ch. 343 ; 11 Jur. 721) - - 994
v. (1 D. M. & G. 495 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 401 ; 16

Jur. 787) - - 1024

Blennerhassett v. Day (2 B. & B. 116) - - - 42

Blewitt, In re (6 D. M. & G. 187 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 393; 2 Jur. N. S.

217 ; 26 L. T. O. S. 189 ; 4 W. E. 195) - - - 779

TABLE OF CASES. Ixix

Bli— Bon. PAGE

Bligh v. Brent (2 Y. & C. 268 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq. 58) - - 233
Bliss v. Putman (7 B. 40) - - 668

Blomfield v. Eyre (8 B. 250 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 260 ; 9 Jur. 717) 1032, 1034
Bloomar, In re (2 D. & J. 88 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 173 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 546 ;

30 L. T. 238 ; 6 W. E. 178) 8, 1348

Bloomer v. Spittle (13 Eq. 427 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 369 ; 26 L. T. 272 ; 20

W. E. 435) - - - 839
Bloomfield v. Johnston (8 I. E. C. L. 68) - 414, 419, 428
Blore v. Sutton (3 Her. 237) 217, 269, 1145, 1147, 1261
Blosse v. Clanmorris (Lord) (3 Bl. 62) 1229, 1232, 1235, 1246, 1259, 1275
Blount v. Blount (3 Atk. 636) - 712
- v. Gt. S. & W. E. Co. (2 Ir. Ch. E. 40) - - 243, 711
Bloyo's Trust, Re (1 M. & G. 488 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 89 ; 14 Jur. 49) 39, 40, 42
Bluck v. Gompertz (7 Ex. 862 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 278) - - 275
Blundell v. Brettargh (17 Y. 232) - 258, 704
v. Stanley (3 De G. & S. 433 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 300 ; 13 Jur.

998 ; 13 L. T. 0. S. 380) - - 398

Blyth v. Elmhirst (1 Y. & B. 1) - 1225

Blyth's Trusts, In re (16 Eq. 468 ; 28 L. T. 890 ; 21 W. E. 819) - 805
Board v. Board (L. E. 9 Q. B. 48 ; 43 L. J. Q. B. 4 ; 29 L. T. 459 ;

22 W. E. 206) - 466

Boardman v. Mostyn (6 Y. 467) - - 1145

Bobbett v. South Eastern E. Co. (9 Q. B. D. 424 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 161 ;

46 L. T. 31 ; 46 J. P. 823) - 859

Boden's Trust (1 D. M. & G. 57 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 316 ; 16 Jur. 279) - 658,

659, 664

Bodington v. Gt. Western E. Co. (13 Jur. 144) - - - 489

Boehm v. Wood (1 J. & W. 419 ; T. & E. 332) - 321, 485, 486, 1179,

1253, 1254
Bolckow v. Seymour (17 C. B. N. S. 107) - - 262

Bold v. Hutchinson (5 D. M. & G. 558 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 97 ; 26 L. T.
229 ; 4 W. E. 3) - - 856

Boldero v. London and Westminster Discount Co. (5 Ex. D. 51 ; 42
L. T. 56 ; 28 W. E. 154) - - 1026

Bolding v. Lane (1 De J. & S. 122 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 219 ; 2 Jur. N. S.
506; IN. E. 248; 7 L. T. 812; 11 W. E. 386) - - - 460

Bolingbrooke (Lord), Case of (1 Sch. & L. 19, n.) - 582, 1186

Boiling v. Hobday (31 W. E. 9) 440, 446

Bolton v. Bolton (11 Ch. D. 968; 48 L. J. Ch. 467; 40 L. T. 582) 413,

463, 609

v. London School Board (7 Ch. D. 766; 47 L. J. Ch. 461 ; 38

L. T. 277 ; 26 W. E. 549) - 166, 340, 499

v. Stannard (6 W. E. 570 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 845 ; 4 Jur. N. S.

576; 31 L. T. 310) - - - 65

(Lord) v. Tomlin (5 A. & E. 857 ; 1 N. & P. 247 ; 2 H. & W.

369 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 45) - 228
Bolton's Estate, Re (W. N. 1878, 65) - - - 1278
Lease, In re (L. E. 5 Ex. 82 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 51 ; 21 L. T.

720 ; 18 W. E. 351) - 791

Bond v. England (2 K. & J. 44 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 671 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 918 ;

26 L. T. 0. S. 12; 3 W. E. 648) - - - - - 919

IxX TABLE OF CASES.

Bon— Bow. PAGE

Bond v. Kent (2 Yern. 281 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 143, pi. 14) - 830

v. Eosling (1 B. & S. 371 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 227 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 78 ;

4 L. T. 442 ; 9 W. E. 746) - 229, 1088
v. Warden (1 Coll. 583 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 9 Jur. 198 ; 4 L. T.

O. S. 351) --- - - 747

Bone v. Pollard (24 B. 283) - 1047, 1058, 1061, 1063

Bonner v. G. W. E. Co. (24 Ch. D. 1 ; 48 L. T. N. S. 619 ; 32 W. E.

190) - 20, 859

Bonnett v. Sadler (14 V. 528) - - - 1182

Bonnewell v. Jenkins (8 Ch. D. 70 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 758 ; 38 L. T. 381 ;

26 W. E. 294) - - - 265

Bonnor v. Johnston (1 Mer. 366) - 83, 1218, 12 19

Booth v. Alcock (8 Ch. 667 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 587 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 231 ;

21 W. E. 743) 137, 409, 605, 608, 610

v. Smith (14 Q. B. D. 318 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 119 ; 51 L. T. 742 ;

33 W. E. 142)- - 551, 1044

Boothbyv.Boothby(2H.&Tw.214; 1M.&G.604; 15 B. 212) 845,854,849

- v. Walker (1 Mad. 197) - - 1219
Borell v. Daun (2 Ha. 443) 198, 199, 985, 1207, 1209
Borrows v. Ellison (L. E. 6 Ex. 128 ; 40 L. J. Ex. 131 ; 24 L. T.

365 ; 19 W. E. 850) - 434

Bos v. Helsham (L. E. 2 Ex. 72 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 20 ; 15 L. T. 481 ; 15

W. E. 259) - - - 260, 905, 1353

Bostock v. Eloyer (1 Eq. 26 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 23 ; 11 Jur. 962 ; 13 L. T.

489 ; 14 W. E. 120) - 743

Bosvile v. Attorney-General (12 P. D. 177) - - 382

Boswell v. Mendham (6 Mad. 373) - 196, 1236, 1277

Bott v. Smith (21 B. 511) - - 1024

Boughton, In re (12 W. E. 34 ; 9 L. T. 360) - 1283

v. Jewell (15 Y. 176) 160, 161, 765

Boulton, Exparte (1 D. & J. 163 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 425 ; 29 L. T. 0. S.

71 ; 5 W. E. 445) - - 956

— v. Beard (3 D. M. & G. 608) - - - 1258

Bourdillon v. Collins (24 L. T. 344 ; 19 W. E. 556) - - 253

. v. Eoche (27 L. J. Ch. 681 ; 31 L. T. 0. S. 264 ; 6 W. E,

618) - - - 743

Bourne v. Gatliff (11 C. & E. 45) - - 1091

— v. London Land Co. (W. N. 1885, 109) - - - 151

Boursot v. Savage (2 Eq. 134 ; 14 L. T. 299 ; 14 W. E. 565) 972, 985, 992

Bousfield v. Dove (27 Ch. D. 687 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1099 ; 33 W. E. 197)- 1240

- v. Godfrey (5 Bing. 418 ; 2 M. & P. 771 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 158) 276

- v. Hodges (33 B. 90) 73, 91, 496, 1311, 1328
Bouverie, Ex parte (4 Ey. Ca. 229) - - 806
Bovil v. Padmore (cited 7 D. M. & G. 27) - - 1271
Bowden v. Henderson (2 S. & G. 360) - - 386, 389
Bowe's Estate, In re (4 N. E. 315 ; 10 L. T. 598 ; 12 W. E. 929) - 811
Bowen v. Barlow (11 Eq. 454 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 373 ; 24 L. T. 461 ; 19

W. E. 578) 296, 302

v. Evans (1 J. & L. 264 ; 6 Ir. Eq. E. 569 ; 2 H. L. C. 257) - 930,

935, 1325, 1350, 1351, 1352

TABLE OF CASES. Ixxi

Bow — Bra. PAGE

Bowen v. Kirwan (L. & G. temp. S. 47) - - 842

Bower v. Cooper (2 Ha. 408 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 287 ; 6 Jur. 681) - 128,

634, 1209, 1266

Bowers v. Cator (4 V. 91) - -1136

Bowes v. Bute (Marquis of) (27 W. E. 750) - - 1311

Bowker v. Burdekin (11 M. & W. 128 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 329) - 639, 826

Bowles v. Eogers (6 V. 95, n.) - 292, 825, 1126, 1248

- v. Stewart (1 Sch. & L. 227) - - 108, 746

- v. Waller (Hay, 441) - 196
Bowman v. Hyland (8 Ch. D. 588 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 501 ; 39 L. T. 90 ;

26 W. E. 877)- - - 179

Bown, Re (27 Ch. D. 411 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 881 ; 50 L. T. 796 ; 33 W. E. 58) 10
-v. Stenson (24 B. 631) - 350, 499, 500, 1227, 1244

Bowra v. Wright (4 De G. & S. 265 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 216 ; 15 Jur. 981 ;

16 L. T. 0. S. 550) - -665, 1348

Bowring v. Shepherd (L. E. 6 Q. B. 309; 40 L. J. Q. B. 129; 24

L. T. 721 ; 19 W. E. 852) - - 333

Bowser v. Maclean (2 D. F. & J. 420 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 6 Jur. N. S.

1220; 3 L. T. 456 ; 9 W. E. 112) - - 423

Bowyer v. Bright (13 Pr. 698) - - - 1206

— v. Woodman (3 Eq. 313) - - 454, 459, 460
Boxall v. Boxall (27 Ch. D. 220 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 838 ; 32 W. E. 896) - 653
Boyce v. Green (Bat. 608) - - 233, 251, 261

- v. Banning (2 C. & J. 334 ; 2 Tyr. 327 ; 1 L. J. N. S. Ex. 123) 68

Boycott, Re (29 Ch. 571 ; 52 L. T. 482 ; 34 W. E. 326) - - - 817

Boyd's Settled Estate, Re (8 Ir. Eq. 76) - 1287

Boyd v. Allen (24 Ch. D. 622 ; 48 L. T. 628 ; 31 W. E. 544) - - 1301

v. Belton (1 J. & L. 730) - 947

v. Dickson (10 I. E. Eq. 239) - 165, 180

v. Pawle (14 W. E. 1009 ; 14 L. T. 753) - 780

v. Shorrock (5 Eq. 72; 37 L. J. Ch. 144; 17 L. T. 197; 16

W. E. 102) 149, 607

Boydellv. Drummond (11 Ea. 142) - - 261

- v. Manby (9 Ha. App. LI1I.) - 1317
Boyes v. Liddell (6 Jur. 725 ; 1 Y. & 0. 0. C. 133) -489, 1225
Boyle, Ex parte (3 D. M. & G. 515 ; 17 Jur. 979) - - 529

— In re (5 D. M. & G. 540 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 71) - - 817
Boys v. Ayerst (6 Mad. 316) - - 264
Boyse v. Eossborough (Lord) (6 H. L. C. 2; 3 Jur. N. S. 373; 29 L.T.

O. S. 27; 5W. E. 414) - - 1130

Brace v. Marlborough (Duchess of) (2 P. W. 491) - 526, 933

v. Wehnert (25 B. 348 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 572 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 549 ;

31 L. T. O. S. 310 ; 6 W. E. 425) - 305, 1109

Bracey, In re (8 B. 338) - - - 816

Bradburn v. Morris (3 Ch. D. 812) - - 414

Bradbury v. Wright (2 Doug. 624) - - 192

Bradford (Earl of) v. Eomney (Earl of) (30 B. 431 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 403 ;

6 L. T. 208 ; 10 W. E. 414) - - - - - - 839

Ixxii TABLE OF CASES.

Bra — Bre. PAGE

Bradley's Settled Estates, Re (34 W. E. 148 ; 54 L. T. 43) - - 662

Bradley v. Holdsworth (3 M. & W. 422 ; 1 H. & H. 156 ; 7 L. J.

N. S. Ex. 153)- - - 233

v. London & North- Western E. Co. (5 Ex. 769 ; 1 L. M. & P.

597 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 3) - 706, 707

. v. Munton (15 B. 460; 16 B. 294) - 799, 1185, 1348

v. Eiches (9 Ch. D. 189 ; 38 L. T. 810 ; 26 W. E. 910) 945, 993

Bradshaw, Ex parts (16 Si. 174 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 454 ; 5 Ey. Ca. 432 ; 12

Jur. 888) 719, 808
In re (12 Q. B. 562 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 362 ; 12 Jur. 998) 706, 707

v. Bradshaw (2 Y. & C. 72) - - - 1092

v. — - (2 Mer. 492) - 1219

v. Pane (1 N. E. 159 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 166 ; 3 Dr. 534) 810, 1275,

1276

Braithwaite, Ex parte (1 S. & G. App. XV. ; 22 L. J. Ch. 915) - 805

— v. Britain (1 Ke. 206) - - 678

Bramble, Ex parte (13 Ch. D. 885 ; 42 L. T. 413 ; 28 W. E. 676) - 477

Bramley v. Teal (3 Mad. 219) - 1218
Bramwell v. Lacy (10 Ch. D. 691 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 339 ; 40 L. T. 361 ;

27 W. E. 463) - - - 875

Branch v. Browne (12 Jur. 768 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 435) - - 1347
Brand v. Hammersmith & City E. Co. (L. E. 2 Q. B. 246 ; 36 L. J.

Q. B. 137; 16 L. T. 101; 15 W. E. 437; 7 B. & S. 1)- - - 875
Brandling v. Plummer (2 Dr. 430 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 960 ; 2 Eq. Eep.

1260 ; 23 L. T. 329 ; 2 W. E. 662 ; 8 D. M. & G. 747) 127, 517, 528

Brandlyn v. Ord (1 Atk. 571 ; West, t. Hardw. 512) - 1023
Brandon v. Brandon (7 D. M. & G. 365 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 896 ; 27 L. T.

O. S. 94 ; 4 W. E. 533) - - - 943

— v.- - (2 Dr. & S. 305 ; 11 W. E. 53) - 757, 806

- v. Woodthorpe (10 B. 463 ; 9 L. T. 0. S. 332) - - - 391

Branmer's Estate, In re (14 Jur. 236) - 807

Bransom v. Stammers (28 W. E. 180; 41 L. T. 434) - - 267

Brantom v. Griffits (2 C. P. D. 212 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 408 ; 30 L. T. 4 ;

25 W. E. 313) - - - 234

Brasher's Trusts, In re (6 W. E. 406) 751, 760

Brassey v. Chalmers (16 B. 235 ; 4 D. M. & G. 528) - - 686

Bratt v. Ellis (Sug. 812) 203, 1077

Braybrooke v. Attorney- General (9 H. L. C. 150 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 177 ;

7 Jur. N. S. 741; 4 L. T. 218; 9 W. E. 601) - - 317

(Lord) v. Inskip (8 V. 436) - 321, 323, 596, 1235, 1273, 1274

Braye (Baroness), In re (9 Ha. App. VII. ; 22 L. J. Ch. 285) - 757

(11 W. E. 333; 9 Jur. N. S. 454; 32 L. J.

Ch. 432) - - 810

— Peerage (6 C. & P. 767) 362, 378

Brazier v. Hudson (8 Si. 67 ; 9 Si. 1 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 296) 653, 703

Breadalbane (Marquis of) v. Chandos (Marquis) (2 M. & 0. 711) 839, 856

Brealey v. Collins (You. 317) - 112, 1207

Brearcliff v. Dorrington (4 De G. & S. 122 ; 14 Jur. 1101) - - 550

Bredicott (Vicar of), Ex parte (5 Ey. C. 209 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 414) - 753

Breedon v. Breedon (1 E. & M. 413) - - - - 673

TABLE OF CASES. Ixxill

Bre — Bri. PAGE

Breeze v. Hawker (14 Si. 350) - - 352

Brennan v. Bolton (2 D. & War. 349) - 1139

Brentwood Brick Co., Re (4 Ch. D. 562 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 554 ; 36 L. T.

343; 25 W. E. 481) - - 830, 832

Breslauer v. Barwick (24 W. E. 901 ; 36 L. T. 52) - - 1152

Brett v. dowser (5 C. P. D. 376) 124, 900, 901, 902

v. Marsh (1 Vern. 468 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 147, pi. 4) - 905

Brettle v. Burdett (2 D. J. & S. 244) - ... 674

Brettlebank v. Smith (32 W. E. 675 ; 50 L. T. 491) - - 361

Brew v. Haren (11 I. E. C. L. 198) - 378, 429

Brewer, Re (1 Ch. D. 409 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 466 ; 24 W. E. 465) - 93

v. Broadwood (22 Ch. D. 105; 52 L. J. Ch. 136; 47 L. T.

508; 31 W. E. 115) - - 1180

v. Brown (28 Ch. D. 309; 54 L. J. Ch. 605) - 128, 136, 154, 1154,

1174, 1200

- v. Pocock (23 B. 310) - - - 1345
Brewster v. Kitchin, or Kidgill (Eaym. 317 ; 5 Mod. 369) - - 897
Brice v. Stokes (11 V. 319 ; 2 Wh. & T. L. C.) - - 85, 744
Bridewell Hospital, Re (57 L. T. 155) - 823
Bridge v. Beadon (3 Eq. 664 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 351 ; 15 W. E. 527) - 109
v. Bridge (16 B. 315 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 189; 16 Jur. 1031 ; 20

L. T. 0. S. 75 ; 1 W. E. 4) - 1018

Bridgend Gas Co. v. Dunraven (31 Ch. D. 219; 55 L. J. Ch. 91;

53 L. T. 714; 34 W. E.I 19) - - - - 705

Bridger v. Penfold (1 K. & J. 28 ; 3 Eq. E. 141) - - 1329, 1330

- v. Eice (1 J. & W. 74) - - - 1165

- v. Savage (15 Q. B. D. 363 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 464 ; 53 L. T.

129 ; 33 W. E. 891 ; 49 J. P. 725) - 1163

Bridges v. Garrett (L. E. 5 C. P. 451 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 251 ; 22 L. T.

448; 18 W. E. 815) 221, 747, 801

- v. Longman (24 B. 27) - 89, 195, 325, 1258, 1264, 1266, 1274, 1275

- v. Eobinson (3 Mer. 694) - - 727

- v. Wilts, Somerset, &c. E. Co. (4 Ey. C. 622 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 335) 509

- and McEae (30 W. E. 539) - - 1236
Brien v. Swainson (1 L. E. Ir. 135) - 265
Briggs v. Jones (10 Eq. 92 ; 22 L. T. 212) - 826, 952
Bright's Settlement, In re (13 Ch. D. 413 ; 42 L. T. 308 ; 28 W. E. 551) 956

- Trusts, In re (21 B. 430 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 449 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

300 ; 27 L. T. O. S. 32 ; 4 W. E. 381) 949, 968, 970

Bright v. Walker (1 C. M. & E. 219 ; 4 Tyr. 502 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ex.

250) - 410,411,430

Brighton (Mayor of) v. Guardians of Brighton (5 C. P. D. 368 ; 49

L. J. C. P. 648) - 433, 442

Brine v. Featherstone (4 Taunt. 873) - 988

Bringloe v. Goodson (5 Bing. N. C. 738 ; 8 Sc. 71 ; 8 L. J. N. S.

C. P. 364) - - 354

Brinkley v. Hann (Dru. 175) - - 1175

Briscoe, In re (2 D. J. & S. 249 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 859 ; 4 N. E. 311) - 805
Bristol Dock Co., In re (20 L. T. 0. S. 17) - - .- - 812

TABLE OF CASES.

Bri— Bro. PAGE

Bristow v. Booth (L. E. 5 C. P. 80 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 47 ; 21 L. T. 427 ;

18W.E. 138) - - 659

- v. Cormican (3 Ap. Ca. 641, 688) 354, 414, 419, 428

- v. Eastman (1 Esp. 172 ; Peake, 223) 4

- v. Skirrow (27 B. 596) - - 1315, 1324, 1351

— v. Wood (1 Coll. 480 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 50) 864, 1276
Britain v. Eossiter (11 Q. B. D. 123; 48 L. J. Ex. 362 ; 40 L. T.

240 ; 27 W. E. 482) 232, 274, 1134, 1136, 1140

British and American Telegraph Co. v. Colson (L. E. 6 Ex. 108 ;

40 L. J. Ex. 97 ; 23 L. T. 868) - - 254

- Empire, &c. Co. v. Sugden (47 L. J. Ch. 691 ; 26 W. E. 631) 662

— Museum (Trustees of) v. Finnis (5 C. & P. 460) - - -411
Mutual Banking Co. v. Charnwood E. Co. (18 Q. B. D. 714;

51 L. J. Q. B. 449 ; 35 W. E. 590) 104, 1095

Investment Co. v. Smart (10 Ch. 567 ; 44 L. J. Ch.

695 ; 32 L. T. 849 ; 23 W. E. 800) - - 702

Britten v. Britten (9 B. 143) - 758

Broadbent v. Eamsbottom (11 Ex. 602 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 115 ; 26 L. T.
O. S. 244 ; 4 W. E. 290) - - 416

Broadwood's Settled Estate, Ee (1 Ch. D. 438 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 168 ;

24 W. E. 108) - - - 759

— (7 Ch. 323 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 349 ; 26

L. T. 650 ; 20 W. E. 458) - - 1293

Brocklebank v. Whitehaven June. E. Co. (15 Q. B. 647, n.) - - 61
Broderick, Ex parte (18 Q. B. D. 766 ; 35 W. E. 613) - 231

(18 Q. B. D. 380) - - - 1139

Brodie v. St. Paul (1 V. 326) 261, 1092

Broke's (Lord) Estate, In re (1 N. E. 568 ; 11 W. E. 505) - - 811
Bromley v. Smith (26 B. 644 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 18 ; 7 W. E. 557 ; 33

L. T. 0. S. 363) - - 844

Brompton (Incumbent of), Ex parte (5 De G. & S. 626) - - 861

Brook's Mortgage, Ee (46 L. J. Ch. 865 ; 25 W. E. 841) - 18, 664

Brook v. Badley (3 Ch. 672 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 884 ; 16 W. E. 947) - - 303

v. Eawl (4 Ex. 521 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 114 ; 14 L. T. 205) - - 120

Brooke, In re (3 Ch. D. 630 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 730 ; 35 L. T. 301 ; 24

W. E. 959) - - - 692
(Lord) v. Eounthwaite (5 Ha. 298 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 332 ; 10 Jur.

656) - - 112, 157

v. Anon. (4 Mad. 212) - 1241

v. Champernowne (4 C. & F. 589) - 712, 726

v. Garrod (2 D. & J. 62 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 226 ; 30 L. T. O. S.

194 ; 6 W. E. 121 ; 3 K. & J. 608) - 241, 320, 326, 485, 486, 926

v. Hewitt (3 V. 255) - - 291

v. Mostyn (Lord) (2 D. J. & S. 373 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 65 ; 10 Jur.

N. S. 1114 ; 10 L. T. 392 ; 13 W. E. 115)

- v. Pearson (27 B. 181 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 781 ; 7 W. E. 638)

Brookes v. Drysdale (3 C. P. D. 52 ; 37 L. T. 467 ; 26 W. E. 331) -

-v. Whitworth (Lord) (1 Mad. 86) -
Brookfield v. Bradley (Jac. 634)
Brooking's Devisees, In re (2 Gif. 31 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 151 ; 6 Jur.
N. S. 441 ; 2 L. T. 204) - - 805

TABLE OF CASES. IxXV

Bro. PAGE

Brookman v. Kothschild (3 Si. 153 ; 7 L. J. Ch. 163) - - - 51

Brooks v. Day (2 Dick. 572) - 522

Broome v. Monck (10 V. 597) - - 303, 304, 305, 306, 1132

Brothers v. Benco (Fitzg. 118) - 988

Brother-ton v. Hatt (2 Yern. 574 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 330, pi. 3) - - 988

Brougham v. Squire (1 Dr. 151) - 856
Broughton v. Broughton (5 D. M. & G. 160 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 250 ; 1

Jur. N. S. 965 ; 26 L. T. 54) - - - - 95
- v. Con way (Dy. 340) - - 891
v. Hutt (3 D. & J. 501 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 167 ; 5 Jur. N. S.

231 ; 32 L. T. 306 ; 7 W. E, 166) - - 1174
Broun v. Kennedy (33 B. 133 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 342 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 141;

9 L. T. N. S. 736 ; 12 W. E. 360) - 24

Brown's Estate, In re (11 W. E. 19 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 275 ; 9 Jur. N. S.

349 ; 7 L. T. N. S. 346; 1 N. E, 13) - 77, 1298

Settlement, Re (10 Eq. 349 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 845 ; 18 W. E.

945) - 67

Trusts, Re (5 Eq. 88 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 171 ; 17 L. T. N. S. 241 ;

16 W. E. 106) - 109, 968

Will, Re (27 Ch. D. 179; 53 L. J. Ch. 921 ; 51 L. T. 156 ;

32 W. E. 894) - - - - - - - 1281

Brown and Sibley (3 Ch. D. 156 ; 35 L. T. 305 ; 24 W. E. 782) - 1273

- v. Brown (1 Lev. 57) - 889

- v. Carter (5 V. 862) - - 1019
v. Cole (14 Si. 427; 14 L. J. Ch. 166; 9 Jur. 290; 5 L. T.

O. S. 2) - 323, 654

- v. Dibbs (37 L. T. 171 ; 25 W. E. 776) - - - 715

- v. Gellatly (2 Ch. 751 ; 17 L. T. N. S. 131 ; 15 W. E. 1188)- 63

- v. Inskip (1 C. & E. 231) - - 868

- v. Jones (1 Atk. 190) - 1004, 1008

- v. Lake (15 L. J. Ch. 34) - 800, 1344

- v. Oakshott (12 B. 252) - - - 996

- v. — - (24 B. 254) - 1051

- v. — - (38 L. J. Ch. 717) - - - 1332

- v. Paul (2 Jur. N. S. 317 ; 26 L. T. 0. S. 232) - 196, 621, 629
• v. Pearson (21 Ch. D. 716 ; 46 L. T. 411 ; 30 W. E, 436) - 1224,

1243

- v. Perrott (4 B. 585) - - 540
— v. Pringlo (4 Ha. 124) - 391

- v. Eaindle (3 V. 256) - -312, 1117
v. Eobins (4 H. & N. 186 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 250 ; 32 L. T.

O. S. 261) - 420

- v. Eye (17 Eq. 343 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 228 ; 29 L. T. 872) - - 1272
— v. Savage (4 Dr. 635 ; 7 W. E. 571) - 785, 966

v. Sewell(4 Ha. 49; 22 L. J. Ch. 1063; 17 Jur. 708; 1

Eq. E. 61) - - - 477

- v. Stead (5 Si. 535 ; 2 L. J. N. S. Ch. 45) - - 1040
v. Storey (1 Man. & G. 128 ; 1 Sc. N. E, 9 ; 4 Jur. 319)- - 916

Browne, Re (15 B. 61) - 817
(1 D. M. & G. 322 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 442) - - 816, 817

TABLE OF CASES.

Bro— Buc. PAGE

Browne v. Amyot (3 Ha. 173 ; 13 L. J. Oh. 232 ; 8 Jur. 568) - 915

- v. Cavendish (1 J. & L. 606) - - - _ _ 530

- v. Cork (Bishop of) (1 D. & Wai. 714) - - - 451

- v. Cross (14 B. 105) - . _ 55
v. Fenton (14 Yes. 144) - - - - 154

- v. Lockhart (10 Si. 421 ; 9 L. J. Ch. N. S. 167 ; 4 Jur. 167) 475,

654

- v. London Necropolis Co. (6 W. E. 188) - - - 1114

- v. Paull (16 Jur. 707 ; 19 L. T. 0. S. 269) - 1316

- v. Southouse (3 Br. C. C. 107)- - - - 207

- v. Warner (14 V. 409) - - 1186

- v. Warnock (7 L. E. Ir. 3) - 391, 1206
Browning v. Wright (2 B. & P. 13) - -616, 882, 890
Brownlie v. Campbell (5 Ap. Ca. 925; 7 Eett. (H. L.) 66) 104, 110, 115,

152, 900, 905

Brownson v. Lawrence (6 Eq. 1 ; 18 L. T. 143 ; 16 W. E. 927) 923, 925
Bruce, In re (3 Sc. N. E. 592) - - - 650

- v. Garden (5 Ch. 32 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 334 ; 18 W. E. 384) - 854
Brumfit v. Morton (3 Jur. N. S. 1198 ; 30 L. T. 98) 106, 122, 132, 134,

135, 155, 164, 191, 978, 984, 1199

Brunskill v. Caird (16 Eq. 493 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 163; 21 W. E. 943) - 752
Brunton v. Neale (14 L. J. Ch. 8 ; 9 Jur. 338) - -530, 1115

Bryan v. Cowdal (21 W. E. 693) - 463

- v. Lewis (Ey. & Mo. 386) - - 1177
Bryant v. Busk (4 Eus. 1) - 159, 340, 353, 1255, 1259
* v. Lefever (4 C. P. D. 172 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 380 ; 40 L. T. 579 ;

27 W. E. 592)- - 404, 410

Brydges v. Landen (cited 3 V. 550) - - 692

Buccleuch (Duke of) v. Metrop. Board (L. E. 5 H. L. 418 ; 41 L. J.

Ex. 137 ; 27 L. T. 1) - - - 705

- v. Wakefield (L. E. 4 H. L. 377 ; 39 L. J. Ch.

441 ; 23 L. T. 102) - 187

Buchanan v. Poppleton (4 C. B. N. S. 40 ; 27 L. J. C. P. 210 ; 4 Jur.

N. S. 414 ; 21 L. T. 0. S. 83 ; 6 W. E. 372) - 166, 323, 398

Buck, Exparte (1 H. & M. 519 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 79 ; 9 L. T. 374; 12

W. E. 100; 3 N. E. 110) - - 803

v. Lodge (18 Y. 450) - - 1219

Buckell v. Blenkhorn (5 Ha. 131 ; 6 L. T. 412) 11, 643

Buckingham v. Sellick (22 L. T. 370) - - - 1303

Buckland v. Papillon (1 Eq. 477 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 738 ; 12 Jur. 155 ; 13
L. T. 736 ; 14 W. E. 300 ; 2 Ch. 67 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 81 ;
15 L. T. 378 ; 15 W. E. 92) - 192, 242, 1182

- v. Pocknell (13 Si. 412) - 830, 831
Buckle v. Mitchell (18 V. 100) - - 1002, 1117, 1119, 1164
Buckley, In re (17 B. 110 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 934 ; 17 Jur. 478) - - 749

- v. Howell (29 B. 546 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 525 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 536 ;

4 L. T. N. S. 172 ; 9 W. E. 544) - 76, 77, 1296

v. Lanauze (L. & G. temp. P. 327) - 965

Buckmaster v. Harrop (13 V. 456) - - 304, 1132, 1136, 1147

TABLE OF CASES. Ixxvii

Buc — Bur. PAGE

Buckmaster v. Russell (10 C. B. N. S. 745 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 155 ; 4 L. T.
552; 9 W. R. 749) - - - 250

Bucks R. Co. In re (14 Jur. 1065) - - 806

Budd v. Marshall (5 C. P. D. 481 ; 50 L. J. C. P. 21 ; 42 L. T. 793;

29 W. R. 148) - - 192

Bugden v. Bignold (2 Y. & C. C. C. 390) 109, 517, 943, 981

Bulkeley v. Hope (1 K. & J. 482 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 356 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 864 ;

3 W. R. 360) - ... 122, 398

Bull v. Chapman (8 Ex. 444 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 257 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 322) 282

v. Hutchens (32 B. 615 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 954 ; 8 L. T. 716 ; 2 N. R.

306; 11 W. R. 866) - - 194, 564, 972, 1235

v. Price (7 Bing. 237 ; 5 M. & P. 2 ; 9 L. J. C. P. 78) - - 214

Bullen v. Denning (5 B. & C. 842 ; 8 D. & R. 657 ; 4 L. J. Q. B. 314) 150

Buller v. Plunkett (1 J. & H. 441 ; 9 W. R. 190) - - 944
Bullers v. Dickinson (29 Ch. D. 155 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 776; 52 L. T. 400;

33 W. R. 540) - - 407
Bulley v. Bulley (9 Ch. 739 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 79 ; 30 L. T. 848 ; 22 W. R.

779) - 379

Bullin v. Fletcher (2 M. & C. 432 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ch. 140) - - 307

Bullock v. Dodds (2 B. & Aid. 258) - - 15

— v. Downes (9 H. L. C. 1 ; 3 L. T. 194) - 437, 454, 455

- v. Thorne (Moo. 615) - 1021, 1022
Bulmer v. Allison (8 Jur. 440 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 11) - - 1354

- v. Hunter (8 Eq. 46 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 543 ; 20 L. T. 942) - 1017
Bulteel v. Lord Abinger (6 Jur. 410) - 74
Bunny v. Hopkinson (27 B. 565 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 93 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 187 ;

1 L. T. 53) - 894, 895

- v. Poyntz (1 N. & M. 229 ; 4 B. & Ad. 568) - - 829
Bunting v. Marriott (7 Jur. N. S. 565 ; 9 W. R. 264) - 1345

- v. Sargent (13 Ch. D. 330; 49 L. J. Ch. 109; 41 L. T. 643 ;

28 W. R. 123) - - 445

Burbidge, In re (3 M. & G. 1) - 1351

Burch v. Coney (14 Jur. 1009 ; 14 L. T. 0. S. 414) - - 896

Burchell v. Clark (2 C. P. D. 88 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 115 ; 35 L. T. 690 ;

25 W. R. 334) - 366

Burdick v. Garrick (5 Ch. 233 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 369 ; 18 W. R. 387) - 438
Burdin's Will, In re (5 Jur. N. S. 1378 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 840 ; 2 L. T.

70) - 1281

Burdon v. Kennedy (3 Atk. 739) - 526, 527

Burgess v. Hills (26 B. 244 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 356 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 233 ; 32

L. T. 0. S. 328 ; 7 W. R. 158) - - 1268

- v. Wheate (1 W. Bl. 1231 ; 1 Ed. 211) - - 289, 506
Burgh v. Langton (5 Br. P. C. 213; 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 609, pi. 5) - 469
Burke v. Greene (2 B. & B. 517) - - 278

v. Smyth (3 J. & L. 193) - 1214

Burke's Estate, Re (9 L. R. Ir. 24) - - 767

Burkinshaw v. Birmingham, &c. R. Co. (5 Ex. 487 ; 6 Ry. Cas. 600;

20 L. J. Ex. 246) - - 61, 243, 515

Burn v. Carvalho (4 M. & C. 690 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 65 ; 3 Jur. 1141) 828

Ixxviil TABLE OF CASES.

Bur— But. PAGE

Burnaby v. Equit. Eev. Society (28 Oh. D. 416 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 466 ;

52 L. T. 350 ; 33 W. E. 639) 321, 1117

- v. Griffin (3 Y. 271) - - - 1274
Burnard v. Wainwright (19 L. J. Q. B. 423 ; 1 L. M. & P. 455) - 707
Burne v. Eobinson (1 D. & Wai. 668) - - 437, 459
Burnell, Ex parte (7 Jur. 116) - - - 37

- v. Brown (1 J. & W. 172) - 131, 217, 500, 503, 1202, 1204, 1258

- v. Burnell (11 Ch. D. 213 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 412 ; 27 W. E. 749) 1309,

1310
v. Firth (15 W. E. 544) -

Burnell's Estate, In re (10 Jur. N. S. 289 ; 10 L. T. 127 ; 12 W. E.

568) - - - 812

Burnett v. Gt. N. of Scotland E. Co. (10 Ap. Ca. 147 ; 54 L. J. Q. B.

531 ; 53 L. T. 507 ; 12 Eettie, 12) - 1110

- v. Kinaston (Ch. Prec. 120 ; 2 Vern. 401) - - 1117

- v. Lynch (5 B. & 0. 589 ; 8 D. & E. 368) - - 631
Burns v. Bryan (12 Ap. Ca. 184) - - 876
Burrel's Case (6 Co. 72) - 1021
BurreU v. Egremont (Earl of) (7 B. 205 ; 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 309 ; 8

Jur. 587) - - 456

Burrough v. Martin (2 Camp. 112) - 109

- v. Skinner (5 Burr. 2639) - 205, 207

Burroughes v. Browne (9 Ha. 409 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 148) - 221, 222, 739

Burroughs, Lynn & Sexton, Re (5 Ch. D. 601 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 528 ; 36

L. T. 778 ; 25 W. E. 520) - 1226, 1238

— = v. M'Creight (1 J. & L. 290 ; 7 Ir. Eq. E. 49) 440, 445, 446, 463

v. Oakley (3 Sw. 159 ; 1 Mer. 52) 497, 499, 502, 1217, 1227

Burrow v. Scammell (19 Ch. D. 176 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 296 ; 45 L. T. 606;

30 W. E. 310 ; 46 J. P. 135) - - 740, 1190, 1193

Burrowes v. Gore (6 H. L. C. 907, 961 ; 6 W. E. 699) 439, 458

v. Lock (10 V. 470) - 110, 114, 518, 1207, 1261

Burt v. Haslett (18 C. B. 162 ; 25 L. J. 0. P. 201 ; 27 L. T. O. S.

80 ; 4 W. E. 485) - 606, 607

Burting v. Stonard (2 P. Wms. 150) - - 673

Burton v. Neville (2 Cox, 242) - 473

- v. Todd (1 Sw. 255) 733, 1259
Bury v. Oppenheim (26 B. 594) - 847
— v. Philpot (2 M. & K 349 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 119) - - 381, 382
Bush v. Trowbridge Water Co. (10 Ch. 459; 44 L. J. Ch. 645; 33

L. T. 137 ; 23 W. E. 641) - - 414

Bushell v. Bushell (1 Sch. & L. 90) - - 770, 960, 981

- v. Pocock (53 L. T. 860) - - - 265
Bustard's Case (4,Co. 121a) - ' - 327
Butcher v. Stapely (1 Yern. 363) - - 967
v. Steed (L. E. 7 H. L. 839 ; 44 L. J. Bk. 129 ; 33 L. T. 541 ;

24 W. E, 463) --- - 1032

Butchers' Co., Re (53 L. T. 491) - - 808

Bute's (Marquis of) Will, In re (John. 15; 5 Jur. N. S. 487; 33

L. T. O. S. 178) - - 656

Butler's Will> In re (16 Eq. 479) - - 759, 805

TABLE OF CASES. IxxiX

But— Cal. PAGE

Butler v. Borton (5 Mad. 40) - 76

-v. Butler (5 V. 534) - - 919

— v. Portarlington (Lord) (1 D. & War. 65; 4 Ir. Eq. R. 1) - 222,

974, 978

v. Powis (2 Coll. 161 ; 9 Jur. 859) - 1176, 1183, 1187

— v. Swinerton (Cro. Jac. 656) - - 884

Butt v. Monteaux (1 K. & J. 98; 24 L. J. Ch. 99; 24 L. T. 0. S.

106; 3 Eq. Rep. 190; 3 W. R. 82) - - - 1163

Buttanshaw v. Martin (John. 89 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 647 ; 33 L. T. 0. S.

300) 653, 779

Buttemere v. Hayes (5 M. & W. 456 ; 7 D. P. C. 489 ; 9 L. J. N. S.

Ex. 44 ; 3 Jur. 704) - - - 231

Butterfield v. Heath (15 B. 408) - 1007, 1274

Buxton, Exparte (15 Ch. D. 289 ; 43 L. T. 183 ; 29 W. R. 28) - - 630

- v. Buxton (1 M. & C. 80) - - 62

v. Lister (3 Atk. 386 ; 7 V. 219) - 112, 120, 1156, 1167, 1210,

1257, 1261
Byam v. Byam (19 B. 58 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 209 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 79 ; 3 W. R.

95) - 687

Bycroft v. Sibel (20 L. T. O. S. 197) - - 475

Bygrave v. Metr. Board (32 Ch. D. 147 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 602 ; 54 L. T.

889; 50 J. P. 788) - 1222

Byrne v. Van Tienhoven & Co. (5 C. P. D. 344 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 316 ;

42 L. T. 371) - 268

Byron's Charity, Re (23 Ch. D. 171 ; 48 L. T. 515; 31 W. R. 517) - 754

Estate, Re (1 D. J. & S. 358 ; 8 L. T. 562 ; 2 N. R. 294 ; 11

W. R. 790) - - - 811
Byron (Lady), In re (4 D. M. & G. 694) - 804, 807
v. Cooper (11 C. & F. 556; 8 Jur. 991) - - - - 434

CABALLERO v. Henty (9 Ch. 447 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 635 ; 30 L. T. N. S.

314; 22 W. R. 446) - 107, 519, 976, 1196
Caddick, Re (7 W. R. 334) - - 1291
v. Skidmore (2 D. & J. 52 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 3 Jur. N. S.

1185 ; 30 L. T. O. S. 205 ; 6 W. R. 119) 227, 233, 242, 256, 1053, 1133
CadeU v. Palmer (Tud. L. C. 424; 1 01. & F. 372; 10 Bing. 140; 3

Mo. & Sc. 571) - - - 68

Cadle v. Moody (7 Jur. N. S. 1249 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 385) - 914

Cadman v. Horner (18 Y. 10) - 1174, 1207

Cadogan v. Essex (Lord) (2 Dr. 227 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 487 ; 18 Jur. 782 ;

2 Eq. Rep. 551 ; 2 W. R. 313) - - 96

Cahill v. Cahill (7 Ap. Ca. 420, 425 ; 49 L. T. N. S. 605) 10, 1119, 1120,

1166
Caine, Re (10 Q. B. D. 284; 52 L. J. Q. B. 354; 48 L. T. 357; 31

W. R. 428) 651, 1119

Caines v. Smith (3 D. & L. 462 ; 15 M. & W. 189 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 106) 1086
Calcraft v. Roebuck (1 Y. 221) 499, 503, 708, 736, 1204, 1205

Caldecott v. Caldecott (6 Jur. 232; 1 Y. & C. C. C. 312; 11 L. J.

N. S. Ch. 158) 64

1XXX TABLE OF CASES.

Cal — Can. PAGE

Caldwell v. Fellowes (9 Eq. 410; 39 L. J. Ch. 618; 22 L. T. 225; 18

W. E. 486) - 1117

Caledonian E. Co. v. Belhaven (Lord) (3 Macq. 56 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 573 ;

29 L. T. O. S. 286) - - 420

v. Helensburgh (Mayor of) (2 Macq. 391 ; 2 Jur.

N. S. 623; 27 L. T. 241 ; 4 W. E, 671) - 62

v. Sprot (2 Macq. 449 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 623 ; 27 L. T.

O. S. 264 ; 4 W. E. 659) - - 420, 424, 604, 609

Callagan v. Callagan (8 C. & F. 374) - - 1163

Galley v. Eichards (19 B. 404 ; 2 W. E. 614) 994, 995, 996

Calmady v. Eowe (6 C. B. 861) - - - 364

Calne E. Co., Ee (9 Eq. 658) - 548

Calverly v. Williams (1 V. jun. 210) - 127, 908, 1154, 1174, 1260

Calvert, Ex parte (3 Ch. D. 317 ; 45 L. J. Bkcy. 134 ; 34 L. T. 920) 476

v. Godfrey (6 B. 97; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 305) 2, 1276, 1335, 1337,

1350

— v. - - (2 B. 267) - - 1249, 1344

- v. Sebright (15 B. 156) - - 884, 887

Camberwell & South London Building Society v. Hollo way (13
Ch. D. 754; 49 L. J. Ch. 361 ; 41 L. T. N. S. 752; 28 W. B, 222) 135,

155, 164, 323, 1199
Cambridge (Corp. of), Ex parte (6 Ha. 30; 5 Ey. Ca. 204; 12 Jur.

450) - - - - 751

Camden v. Benson (1 Ke. 671) - 1336

(Marquis) v. Murray (16 Ch. D. 161 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 282; 43

L. T. N. S. 661 ; 29 W. E. 190) - - 96

Cameron and Wells, Re (36 W. E. 5) - 631

Camoy's Barony (6 C. & F. 801 ; West. 34) - - 394

Campanari v. Woodburn (15 C. B. 400; 24 L. J. C. P. 13; 1 Jur.

N. S. 17 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 95 ; 3 C. L. E. 140 ; 3 W. E. 59) - 216

Campbell v. Fleming (1 A. & E. 40 ; 3 N. & M. 834 ; 3 L. J. N. S.

Q. B. 136 - - 106, 117

- v. Hay (2 Mol. 102) - 1353

v. Holyland (7 Ch. D. 166 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 38 L. T. 128 ;

26 W. E. 109) - 468, 469

v. Hooper (3 S. & G. 153 ; 19 Jur. 970 ; 25 L. T. 220 ; 3 Eq.

Eep. 727 ; 3 W. E. 528) - 7

v. Tngilby (21 B. 573 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 410, 556 ; 27 L. T. 0. S.

51, 94 ; 29 L. T. 0. S. 287 ; 4 W. E. 433 ; 5 W. E. 837 ;
ID. &J. 393 - 4,1008,1164

v. Lewis (3 B. & Aid. 392) - 879

v. Moxhay (18 Jur. 641 ; 23 L. T. 0. S. 227 ; 2 W. E. 610) 1316

v. Walker (5 V. 681) 50, 55, 90, 1323

v. Wardlaw (8 Ap. Ca. 641) - - - 586

- v. Wilson (3 Ea. 294) - 412

Campion v. Cotton (17 V. 263a) - - 1065

Cane v. Allen (Lord) (2 Dow, 289) - - 35, 43, 907

Canham v. Barry (15 C. B. 597 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 100 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

402 ; 36 C. L. E. 487) - - - 1090

Cann's Estate, In re (19 L. J. Ch. 376) 751, 760

Cann r. Cann (3 Si. 447) 905, 1352

TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxi

Can — Car. PAGE

Cann v. Cann (1 P. Wms. 727) 56, 1277

Caiman v. South Eastern E. Co. (7 Ex. 843 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 257) - 981

Cannock v. Jauncey (1 Dr. 497 ; 1 W. E. 378) - 475

Cannon v. Johnson (11 Eq. 90 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 46) - - 1311

- v. Kelly (1 H. & J. 655) - 214

- v. Eimington (12 C. B. 1 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 137) - - - 449

v. Villars (8 Ch. 415 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 597 ; 38 L. T. 939 ; 26

> H - 1 \

W. E. 751) 412

Cant's Estate, In re (1 D. F. & J. 153 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 119 ; 6 Jur. N. S.
183 ; 1 L. T. 254 ; 8 W. E. 105) - - 809

Canterbury (Archbishop of), Ex parte (1 Coll. 154) - - 807

- In re (23 L. T. 0. S. 219) - - - 756

- In re (2 De G. & S. 365 ; 12 Jur. 1042) - 761
Capdevielle, Re (2 H. & C. 985; 33 L. J. Ex. 306; 10 Jur. N. S. 1155;

12 W. E. 1110) - - 317

Cape Breton Co., Re (29 Ch. D. 795; 54 L. J. Ch. 822; 53 L. T. N. S.

181; 33 W. E. 788) - - 51, 1211

Capel v. Girdler (9 V. 509) - - 310

Capell v. Great Western E. Co. (11 Q. B. D. 345 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 345 ;
48 L. T. 505 ; 31 W. E. 555) - - - 707

Capper v. Spottiswoode (Taml. 21) - - 830

- v. Terrington (1 Coll. 103 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 239 ; 8 Jur. 140) - 764
Capps v. Norwich & Spalding E. Co. (9 Jur. N. S. 635 ; 2 N. E. 51 ;

11 W. E. 657) - 1220

Curd v. Jaffray (2 Sch. & L. 374) - 268, 272

Cardigan v. Curzon-Howe (30 Ch. D. 531 ; 33 W. E. 836 ; 55 L. J.

Ch. 71) - - 1233, 1275

Cardross's Settlement, Re (7 Ch. D. 728 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 327 ; 38 L. T.
778 ; 26 W. E. 389) - 3

Carew's Estate, In re (26 B. 187 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1290 ;

32 L. T. 154; 7 W. E. 81) 121, 1331, 1332

Cargill v. Bower (10 Ch. D. 502) - - 1152

Carington (Lord) v. Wycombe E. Co. (2 Eq. 825; 3 Ch. 377 ; 37 L. J.
Ch. 213 ; 15 L. T. 49 ; 18 L. T. 96 ; 14 W. E. 1018 ; 16 W. E. 494) 858,

859, 861

Carleton v. Leighton (3 Mer. 667) - - 911

Carlisle Banking Co. v. Thompson (28 Ch. D. 398 ; 53 L. T. 115) - 939

(Mayor of) v. Graham (L. E. 4 Ex. 361 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 226 ;

21 L. T. 133 ; 18 W. E. 318) - - 380, 426
v. Silloth E. Co., In re (33 B. 253) - - 811

- v. Whaley (L. E. 2 H. L. 391 ; 16 W. E. 229) - - - 928
Carlon v. Farlar (8 B. 525) - - 543
Carlyon v. Levering (1 H. & N. 784 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 251) - - 417

- v. Truscott (20 Eq. 350 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 186 ; 32 L. T. N. S. 50 ;

23 W. E. 302) 65, 680, 1324

Carne v. Long (2 D. F. & J. 75 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 503 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 639 ;

2 L. T. N. S. 552 ; 8 W. E. 570) - - 24

v. Michell (10 Jur. 909 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 287) - 1185, 1186

Carney, Re (20 W. E. 407 ; 26 L. T. 308) - - 805

Carolan v. Brabazon (3 J. & L. 200) - 1163, 1213

D. /

Ixxxil TABLE OF CASES.

Car — Cas. PAGE

Carpenter, In re (Kay, 418) 284, 662, 663

- v. Blandford (8 B. & 0. 575 ; 4 M. & E. 93) - - - 490

- v. Buller (8 M. & W. 209) - 911
v. Herriot (1 Ed. 338 ; 2 Ken. Oh. 533) - - 56

- v. Parker (3 C. B. N. S. 206 ; 27 L. J. 0. P. 78) - - 884
Carpmael v. Powis (1 Ph. 693) - - 994, 995

— v. Profitt (17 Jur. 875 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 165) - 806

Carr, Ex parte (3 V. & B. Ill) - - 109, 114

- v. Foster (3 Q. B. 581 ; 2 G. & D. 753 ; 6 Jur. 837) - - 432

v. Jackson (21 L. J. Ex. 137 ; 1 Ex. 382 ; 18 L. T. 0. S. 279) - 212,

1092

— v. Eoberts (5 B. & Ad. 82) 615, 787

Carrington v. Pell (3 De G. & S. 512) - - - 747

v. Eoots (2 M. & W. 248; M. & H. 14; 6 L. J. N. S. Ex.

95 ; 1 Jur. 85) 232, 234

Carrodus v. Sharp (20 B. 56) - 709, 1265

Carroll v. Keayes (8 I. E. Eq. 97) - - 519, 976, 1196, 1204

Carter v. Carter (3 K. & J. 634 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 74 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 63 ;

30 L. T. 0. S. 349) - - 589,600,838,931,933

— v. Ely (Dean of) (7 Si. 211 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Ch. 132) - - 484

- v. Hind (23 L. T. 0. S. 116 ; 2 W. E. 27) - - 1004

- v. Home (1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 7) - - 1051

- v. Palmer (8 01. & E. 657) 43, 44, 50

- v. Sanders (2 Dr. 248 ; 2 W. E. 325) - 678, 703

- v. Scargill (L. E. 10 Q. B. 564 ; 32 L. T. 694) - - - 482

v. Williams (9 Eq. 678 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 560 ; 23 L. T. 183 ; 18

W. E. 593) - - 520, 869, 970, 981

Cams-Wilson, Re (18 Q. B. D. 7 ; 35 W. E. 43) - - 260

Carven, In re (8 B. 436 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 372) - - 818

Gary v. Gary (2 Sch. & L. 173) - 44
Casamajor v. Strode (1 Wils. Ch. 428 ; 2 Swans. 347; 5 Si. 87, 98; 2

M. & K. 708 ; 1 S. & S. 381) - - 177, 370, 380, 1203, 1274, 1339

Casborne v. Barsham (2 B. 76) - 23
Case v. James (3 D. E. & J. 256 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 749 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 869 ;

4 L. T. 664 ; 9 W. E. 771) - - 930

Casey v. O'Shaunessy (7 Jur. 1140) - - 393

Cass v. Eudele (2 Vern. 280 ; 1 Br. C. C. 157, n. ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 25,

pi. 8) - - - 287
v. Waterhouse (Ch. Prec. 29) - 250, 908

v. Wood (30 L. T. 670) - - 1301

Casson v. Eoberts (31 B. 613 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 105 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1199 ;

1 N. E. 9; 7 L. T. 588 ; 11 W. E. 102) - 222, 1090

Castellain v. Preston (11 Q. B. D. 380; 52 L. J. Q. B. 366; 49 L. T.

29; 31 W. E. 557) 197,287,913

Castellan v. Hobson (10 Eq. 47 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 490; 22 L. T. 575; 18

W. E. 731) - - - 333

Castle v. Eox (11 Eq. 542 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 302 ; 24 L. T. 536 ; 19 W. E.

840) - - - 308

- v. Sworder (6 H. & N. 828 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 310 ; 8 Jur. N. S.
233; 4 L. T. 865 ; 9 W. E. 697) - - - - 234

TARLE OF CASKS.

Cas-Cha. PAGE

Castle v. Wilkinson (5 Ch. 534 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 843 ; 18 W. E. 586) - 1120,

1189, 1195

Cathrow v. Eade (4 De G. & S. 527 ; 21 L. T. 0. S. 179) - 309, 340, 943
Catlin, Re (18 B. 508) - - - 816

- v. Bell (4 Camp. 183) - - - - 204
Catling v. G. N. E. Co. (18 W. B, 121 ; 21 L. T. 769) - - - 243
v. King (5 Ch. D. 660 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 384 ; 36 L. T. 526 ; 25

W. E. 550) - 250,253,1148

Cato v. Thompson (9 Q. B. D. 616 ; 47 L. T. 491) - 124, 125, 129,

157, 165, 736, 1189, 1198, 1202, 1204, 1205

Caton v. Caton (2 II. L. 143 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 886 ; 16 W. E. 1 ; 1 Ch.
137 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 292 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 171 ; 14 L. T. 34 ; 14 W. E.
267) - 270, 271, 1004, 1140, 1141

Cator v. Pembroke (Lord) (1 Br. C. C. 301 ; 2 Br. C. C. 282) 906, 974

v. Reeves (16 Jur. 1004) - - -1316

Catt v. Tourlo (4 Ch. 654 ; 21 L. T. 188 ; 17 W. E. 939) - 864, 865,

1167, 1169
Cattell v. Corrall (3 Y. & C. 413 ; 4 Y. & C. 228 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ex.

Eq. 37) 128, 169, 325, 328, 779, 1236

Cattley v. Arnold (1J. & H. 651 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 352 ; 5 Jur. N. S.

361 ; 32 L. T. 369 ; 7 W. E. 245) - 915

- v. - - (4 K. & J. 595) - - 1043
Cattlin, In re (8 B. 121) - 817
Catton v. Bennett (26 Ch. D. 161 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 685 ; 50 L. T. 383;

32 W. E. 485) - 204, 1130

- v. Wild (32 B. 266) - - 870
Causton v. Macklew (2 Si. 242) - - 527, 1235, 1276
Cavan (Lady) v. Pulteney (2 Y. 544) - 885
Cavander v. Bulteel (9 Ch. 79 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 370 ; 29 L. T. 710 ; 22

W. E. 177) - - 518, 520

Cave v. Cave (15 Ch. D. 639; 49 L. J. Ch. 505; 42 L. T. 730 ; 28

W. E. 798) - - - - - - - 942

v. Cork (2 Y. & C. C. C. 130 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 156 ; 7 Jur. 461) 1130

- v. Mackenzie (46 L. J. Ch. 564 ; 37 L. T. 218) 210, 1056

Cavendish v. Cavendish (10 Ch. 319 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 219 ; 23 W. E.
313) 76, 1340

Cawley v. Furnell (12 C. B. 291 ; 20 L. J. C. P. 197 ; 15 Jur. 908) - 445
Central E. Co. of Venezuela v. Kisch (L. E. 2 H. L. 99 ; 16 L. T. 500 ;

15 W. E. 821) - 117

Chad wick, Ex parte (15 Jur. 597) - - 1065

- v. Broadwood (3 B. 308 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 242) - - 447
v. Chadwick (16 Jur. 1060 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 20 L. T. 0. S.

272 ; 1 W. E. 29) - - - 996

v. Holt (2 Jur. N. S. 918 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 76; 27 L. T. 0. S.

286 ; 4 W. E. 791) - 535

- v. Maden (9 Ha. 188) - 1129, 1131, 1132

v. Marsden (L. E. 2 Ex. 285 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 177 ; 16 L. T.

666 ; 15 W. E. 964) - - 419

- v. Turner (1 Ch. 310 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 349 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 153,

239 ; 14 L. T. 86 ; 14 W. E. 496) - 771, 965

Chalmer v. Bradley (1 J. & W. 59) - - 54, 55, 365

Ixxxiv TABLE OF CASES.

Cha — Che. PAGE

Chamberlain, Re (23 W. E. 852)- 1282, 1283

v. Chamberlain (1 S. & G. App. xxviii.) - 1326

Vm Lee (10 Si. 444) 1178, 1242

Chambers' Settled Estates, Re (28 B. 653 ; 29 L. J. N. S. Ch. 924 ; 6

Jur. N. S. 1005 ; 3 L. T. N. S. 49 ; 8 W. E. 646) - 79, 1280

Chambers v. Betty (Beat. 488) - - 43, 1215

- v. Griffiths (1 Esp. 550) - - 1084

- v. Howell (11 B. 6 ; 12 Jur. 905) - - 678
Champernowne v. Brooke (3 C. & F. 4 ; 9 Bligh, N. S. 199) - 712
Champion v. Plummer (1 B. & P. N. E. 254 ; 5 Esp. 240) - - 251

— v. Eigby (1 E. & M. 539 ; Tarn. 421) - 54

Chandos Peerage (Min. of Ev. 10) - - 394

- (Duke of) v. Talbot (2 P. W. 606) - - 149

(Marquis of) v. Commissioners of Inland Eevenue (6 Ex. 464 ;

20 L. J. Ex. 269) - - 788
Chant v. Brown (9 Ha. 794) - 994, 995

Chaplain v. Southgate (10 Mod. 384) - - - 883
Chapleo v. Brunswick Building Society (6 Q. B. D. 696 ; 50 L. J.

Q. B. 372 ; 44 L. T. 449 ; 29 W. E. 529) - - 213
Chapman & Hobbs, Re (29 Ch. D. 107 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 810 ; 52 L. T.

805 ; 33 W. E. 703) - - 1274

- v. Bradley (33 B. 61) - - - 1009

- v. Corpe (27 W. E. 781 ; 41 L. T. 22) 439, 452

- v. Emery (Cowp. 279) - - - 1003
v. Jones (L. E. 4 Ex. 273 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 169; 20 L. T. 811 ;

17 W. E. 920) - - 334

- v. Speller (14 Q. B. 621 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 239 ; 14 Jur. 652) - 908
Chappell v. Eees (1 D. M. & G. 393) - 459
Charitable Donations (Commissioners of) v. Wybrants (2 J. & L. 182) 437,

441, 944, 1023

Charlewood v. Hammer (28 Sol. J. 710) - - - 1320

Charlton v. Attorney- General (4 Ap. Ca. 427 ; 49 L. J. Ex. 86 ; 40

L. T. 760 ; 27 W. E. 921)- - - 315
v. Coombes (4 Gift. 372 ; 8 L. T. N. S. 81 ; 9 Jur. N. S.

534 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 284 ; 1 N". E. 547 ; 11 W. E. 504) - 995
v. Durham (Earl of) (4 Ch. 433 ; 20 L. T. 467 ; 17 W. E.

995) - - 685, 744

- v. Low (3 P. W. 328) - - - 935
-v. Eolleston (28 Ch. D. 237 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 233 ; 51 L. T. 612) 803

Charter v. Trevelyan (11 C. & F. 714 ; 8 Jur. 1015) - 39, 55

Chasemore v. Eichards (7 H. L. C. 349 ; 29 L. J. Ex. 81 ; 5 Jur.

N. S. 873 ; 33 L. T. 0. S. 350) - - 404, 416

-v. Turner (L. E. 10 Q. B. 500) - 445,458

Chattock v. Muller (8 Ch. D. 177) - - 1056

Chawner's Will, Re (8 Eq. 569 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 726 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 262) 89,

1275

Cheale v. Kenward (3 D. & J. 27 ; 6 W. E. 810) 1106, 1108

Cheese v. Cheese (15 L. J. Ch. 28) - - 1249, 1344

Cheetham v. Sturtevant (3 De G. & S. 468) -715, 1344

Chelsea Waterworks Co., Re (28 L. T. O. S. 173) - - 806

TABLE OF CASES. IxxXV

Che — Chr. PAGE

Chelsea Waterworks Co., Re (56 L. T. 421 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 640) - - 759
Cherrington v. Abney (2 Vern. 646) - - 406

Cherry's Settled Estates, Re (4 D. F. & J. 332 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 351 ; 7

Jur. N. S. 446 ; 6 L. T. 31 ; 10 W. E. 305) - 813

Cherry v. Colonial Bank of Austral. (L, E. 3 P. C. 24 ; 6 Moo. P. C.

N. S. 235 ; 38 L. J. P. C. 49 ; 21 L. T. 356 ; 17 W. E.

1031) - - - 213

v. Heming (4 Ex. 631 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 63 ; 14 L. T. 0. S. 274) 227

Cheshunt College, In re (3 W. E. 638 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 995) - 751, 760

Cheslyn v. Dalby (4 Y. & C. 238) - - 458

Chesshyre v. Biss (2 Giff. 287 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 599 ; 2 L. T. 404) - - 1040
Chester v. Platt (cited Sugd. 206) - - 1120

- v. Powell (52 L. T. N. S. 722) - - - 103

Chesterfield v. Janssen (2 V. sen. 125 ; 3 Atk. 301) - - 117, 846, 851

Chesterman v. Mann (9 Ha. 206) - - 926

Chetham v. Hoare (9 Eq. 571 ; 22 L. T. 57) - - 440

Chetwynd v. Morgan (31 Ch. D. 596 ; 54 L. T. 742 ; 34 W. E. 483) 1010,

1069

Cheval v. Nichols (1 Str. 664 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 63) - 959, 960

Cheveley v. Fuller (13 C. B. 122 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 224 ; 1 W. E. 152)- 264
Chichester (Lord) v. Hall (17 L. T. 0. S. 121) - 132, 433, 466

v. Donegal (Marquis of) (5 Ch. 497 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 694 ; 22

L. T. 458 ; 18 W. E. 531) - - 475

Child v. Abingdon (Lord) (1 Y. 94) - - 712

v. Douglas (Kay, 560 ; 23 L. T. O. S. 140 ; 2 W. E. 461) - 868

Childers v. Childers (3 K. & J. 310 ; 1 D. & J. 482 ; 3 Jur. N. S.

509 ; 29 L. T. O. S. 141 ; 5 W. E. 586, 793, 859) - 1063

v. Eardley (28 B. 648 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 690 ; 8 W. E. 698) - 594
Chilton v. London (Corp. of) (7 Ch. D. 735 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 433 ; 38 L. T.

N. S. 498 ; 26 W. E. 474) - - 24

Chinnery v. Evans (11 H. L. C. 115 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 855 ; 11 L. T.

68 ; 13 W. E. 20) - 457, 980

Chinnock v. Ely (Marchioness of) (4 D. J. & S. 638 ; 11 Jur. N. S.

329 ; 12 L. T. 251 ; 6 N. E. 1 ; 13 W. E. 597) - 264, 265, 267

Chitty v. Bray (48 L. T. 860 ; 47 J. P. 695) - 868, 873

Cholmeley (Marquis of) v. Clinton (2 J. & W. 135) - - 278

v. Paxton (2 Bing. 207 ; 10 Moore, 246) - - 1297

v. - - (3 Bing. 207 ; 11 J. B. Moore, 17) - 76

Cholmley's case (2 Co. 50) - - 1003

Christ's Hospital, Ex parte (2 H. & M. 166)- - 811

- (The Governors of), Re (12 W. E. 669 ; 10 L. T.

262 ; 4 N. E. 14) - 761, 778, 805, 806

- v. Bugdin (2 Yern. 684 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 70, pi. 13) - 1063
Christ Church, Ex parte (9 W. E. 474) - 811

(Dean, &c. of), Ex parte (23 L. J. Ch. 149) - - 756

Christian v. Chambers (4 Ha. 307 ; 14 L. Jv Ch. 340 ; 9 Jur. 393) - 1334

- v. Devereux (12 Si. 264) - - 455

Christie v. Barker (53 L. J. Q. B. 537) - 451

v. Commissioners of Inland Eevenue (L. E. 2 Ex. 46 ; 36

L. J. Ex. 11 ; 15 L. T. 282 ; 15 W. E. 258 ; 4 H. & C. 664) - 599, 788

IxXXvi TABLE OF CASES.

Chr— Cla. PAGE

Christie v. Ovington (1 Ch. D. 279 ; 24 W. E. 204) - - 18, 587

Christy v. Courtenay (13 B. 97) 1024, 1057, 1060, 1062

- v. Van Tromp (W. N. 1886, 111) - - 1324
Church, Re (16 Jur. 517) - - 15

— v. Brown (15 Y. 263) - - - 615
Churchman v. Ireland (4 Si. 520 ; 1 E. & M. 250) - - 306
Cigala's Trusts, Re (7 Ch. D. 351 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 166 ; 38 L. T. 439) - 315
City of London Brewery Co. v. Tennant (9 Ch. 212 ; 43 L. J. Ch.

457 ; 29 L. T. 755 ; 22 W. E. 172)- - 408

Clack v. Holland (19 B. 262 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 13 ; 18 Jur. 1007 ; 2 W. E,

402) - - - 943

v. Wood (9 Q. B. D. 276 ; 47 L. T. 144 ; 30 W. E. 931) - 214

Clagettv. Phillips (2 Y. & C. C. C. 82; 7 Jur. 31) - - 995

Clancy v. Byrne (11 I. E. C. L. 355)- 520, 608

Clanricarde (Marquis of) v. Henning (9 W. E. 912 ; 30 B. 175 ; 30
L. J. Ch. 865 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1113 ; 5 L. T. N. S. 168)- - 46, 855

Clapham v. Andrews (27 Ch. D. 679 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 792 ; 51 L. T. 86 ;

33 W. E. 395)- ----- 1038

- v. Shillito (7 B. 146) - - 112, 154

Clare v. Bedford (Earl of) (13 Vin. Abr. 536) 517, 947

v. Lamb (L. E. 10 C. P. 334 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 177 ; 32 L. T. 196 ;

23 W. E. 389) ... - - 907

v. Maynard (6 A. & E. 519 ; 1 N. & P. 701 ; 1 W. W. & H.

274 ; 7 C. & P. 741) 1078

v. Wood (4 Ha. 81) - - 537

Clare Hall v. Harding (6 Ha. 296 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 301 ; 12 Jur. 511 ; 10
L. T. 0. S. 439) - 286, 949, 1032

Claringbould v. Curtis (21 L. J. Ch. 541) - - 1105

Clark, In re (1 Ch. 292 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 314 ; 13 L. T. 732 ; 14 W. E.

378) - - 1281

v. Burgh (2 Col. 221 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 398 ; 9 Jur. 679) - - 1122

v. Clark (9 Ap. Ca. 733 ; 53 L. J. P. C. 99 ; 51 L. T. N. S.

750) - ... 40

v. Cogge (Cro. Jac. 170) - - - 412

v. London School Board (9 Ch. 120 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 421 ; 29 L. T.

903 ; 22 W. E. 354) - 404

v. Malpas (31 B. 80 ; 10 W. E. 613, 677 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 734) - 843

v. Seymour (7 Sim. 67) 71, 86

v. Upton (3 Man. & E. 89) - - 1096

v. Wallis (35 B. 460) - - 1254

Clarke's Estate, In re (21 Ch. D. 776 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 88) - - 810

Trusts, Re (21 Ch. D. 748 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 855 ; 47 L. T. N. S.

43 ; 30 W. E. 778) - 10

Clarke v. Clark (1 Ch. 16 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 151 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 914 ; 13

L. T. 482 ; 14 W. E. 115) - 408

- v. Elliott (1 Mad. 607) - 1218, 1219
v. Eaux (3 Eus. 320 ; 6 L. J. Ch. 17) - 163

— v. Eranklin (4 K. & J. 266 ; 6 W. E. 836) - - 614

v. Grant (14 V. 519) - 1149, 1156

v. King (2 C. & P. 286 ; E. & M. 394) - - 747, 1086

TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxvii

Cla— Cle. PAGE

Clarke v. May (16 B. 273 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 302 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 164 ; 1

W. E. 69) - 572, 573, 598

• v. Maynard (6 Mad. 364) - - 382

v. Moore (1 J. & L. 723) - 1214

— v. Palmer (21 Ch. 124; 51 L. J. Ch. 634; 48 L. T. 857) 952, 980, 985

- v. Eeilly (2 I. E. C. L. 422) - - 1137
v. Eoyal Panopticon Co. (4 Dr. 26 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 207 ; 3 Jur.

N. S. 178 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 335 ; 5 W. E. 332) - 89, 1275

— v. Eoyle (3 Si. 502) - 830, 1275

- v. Eugge (2 Eoll. Ab. 60, pi. 17) - 413

v. Willott (L. E. 7 Ex. 213 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 197 ; 21 W. E. 73) 1002,

1119, 1234

- v. Wilson (15 V. 317) - 1219
v. Wright (6 H. & N. 849 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 113 ; 7 Jur. N. S.

1032; 9 W. E. 571) - - 1012, 1013, 1017

Clarkson v. Edge (33 B. 227 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 443 ; 10 L. T. 120 ; 3 N.

E. 283; 12 W. E. 518) - - -1183

v. Henderson (14 Ch. D. 348 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 289 ; 43 L. T.

29 ; 28 W. E. 907) - 460

— v. Woodhouse (5 T. E. 412 ; 3 Doug. 189) - - 339, 378

Clayering's case (5 V. 690) - - 1144

Clay and Tetley, In re (16 Ch. D. 3 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 164 ; 43 L. T. 402 ;

29 W. E. 5) - - - 695

Clay v. Eufford (5 D. G. & S. 768) - - 56, 90, 1226, 1256

v. (14 Jur. 803 ; 8 Ha. 281 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 295) - - 1156

v. Sharpe (Sug. 396 ; 18 V. 346, n.) 582, 1128

v. Thackray (9 C. & P. 47 ; 2 M. & Eob. 244) - - 431

Claydon v. Ashdown (9 Yin. Abr. 393) - - - 1161
v. Green (L. E. 3 C. P. 511 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 326 ; 18 L. T.

607 ; 16 W. E. 1126) - - 483

Claypole (Eector of), In re (16 Eq. 574; 42 L. J. Ch. 776 ; 29 L. T.

51) 752, 806

Clayton v. Burtenshaw (5 B. & C. 41 ; 7 D. & E. 800) - - - 797

v. Corby (5 Q. B. 415 ; D. & M. 449 ; 14 L. J. Q. B. 364 ; 8

Jur. 212) 425, 429, 431

— v. Gregson (4 N. & M. 602 ; 5 A. & E. 302) - - 1091
- v. Illingworth (10 Ha. 457) - - 1112

— v. Newcastle (Duke of) (2 Ch. Ca. 112) - - - 1186

v. Wilton (Earl) (3 Mad. 302) 1013, 1014, 1017

Cleave v. Moors (3 Jur. N. S. 48 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 255 ; 5 W. E. 234) 205
Clegg v. Clegg (8 Jur. N. S. 92 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 153; 3 Giff. 322 ; 5

L. T. 441 ; 10 W. E. 75) - - 1051

v. Fishwick (1 M. & G. 294 ; 1 H. & Tw. 396 ; 19 L. J. Ch.

49 ; 13 Jur. 993) - ... 1051

Clements v. Hall (2 D. & J. 173 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 349 ; 4 Jur. N. S.

495 ; 31 L. T. 0. S. 1 ; 6 W. E. 358) - - 1049

v. Welles (1 Eq. 200 ; 13 L. T. 548 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 991 ;

35 L. J. Ch. 265; 14 W. E. 187) 520, 865, 869, 981
Clerk v. Nettleship (2 Lev. 148) - 1004
v. Wright (1 Atk. 12 ; West, t. Hard. 261) 256, 1138

TABLE OF CASES.

Cle— Coc. PAGE

Clerk v. Lawrie (1 H. & N. 452) - 1102

Clermont v. Tasburgh (1 J. & W. 112) - 1174, 1197

Cleveland's (Duke of) Harte Estates, In re (1 Dr. & Sm. 480 ; 7

Jur. N. S. 769 ; 9 W. E. 883) - 811

Clifford v. Turrell (1 Y. & C. C. C. 138 ; 6 Jur. 5 ; 9 Jur. 633) 855, 1018,

1094, 1108

- v. Wicks (1 B. & Aid. 498) - - 334

Clifton v. Walmsley (5 T. E. 564) - - 1092

Climie v. Wood (L. E. 4 Ex. 328 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 223 ; 20 L. T.

1012) - 607

Clinan v. Cooke (1 Sch. & Lef. 34) 250, 256, 261, 262, 1136, 1138, 1145,

1147, 1153

Clinton, In re (8 W. E. 492 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 601) - 761
- v. Bernard (1 Dr. 287) - - 1347
Clive v. Beaumont (1 De G. & S. 397) - 264, 330, 497, 1244
v. Carew (1 De G. & S. 397 ; 1 J. & H. 205 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 685 ;

5 Jur. N. S. 487; 33 L. T. 161 ; 7 W. E. 433) 56, 57

Clonmert v. Whitaker (cited 2 Jarm. 460, n.) - 1234, 1237

Close v. Phipps (7 Man. & G. 586 ; 8 Sc. N. E. 381) - - - 81

v. Wilberforce (1 B. 112 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 101 ; 3 Jur. 35) - 316,

629, 631
Closmadeuc v. Carrel (18 C. B. 36 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 216 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

474 ; 4 W. E. 547) 276, 370

Clough's Estate, In re (15 Eq. 284; 42 L. J. Ch. 293 ; 28 L. T. 261;

21 W. E. 452) - - 1292

Clowdsley v. Pelham (1 Yern. 411; 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 197, pi. 2) - 693

Clowes v. Beck (2 D. M. & G. 731) - - 1258

v. Higginson (1 Y. &B. 524) - 124, 125, 1149, 1154, 1156, 1174,

1247
Clulow's Estate, In re (3 K. & J. 689; 26 L. J. Ch. 513; 29 L. T. 0. S.

293 ; 5 W. E. 544) - 915

Glutton v. Lee (7 Ch. D. 541, n. ; 45 L. J. Ch. 684 ; 24 W. E. 607) - 566
Coaks v. Boswell (11 Ap. Ca. 232 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 761 ; 55 L. T. N. S.

32) 41, 46, 119, 1323, 1325

Coates v. Collins (L. E. 7 Q. B. 144 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 90; 26 L. T. 134;

20 W. E. 187) - 882
to Parsons (34 Ch. D. 370; 56 L. J. Ch. 242; 56 L. T. 16;

35 W. E. 375) - - 1273

Coatsworth v. Johnson (55 L. J. Q. B. 220 ; 54 L. T. 520) - - 229

Cobb v. Mid Wales E. Co. (L. E. 1 Q. B. 342 ; 13 L. T. 342 ; 12 Jur.
228 ; 14 W. E. 775) - 707

Cobbett v. Brock (20 B. 524) - - 855

Cobham, Ex parte (3 C. L. E. 149, note (c) ) - - 650

Cochrane v. Eobinson (11 Si. 378; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 109; 5 Jur. 4) 629,

1345
v. Willis (1 Ch. 58 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 36 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 870 ; 13

L. T. 339; 14 W. E. 19) - - 907, 1174

Cockburn v. Edwards (18 Ch. D. 449 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 46 ; 45 L. T. N. S.

500 ; 30 W. E. 446) - 24, 82, 1077

Cockburne v. Wright (6 Ir. Eq. E. 1) - 528

Cockell v. Bacon (16 B. 158) - - - - - - 81

TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxix

COC— Col. PAGE

Cockell v. Taylor (15 B. 117 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 545) 279, 846, 902, 943, 1211

Cocker v. Bevis (1 Ch. Ca. 61) - 469

- v. Cowper (1 C. M. & E. 418 ; 5 Tyr. 103) - - 230

Cockerell v. Cholmeley (1 E. & M. 425 ; Tarn. 435) - 56, 76

- v. Dickens (1 M. D. & D. 45) - - - 1151
Cocking v. Ward (1 C. B. 858 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 246) - 231, 232, 237
Cockman v. Farrar (T. Jones, 182) - - 380
Cockran v. Irlam (2 M. & S. 301) - - 204
Cockroft, Re (24 Ch. D. 94 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 811 ; 49 L. T. 497 ; 32 W. E.

223) - 304, 828, 924

?;. Sutcliffe (2 Jur. N. S. 323; 25 L. J. Ch. 313; 27 L. T.

0. S. 34 ; 4 W. E. 339) - 373, 986

Cocks v. Manners (12 Eq. 574 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 640 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 869;

19 W. E. 1055) - - 33

Codrington v. Lindsay (8 Ch. 578 ; L. E. 7 H. L. 854 ; 42 L. J. Ch.

526 ; 28 L. T. 177 ; 21 W. E. 182 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 660 ; 34 L. T. 221 ;

24 W. E. 648) - 1008

Coffin v. Cooper (14 V. 205) 1178, 1243

Cogent v. Gibson (33 B. 557) - 1105

Cohen v. Wilkinson (1 M. & G. 481 ; 14 Jur. 491 ; 14 L. T. 149) - 61
Colby v. Gadsden (34 B. 416 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 760; 12 L. T. N. S. 197 ;

5 N. E. 456) - - 111, 1214, 1216

Colclough v. Bolger (4 Dow, 54) - 1351

- v. Boyse (6 H. L. C. 1 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 256) - - 1130
— v. Sterum (3 Bl. 181) - 1351, 1352

Coldcot v. Hill (1 Ch. Ca. 15) - - - 891

Cole v. Gibbons (3 P. W. 290) - 117, 846, 855

v. Miles (10 Ha. 179) - 673, 674

v. Muddle (10 Ha. 186; 16 Jur. 853) - - 943

v. Scott (1 M. & G. 518 ; 1 H. & Tw. 477 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 63; 14

Jur. 25) - - - 308

v. Sewell (4 D. & War. 1 ; 2 Con. & L. 344 ; 6 Ir. Eq. E. 66) - 68

y. (17 Si. 40) - - 1346

v. West London E, Co. (27 B. 242 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 767 ; 5 Jur.

N. S. 1114; 1L. T. 178) - - - 245

v. White (cited 1 B. C. C. 409) - - 1138, 1139

Coleby v. Coleby (2 Eq. 803 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 496; 14 L. T. 697) - 920, 921
Colegrave v. Dias Santos (2 B. & C. 76 ; 3 D. & E. 255 ; 1 L. J.

K. B. 239) - 149

Coleman & Jarrom, Re (14 Ch. D. 165 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 33; 35 L. T.

614; 25W.E. 137) - 1273

Coleman v. Foster (1 H. & N. 37) - - 1043

v. Eiches (24 L. J. C. P. 125 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 596; 16 C. B. 104;

3 Com. L. E. 795 ; 3 W. E. 453) - - 103

v. Upcot (5 Vin. Ab. 527) - 251, 1176

Coles v. Bristowe (4 Ch. 3 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 81 ; 19 L. T. 403; 17 W. E.

105) - 333

v. Coles (6 Ha. 517, 524) - - - 951

v. Kinder (Cro. Jac. 571) - 887

XC TABLE OF CASES.

Col. PAGE

Coles v. Pilkington (19 Eq. 174 ; 44 L. J. Oh. 381 ; 31 L. T. 423 ; 23

W. E. 41) - - 1140

v. Sims (5 D. M. & G. 1 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 258 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. 277 ;

2 W. E. 151) - - 864, 868, 1183

v. Trecothick (9 V. 234 ; 1 Sm. 233) - 47, 49, 204, 210, 217, 240,

257, 271, 288, 842, 844, 1207, 1209

Collard v. Eoe (4 D. & J. 525 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 560 ; 7 W. E. 623) - 586,

614, 709

— v. Sampson (4 D. M. & G. 224) - 1232, 1276

Collen v. Gardner (21 B. 542) - - 210, 217

v. Wright (7 E. & B. 30 ; 8 E. & B. 647 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 215 ;

4 Jur. N. S. 357 ; 30 L. T. 0. S. 209; 6 W. E. 123) - 203, 213, 1074
Collett v. Collett (2 Eq. 203 ; 14 L. T. 94 ; 12 Jur. 180 ; 14 W. E. 446) 1282

- v. Hover (1 Coll. 227) - 1128, 1131

- v. Morrison (9 Ha. 176) - - - 909

- v. Woollaston (3 Br. C. C. 228) - 1209
Collier v. Jenkins (1 You. 295) - - 305, 1199
v. McBean (1 Ch. 81 ; 13 L. T. 484 ; 12 Jur. 1 ; 35 L. J. Ch.

144; 14 W. E. 156) - 1234, 1274

- v. Mason (25 B. 200) - 704, 1212
v. Walters (17 Eq. 252 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 216 ; 29 L. T. 868 ; 22

W. E. 209) - 1231, 1235, 1236, 1273

Colling, Re (32 Ch. D. 333 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 486 ; 54 L. T. 809 ; 34 W. E.
464) - 284, 662, 663

Collinge v. Heywood (9 A. & E. 633) - - - 787

Collingridge v. Eoyal Exchange Corporation (3 Q. B. D. 173 ; 47 L. J.

Q. B. 32; 37 L. T. 525; 26 W. E, 112) - - 913
Collingwood, In re (6 W. E. 536 ; Kay, 420) - - 662, 663
v, Eow (5 W. E. 484 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 785 ; 29 L. T. 0. S.

191) 296, 302

Collins' Charity, In re (20 L. J. Ch. 168) - - 761

Collins v. Archer (1 E. & M. 284) - 940, 1359

- v. Castle (36 Ch. D. 243) - - 867
v. Collins (26 B. 306 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 184 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 30 ; 32

L. T. 0. S. 233; 7 W. E. 115) - 257, 260, 1353

- v. - - (31 B. 346) 829, 830

- v. Greaves (5 Ha. 596) - - - 1228

- v. Maule (8 C. & P. 502) - 354

- v. Shirley (1 E. & M. 638) - - 1270
• v. Stimson (11 Q. B. D. 142 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 440 ; 48 L. T.

828; 31 W. E. 920) - - 185, 220, 222, 956, 1126
Collinson v. Collinson (3 D. M. & G. 409) - - 1059, 1061
v. Lister (7 D. M. & G. 634 ; 20 B. 366 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 762 ;

25 L. J. Ch. 38 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 835 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 75 ; 26 L. T.

0. S. 9, 132 ; 4 W. E. 133) - - - 678, 688

Colmore v. Tindal (2 Y. & J. 604) - - 1274

Colonial Bank v. Whinney (11 Ap. Ca. 445; 55 L. J. Ch. 585; 56

L. J. Ch. 43 ; 55 L. T. 362 ; 33 W. E. 852 ; 34 W. E. 705) - - 955
Colpoys v. Colpoys (Jac. 463) - 1091, 1092

Colquhoun, In re (9 B. 146) - - 816

Colton v. Wilson (3 P. W. 190) - 364, 1130

TABLE OF CASES. XC1

Col— COO. PAGE

Columbine v. Chichester (2 Ph. 27 ; 1 C. P. C. 295 ; 15 L. J. Ch.

408; 10 Jur. 626) - - - 1150

- v. Penhall (1 S. & G. 228 ; 1 W. R. 272) - 1017, 1024

Colyer v. Clay (7 B. 188) - - 1174

v. Finch (19 B. 500; 5 H. L. C. 905; 21 L. J. Ch. 65 ; 18

Jur. 935 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 25 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 27 ; 2 W. R. 655) 678, 696, 698,

826, 935, 941, 950, 952

Comer v. Walkley (Sug. 677 n.)- - - 727

Commins v. Scott (20 Eq. 11 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 563 ; 32 L. T. 420; 23
W. R. 498) ' 252, 253

Compton v. Richards (1 Pr. 27) - - 137, 409

Conner v. Fitzgerald (11 L. R. Ir. 106) - 1137

Consolidated Investment, &c. Co. v. Riley (1 Giff. 371 ; 29 L. J. Ch.
123 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1283 ; 8 W. R. 102) - 943, 944

Const v. Barr (2 Mer. 57) - - 350

Constable v. Constable (32 Ch. D. 233 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 491 ; 54 L. T.
608; 34 W. R. 470) - - - 1281

Conybeare v. New Brunswick, &c. Ry. Co. (1 D. P. & J. 578 ; 29
L. J. Ch. 435 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 518 ; 2 L. T. N. S. 314 ; 8 W. R. 508) 115,

116, 898, 902

Cooch v. Walden (46 L. J. Ch. 639) - 399, 497

Cood v. Good (10 Pr. 109) - - 829

Vt (33 B. 314; 9 Jur. N. S. 1335 ; 3 N. R. 275 ; 33 L. J.

Ch. 273) - - 1107, 1144

- v. Pollard (9 Pr. 544) - - 833

Cook v. Dawson (29 B. 123 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 31 1 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 130 ; 3

L. T. N. S. 801 ; 9 W. R. 305 ; 3 D. F. & J. 127) - 89, 692, 693,

697, 1232, 1234

v. Field (15 Q. B. 460 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 441 ; 14 Jur. 951 ; 16

L. T. 0. S. 2) - - - 279

v. Waugh (2 Gif. 201 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 596 ; 2 L. T. N. S. 346 ; 8

W. R. 458) - 102

Cooke's Contract, Re (4 Ch. D. 454) - 67, 1273

Cooke v. Brown (4 Y. & C. C. C. 227) - 1341

- v. Burtchaell (2 D. & War. 165) - 844, 845, 847

- v. Clayworth (18 V. 12) - 1160

- v. Cooko (2 Vern. 36 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 73, pi. 8) - - - 1129

- v. Crawford (13 Si. 91 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 406; 6 Jur. 723)- 682,

683

- v. Dealey (22 B. 196) 298, 1341

- v. Farrand (7 Taunt. 122 ; 2 Marsh. 421) - - 76

- v. Founds (1 Lev. 40 ; 1 Keb. 95) - - 889
v. Lamotte (15 B. 234 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 371) - - 23

-v. Soltau(2S. &St. 154) - - 367

- v. Tombs (2 Anst. 420) - 236, 239, 250, 1138

- v. Wilby (25 Ch. D. 769 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 592; 50 L. T. 152 ; 32

W. R, 379) - 361

-v.Wilson (1 C. B. N. S. 153; 26 L. J. C. P. 15; 2 Jur.
N. S. 1094) - - - - ... 1073

TABLE OF CASES.

Coo-Cop.

Cooke v. Wilton (29 B. 100; 30 L. J. Ch. 461 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 280; 9

W. E. 220) - 957

Cookson v. Cookson (8 Si. 529 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ch. 337 ; 1 Jur. 621)- 240
-v. Lee (23 L. J. Ch. 473) - 45, 51, 78, 988

Coombe's Trusts, Re (1 Giff. 91 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 784) - - 956

Coombe, Ex parte (4 Mad. 249) - 231

Coombes v. Brookes (12 Eq. 61 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 114 ; 25 L. T. 198 ; 19

W. E. 1002) - - - 660

Coombs v. Cook (1 C. & E. 75) - 138

Coope v. Cresswell (2 Ch. 112 ; 15 L. T. 427 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 114 ; 15

W. E. 242) - 456, 467, 895

Cooper's Legacy, Re (17 Jur. 1087 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 25 ; 22 L. T. 162 ;

2 W. E. 60U - 749

Cooper and Allen's Contract, Re (4 Ch. D. 802 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 133 ; 35

L. T. N. S. 890 ; 25 W. E. 301) 76, 317, 668, 1275

-, Re (27 Ch. D. 565 ; 51 L. T. 113 ; 32 W. E. 1015) - - 88

- v. Bockett (4 Mo. P. C. 419) - - 481

- v. Cartwright (John. 685) - 572, 575, 814

- v. Cooper (L. E. 7 H. L. 53 ; 30 L. T. 409 ; 22 W. E. 713) - 1009

- v. Denne (4 Br. C. C. 80 ; 1 Y. 565) 1233, 1274
. - v. Emery (1 Ph. 388 ; 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 275 ; 8 Jur. 181 ; 2

L. T. 0. S. 437) - 159, 160, 334, 365, 375, 626, 627, 765

- v. Ewart (2 Ph. 362) - - 815
-- v. Hood (26 B. 293 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 212 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1266 ; 32

L. T. O. S. 171 ; 7 W. E. 83) - - 255, 256, 1106, 1147

- v. Jarman (3 Eq. 98 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 85 ; 15 W. E. 142) - 305

- v. Jones (2 Jur. N. S. 59 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 240 ; 26 L. T. 116) - 659

- v. Macdonald (7 Ch. D. 288 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 373 ; 26 W. E. 377) 12

- v. Moon (W. N. 1884, p. 78)- - 361

- v. Norfolk E. Co. (3 Ex. 546; 6 Ey. Ca. 94; 18 L. J. Ex.

176 ; 13 Jur. 195) - - 783, 802

- v. Phibbs (L. E. 2 H. L. 149; 16 L. T. 678; 15 W. E. 1049) 165, 1155

- v. Prichard (11 Q. B. D. 351 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 526; 48 L. T.

848 ; 31 W. E. 834) - 745

- v. Smith (15 Ea. 103) - - - 251

- v. Stephenson (21 L. J. Q. B. 292 ; 16 Jur. 424) 523, 567

- v. Trewby (28 B. 194 ; 8 W. E. 299) 238, 316, 668

- v. Vesey (20 Ch. D. 611 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 862 ; 47 L. T. 89 ; 30

W.'E. 648) 768, 776, 931, 960, 1106

- v. Wormald (27 B. 266 ; 7 W. E. 402) - - - 1141
.Coote v. Coote (2 Ir. Eq. E. 159) - - 1355

- v. Lowndes (10 Eq. 376; 39 L. J. Ch. 887 ; 23 L. T. 42 ; 18

W. E. 1019) - - - 923

Cooth v. Jackson (6 Y. 17) - - 240, 257, 1135, 1148, 1165

Cope v. Cope (2 Salk. 449; 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 269, pi. 2) - 919

- v. Parry (2 J. & W. 538) - - - 1129

- v. Thames Haven Co. (3 Ex. 841 ; 6 Ey. Ca. 83 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 345) 273
Copley, Ex parts (4 Jur. N. S. 297) - - 805
Copper Miners (Governor of) v. Fox (16 Q. B. 229 ; 20 L. J. Q. B.

174 ; 15 Jur. 703) - - - - - - - 273

TABLE OF CASES. XC111

Cop — Cot. PAGE

Copper Mining Co. v. Beach (13 B. 478) - 622, 623
Coppin v. Coppin (2 P. W. 291) 304, 825
— v. Fernyhough (2 Br. C. C. 291) - - - 332, 973
v. Gray (1 Y. & C. C. C. 205 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 105 ; 6 Jur.

312) - 434

Corbett, In re (1 Ch. 516 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 793 ; 14 L. T. N. S. 748 ; 14

W. E. 904) - - 8, 1351

v. Brown (8 Bing. 33 ; 1 Moo. & So. 85 ; 1 L. J. N. S. C. P.

13) - - - 114

- v. Commissioners of Works (16 W. E. 889 ; 18 L. T. 548) - 494
Corbishley's Trusts, Re (14 Ch. D. 846 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 266 ; 28 W.E.

536) - - - 388

Corbie v. Byng : see Webb v. Byng.

Corcor v. Payne (4 I. E. C. L. 380) - - 425

Corder v. Morgan (18 V. 344) - 59, 582, 1128, 1260

Cordingley v. Cheeseborough (4 D. F. & J. 379 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 617 ;

8 Jur. N. S. 755 ; 4 L. T. 342) - - 151, 157, 159, 737, 740, 1265

Cork (Lord) v. Eussell (13 Eq. 210 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 226 ; 26 L. T. 230 ;

20 W. E. 164) - - 549, 581

Harbour Docks Co., Re (17 L. E. Ir. 515) - 1041

Cormick v. Trapand (6 Dow, 60) - - 1007

Cornfoot v. Fowke (6 M. & W. 358 ; 4 Jur. 919) - 103, 902

Cornish v. Clark (14 Eq. 184 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 14; 26 L. T. 494; 20

W.E. 897) - - 1025
v. Stubbs (L. E. 5 C. P. 334 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 202 ; 22 L. T. 21 ;

18 W. E. 547) 230, 1044

Cornthwaite v. Frith (4 De G. & S. 552) - - 1019

Corpus Christi College, Oxford, Re (13 Eq. 334; 41 L. J. Ch.

,170) - - - 812

Corrall v. Cattell (4 M. & W. 734 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ex. 225) - - 169

Corrance v. Corrance (L. E. 1 P. & D. 495 ; 16 W. E. 893) - - 857
Corrigal v. London & Bl. E. Co. (2 D. N. S. 851 ; 3 Ey. Ca. 411 ; 5

Man. & G. 219 ; 6 Sc. N. E. 241 ; 12 L. J. C. P. 209) - 707

Corsellis, Re (34 Ch. D. 675 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 295 ; 56 L. T. N. S. 411 ;

35 W. E. 309) - - 95

- v. Patman (4 Eq. 156 ; 16 L. T. 446 ; 15 W. E. 828) - 1317

Corser v. Cartwright (8 Ch. 971 ; L. E. 7 H. L. 731 ; 21 W. E. 938;

45 L. J. Ch. 605) 679, 694, 697, 698, 699, 1273

Cort v. Ambergate, &c. E. Co. (17 Q. B. 127 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 460 ; 15

Jur. 877) - - 1086
Cory v. Eyre (1 D. J. & S. 167) - - - 945
v. Thames Shipb. Co. (L. E. 3 Q. B. 181 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 68 ;

17 L. T. 496 ; 16 W. E. 456) 894, 1079

Cosens v. The Bognor E. Co. (1 Ch. 594; 14 W. E. 1002) - - 1218

Coslake v. Till (1 Euss. 376) - 483, 484, 1111

Cosser v. Collinge (3 M. & K. 283 ; 1 L. J. N. S. Ch. 130) - 106, 978

Costigan v. Hastier (2 Sch. & L. 160) 582, 1171, 1185

Cothay v. Sydenham (2 Bro. C. C. 391) - - - 985

Cother v. Midland E. Co. (2 Ph. 469 ; 5 Ey. Ca. 187 ; 17 L. J. Ch.

235; 10L.T. 0. S. 437) - - 242

Cotman v. Orton (5 Jur. 142) - - - - - - 746

XC1V TABLE OF CASES.

Cot— COW. PAGE

Cotter v. Layer (2 P. W. 624) - 295

v. Metrop. E. Co. (10 Jur. N. S. 1014; 10 L. T. 777 ; 4 N. E.

454; 12 W. E. 1021) - 508, 1100

Cotterel v. Hampson (2 Vern. 5 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 358, pi. 3) - - 674

Cotterell v. Homer (13 Si. 506 ; 7 Jur. 544) - - 1012

Cottle v. Warrington (2 N. & M. 227 ; 5 B. & Ad. 447) - 541

Cotton's Trustees and the London School Board, Re (19 Ch. D. 624 ;

51 L. J. Ch. 514; 46 L. T. N. S. 813 ; 30 W. E. 610) - 67, 677, 1273
Cotton, Ex parte (2 M. D. & D. 725) - - 607

- v. Scudamore (1 K. & J. 321) 161, 765

Cottrell v. Cottrell (2 Eq. 330 ; 14 L. T. 220 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 285 ; 35

L. J. Ch. 466 ; 14 W. E. 572) - 617, 625

• v. (28 Ch. D. 628 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 52 L. T. 486 ;

33 W. E. 361) - 754, 755

v. Hughes (15 C. B. 532 ; 2 C. L. E. 496 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 107 ;

1 Jur. N. S. 448) 368, 578, 579

— v. Watkins (1 B. 361 ; 3 Jur. 283) - 177, 340

Coulson v. Allison (2 D. F. & J. 521 ; 3 L. T. N. S. 763) - 23, 1009

Coulton v. Ambler (13 M. & W. 403 ; 3 Ey. Ca. 724, n. ; 14 L. J.

Ex. 11) - - 235

Counter v. Macpherson (5 Mo. P. C. 83 ; 4 L. T. 0. S. 449) - 287, 1164, 1216
Courtenay v. Wright (2 Gif. 337 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 131 ; 6 Jur. N. S.

1283 ; 3 L. T. 433 ; 9 W. E. 153) - - 854

Cousins, Re (31 Ch. D. 671 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 662 ; 54 L. T. 376 ; 34

W. E. 393) - - 990

— v. Harris (12 Q. B. 726 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 273 ; 12 Jur. 835) - 398

Coussmaker v. Sewell (Sug. 366) - - 339

Coutts v. Acworth (8 Eq. 558 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 694 ; 17 W. E. 1121) - 1022

Coventry v. Coventry (2 Atk. 366) - - 305

- v. Gladstone (4 Eq. 493) - - 825

• v. London, Brighton & South Coast E. Co. (5 Eq. 1Q4 ; 37

L. J. Ch. 90 ; 16 W. E, 267) - - - 861

Coverdale v. Charlton (4 Q. B. D. 104 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 128 ; 40 L. T.

88 ; 27 W. E. 257) - 411

v. Eastwood (15 Eq. 121; 42 L. J. Ch. 118; 27 L. T. 646;

21 W. E. 216) - - 1142

Coverly v. Burrell (Sug. 27) 131, 1199

Cowan v. Milbourn (L. E. 2 Ex. 230 ; 16 L. T. 290 ; 36 L. J. Ex.
124; 15 W. E. 750) - 1096

Cowbridge E. Co., In re (5 Eq. 413 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 306 ; 18 L. T. 102 ;
16 W. E. 506) - - - 546

Cowdry v. Day (1 Gif. 316; 29 L. J. Ch. 39 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1199 ; 1
L. T. 88 ; 8 W. E. 55) - 654

Cowell v. Chambers (21 B. 619) - - - 398

- v. Watts (2 H. & Tw. 224) - - 1054

Cowen v. Phillips (33 B. 18 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 657; 8 L. T. 622; 11
W. E. 706) - - - - 228

Cowgill v. Oxmantown (Lord) (3 Y. & C. 369) - 1242, 1276

- v, Ehodes (33 B. 310 ; 9 L. T. N. S. 595 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 86 ;

12 W. E. 190) - - 1131
Cowin, Re (33 Ch. D. 179 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 78 ; 34 W. E. 735) - - 474
Cowlam ?'. Slack (15 Ea. 108) 427

TABLE OF CASES. XCV

Cow— Ore. PAGE

Cowles v. Gale (7 Ch. 12 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 14 ; 25 L. T. 524 ; 20 W. E.
70) - 483

Cowley v. Watts (17 Jur. 172 ; 21 L. T. O. S. 97) 129, 254, 255, 264, 266

Cowpe v. Bakewell (13 B. 421) - - - - - 724

Cox v. Allingham (Jac. 514) - - 363

v. Barnard (8 Ha. 310) - - 1018

v. Bennett (6 Eq. 422) - - - 309

v. Bishop (8 D. M. & G. 815 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 389 ; 3 Jur. N. S.

499 ; 29 L. T. 44 ; 5 W. E. 437) - - 312, 631
v. Chamberlain (4 V. 631) - 1260

v. Coventon (31 B. 378 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1142 ; 7 L. T. 78 ; 10

W. E. 829) ... . 133, 986

- v. Cox (1 K. & J. 251) - 686, 690, 749

v. Dolman (2 D. M. & G. 599 ; 17 Jur. 97 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 427 ;

20 L. T. 0. S. 171 ; 1 W. E. 93) 443, 454

v. King (9 B. 530 ; 10 Jur. 236) - 896

• v. Matthews (1 Yent. 237) - - - 409

v. Middleton (2 Dr. 217 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 618 ; 23 L. T. 0. S. 6 ; 2

Eq. Eep. 631 ; 2 W. E. 284) - 129, 256, 1113, 1174

v. Eabbits (3 Ap. Ca. 473 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 385 ; 38 L. T. 430 ;

26 W. E. 483) - - 399

v. Toole (20 B. 145) - - 1320

Coxhead's Case (Moo. 126) - - 563
Coxhead v. Mullis (3 C. P. D. 439 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 761 ; 39 L. T. 349 ;

27 W. E. 136) - 6
Cozens v. Bognor E. Co. (1 Ch. 594 ; 15 L. T. 168 ; 14 W. E. 1002)- 515
Crabb v. Crabb (1 M. & K 511 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 181) 1057, 1059
Crabtree's Settled Estates, In re (10 Ch. 203 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 261 ; 32

L. T. 349 ; 23 W. E. 761) - - 1284

Cracknall v. Janson (11 Ch. D. 1 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 168 ; 39 L. T. 32 ;

27 W. E. 55) 912, 1003
v. (6 Ch. D. 735 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 652 ; 37 L. T. 118 ;

25 W. E. 904) - - - 1042

Craddock v. Eogers (53 L. J. Ch. 968 ; 51 L. T. N. S. 374) - - 82

Cradock v. Piper (14 Si. 310 ; 1 M. & G. 664 ; 1 H. & T. 617 ; 19

L. J. Ch. 107 ; 14 Jur. 97 ; 15 L. T. 61) 95, 580, 1276, 1335, 1345

Craggv. Holme (18 V. 14, n.) - - -1160

Craig v. Elliott (15 L. E. Ir. 257) - - 272

- v. Watson (8 B. 427) - - 108

Cramer v. Moore (3 S. & G. 141 ; 3 W. E. 347 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 31) - 1012
Crane's Estate In re (7 Eq. 322 ; 17 W. E. 316) 810, 811

Crane v. Batten (23 L. T. 0. S. 220; 2 Com. L. E. 1696; 2 W. E.

550) 282, 916

Cranston v. Clarke (Sayer, 78) - - - 192

Craven, Ex parte (17 L. J. Ch. 215) - - 760

Crawford v. Toogood (13 Ch. D. 153 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 108 ; 41 L. T. 554;

28 W. E. 248) 241, 487, 488
Crayford v. Crayford (Cro. Car. 106) - 890
Creagh v. Blood (2 J. & L. 509 ; 3 J. & L. 133) 7, 365
Crease v. Barrett (1 C. M. & E. 919 ; 5 Tyr. 458) - - 358, 393

XCV1 TABLE OF CASES.

Ore— Cro. PAGE

Creaton v. Creaton (3 S. & G. 386 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 266 ; 2 Jur. N. S.
1223; 28 L. T. 171; 5 W. E. 123) - - - 693

Credland v. Potter (10 Ch. 8; 44 L. J. Ch. 169; 31 L. T. 522; 23
W. E. 36) - 768

Creed, In re (I Dr. 235) - - - 386

Cresswell v. Haines (8 Jur. N. S. 208 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 237 ; 10 W. E. 121) 800,

1263

Creswell v. Davidson (56 L. T. 811) - - - 135, 1202

Creswick v. Harrison (3 M. & C. 444) - - 1320

Crewe v. Dickin (4 V. 97) - 684, 685, 1274

Cripps v. Jee (4 Br. C. C. 472) - 1056, 1057

v. Eeade (6 T. E. 606) - - 666

Crisp v. Martin (2 P. D. 15) - - - - - 333

- v. Platel (8 B. 62) ... 475

Crober, Exparte(13 Jur. 481) - - - 812

Crockford v. Alexander (15 V. 138) - - 289, 1222

Croft v. Graham (2 D. J. & S. 155 ; 9 L. T. 589) - - - 853

v. Lumley (6 H. L. C. 672 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 321 ; 4 Jur. N. S.

903 ; 6 W. E. 523) . 550

Crofton v. Ormsby (2 Sch. & L. 583) - - 976, 997

Crofts v. Middleton (8 D. M. & G. 192, 219; 25 L. J. Ch. 513 ; 2

Jur. N. S. 528; 27 L. T. 114; 4 W. E. 439) - 10,

648, 912, 1120

v. (2 K. & J. 199 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1133) - - 948

Croly v. Callagan (5 Ir. Eq. E. 25) - - 825

Cromack v. Heathcote (2 Br. & B. 4) - - - 994

Crompton v. Cathcart (Lady) (W. N. 1886, 104) - - - 755

— v. Effingham (9 Si. 311, n.) - - - 469

v. Jarratt (30 Ch. D. 298 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1109 ; 53 L. T. 603 ;

33 W. E. 913) 590, 594, 838

Cronin v. Murphy (1 Ir. Ch. E. 233) - - - - 1263

Crook v. Corporation of Seaford (6 Ch. 551 ; 25 L. T. 1 ; 19 W. E.

938) -219, 273, 1139, 1145

Crookes v. Whitworth (10 Ch. D. 289 ; 39 L. T. 348 ; 27 W. E. 149) 1308
Croome v. Lediard (2 01. & K. 251 ; 3 L. J. N. S. 98) 1158, 1173, 1265
Crop v. Norton (2 Atk. 74) - - 1185

Cropper v. Cook (L. E. 3 C. P. 194 ; 17 L. T. 0. S. 603 ; 16 AV. E.

596) - - - 1073

Crosby v. Percy (1 Camp. 303) - 353

v. Wadsworth (6 Ea. 602 ; 2 Sin. 559) - 228, 232, 234

Cross v. Kennington (9 B. 150 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 167 ; 10 Jur. 343 ; 6

L. T. O. S. 497) - - 693

v. Lawrence (9 Ha. 462 ; 16 Jur. 142) - 150, 175

v. Maltby (8 W. E. 646) - - - 1240

Crosse v. Beaufort (Duke of) (5 De G. & S. 7) - 709, 732
- v. Eaw (L. E. 9 Ex. 209 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 144 ; 23 W. E. 6) 137, 192
v. Eevg. Socy. (3 D. M. & G. 712 ; 22 L. T. O. S. 229 ; 2 Eq.

E. 579) - - 477, 654, 949, 1341

Crossfield v. Morrison (7 C. B. 286 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 135 ; 13 Jur. 565) 890
Crosskey v. Mills (1 C. M. & E. 298 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ex. 297) - 206

TABLE OF CASES. XCV11

Cro— Cun. PAGE

Crossley v. Elworthy (12 Eq. 158 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 480 ; 24 L. T. 607 ;

19 W. E. 842) 1025, 1028

v. Lightowler (2 Ch. 478 ; 16 L. T. 438 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 584 ; 15

W. E. 801) - - - - - 417

- v. Maycock (18 Eq. 180 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 379; 22 W. E. 387) 265, 268
Crouch v. Hooper (16 B. 182 ; 1 W. E. 10) - - 393

Croughton v. Blake (12 M. & W. 205 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 78 ; 8 Jur. 275)- 353

Croughton's Trusts, Re (8 Ch. D. 460; 47 L. J. Ch. 795 ; 38 L. T.
N. S. 447 ; 26 W. E. 574) - - 10

Crowder v. Austin (3 Bing. 368 ; 11 Moore, 283 ; 2 C. & P. 208 ; 4
L. J. C. P. 118) - 224

Crowe's Mortgage, In re (13 Eq. 26 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 32) 657, 662

Crowe v. Ballard (3 Br. C. C. 117 ; 1 V. jun. 215 ; 2 Cox, 253) - 56
Crowther v. Bradney (28 L. T. 464) - 298

- v. Crowther (2 Jur. N. S. 274 ; 4 W. E. 351) - - - 535
_ Vt _ _ (23 B. 305 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 315 ; 5 W. E. 238)- 1034

v. Elgood (34 Ch. D. 691 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 416 ; 56 L. T. 415 ;

35 W. E. 369) - 204

- v. Solomons (6 C. B. 758 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 92) - - - 276
Croxton v. May (9 Ch. D. 388 ; 39 L. T. 461 ; 27 W. E. 327) - 391
Crozier v. Dowsett (31 Ch. D. 67 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 210 ; 53 L. T. 592 ;

34 W. E. 267) - - - 1272

Cruikshank v. Duffin (13 Eq. 555; 41 L. J. Ch. 317 ; 26 L. T. N. S.

121 ; 20 W. E. 354) - 89, 1275

Crump v. Lambert (3 Eq. 409 ; 15 L. T. 600 ; 15 W. E. 417) - 1045

Cruse v. Nowell (25 L. J. Ch. 709 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 536 ; 27 L. T. 313 ;

4 W. E. 619) - 61, 122, 165, 1276

-v. Paine (6 Eq. 641; 37 L. J. Ch. 711; 19 L. T. 127; 17 W. E.45) 333
Crutchley v. Jermingham (2 Mer. 506) - 220, 1219

Crystal Palace E. Co., In re (1 Jur. N. S. 995) - 727, 762, 808, 809
Cubitt v. Smith (10 Jur. N. S. 1123 ; 11 L. T. 298) - - 1109

Cuckfield Burial Board, Re (19 B. 153 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 585 ; 3 W. E. 142) 468
Cuddee v. Eutter (1 P. W. 570 ; 1 Wh. & T. L. C.) - - 1105, 1106

Cuddon, Ex parte (3 M. D. & D. 302) - - - 41

• v. Tite (1 Gif. 395 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 579 ; 31 L. T. 0. S. 340 ; 6

W. E. 606) 285, 287, 1343

Cuff v. Hall (1 Jur. N. S. 972) - - 62, 63

Culley v. Doe (11 A. & E. 1008) - 446

Cullwick v. Swindell ( 3 Eq. 249 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 173 ; 15 W. E. 216) - 607
Culpepper v. Aston (2 Ch. Ca. 115) - - 680

Cumberland v. Bowes (3 C. L. E. 149 ; 15 C. B. 348 ; 3 W. E, 138 ;

24 L. J. C. P. 46 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 236 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 169) - - 258
Cuming, In re (5 Ch. 72 ; 21 L. T. 739 ; 18 W. E. 157) - 657, 662 663

- v. Ince (11 Q. B. 112 ; 12 Jur. 331 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 105) - 1175
Gumming v. Eeid (8 1. E. C. L. 166) . - 302
Cummins v. Fletcher (14 Ch. D. 699 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 563 ; 42 L. T. 859;

29 W. E. 772) - - 574, 1038

Cundee's Settled Estate, Re (37 L. T. 271) - - 1285

Cunningham v. Foot (3 Ap. Ca. 974 ; 38 L. T. 889; 26 W. E. 858) - 438

— v. Williams (2 Anst. 344) - 1353

XCVlll TABLE OF CASES.

Cup— Dal . PAGE

Cupit v. Jackson (13 Pr. 721) - - 1316

Curling v. Austin (2 Dr. & S. 129) 129, 174, 175, 1245

v. Flight (2 Ph. 613 ; 6 Ha. 41 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 79, 358 ; 12 Jur.

91, 423; 12 L. T. 0. S. 61) - 332, 1223, 1227, 1240, 1241

Currant v. Jago (1 Coll. 261 ; 8 Jur. 610) 1057, 1060

Curre v. Bowyer (5 B. 6, n.) - 300

Currey, Re (56 L. T. N. S. 80 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 389 ; 35 W. E. 326) - 11
Currie In re (9 B. 602 ; 10 Jur. 976) 816, 817

v. Anderson (2 E. & E. 592 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 87 ; 6 Jur. N. S.

442 ; 8 W. E. 274) - - - 233

- v. Nind (1 M. & C. 17 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 169) - 1004, 1274
Curriers Co. v. Corbett (2 Dr. & S. 355 ; 12 L. T. 169 ; 13 W. E. 538) 404,

406, 409, 608, 612

Curson v. Belworthy (3 H. L. C. 742 ; 19 L. T. 0. S. 233) - - 841

Curteis' Trusts, Re (14 Eq. 217) 1059, 1063

Curtis v. Buckingham (Marquis of) (3 V. & B. 168) - 1222

- v. Nixon (24 L. T. 706) - - - 214
Cust v. Middleton (9 W. E. 242 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 151 ; 3 L. T. 718 ; 30

L. J. Ch. 260) - 662

Custance v. Bradshaw (4 Ha. 315 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 358 ; 9 Jur. 486) - 1049
Cuthbert v. Baker (Sug. 313) - - - 1206

— v. Punier (2 Ph. 199) 386, 388

Cuthbertson v. Irving (4 H. & N. 742 ; 6 H. & N. 135 ; 28 L. J. Ex.
306 ; 29 L. J. Ex. 485 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 740 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1211 ; 3
L. T. 335 ; 8 W. E. 704) - - 1001

Cutler v. Simons (2 Mer. 103) - - - 1218

Cutter v. Powell (2 Sm. L. C. ; 6 T. E. 320) - 1088

Cutts, Ex parte (3 Dea. 267 ; 3 M. & A. 549) - - 227, 1147

v. Salmon : see Salmon v. Cutts.

v. Thody (13 Si. 206 ; 6 Jur. 1027 ; 1 Coll. 223) 183, 489, 1115, 1131

Dacre v. Patrickson (1 Dr. & S. 186; 8 W. E. 647) - - 922

Dadson v. East Kent E. Co. (7 Jur. N. S. 941) - - - 245

Dady v. Hartridge (1 Dr. & S. 236 ; 6 W. E. 834) - - 702

Dakin v. Cope (2 Eus. 176) 716, 1260

v. L. & N. W. E, Co. (5 De G. & S. 414 ; 13 Jur. 579 ; 13

L. T. 0. S. 156) - 247, 508

v. Whimper (26 B. 568) - - 1002, 1119, 1127, 1164

Dalby v. Pullen (3 Si. 29 ; 1 E. & M. 296) - 1177, 1200, 1323

Dale v, Hamilton (5 Ha. 369 ; 2 Ph. 266; 16 L. J. Ch. 397 ; 11 Jur.

574; 9L. T. 0. S. 309) 211, 1049, 1052, 1053, 1133,

1134, 1145

v. - - (10 Ha. App. VII.) - 1323

v. Humfrey (E. B. & E. 1004 ; 6 W. E. 854) 1091, 1092

v. Lister (cited 16 V. 7) - 1189, 1194

Dalgleish's Settlement, Re (4 Ch. D. 143 ; 35 L. T. 829 ; 25 W. E.

122) - 657

TA1JLE OF CASES. XC1X

Dal— Das. PAGE
Dalton v. Angus (G Ap. Ca. 740 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 689 ; 44 L. T. 844 ;

30 W. E. 191) - - - 404

Daly r. Daly (2 J. & L. 758) - 1350

Darner v. Portarlington (Earl of) (15 Si. 380; 15 L. J. Ch. 405 ; 10
Jur. 673 ; 2 Ch. 30) - 475, 1267

Damorcll v. Prothero (10 Q. B. R. 20; 16 L. J. Q. B. 170; 11 Jur.

331 ; 9 L. T. 0. S. 100) - - 132

Dames and Wood, Re (29 Ch. D. 626 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 771 ; 53 L. T.

177 ; 33 W. E. 685) - 178, 183, 483

Danby v. Coutts (29 Ch. D. 500 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 577 ; 52 L. T. 401 ; 33

W.E. 559) - 594

Dance v. Goldingham (8 Ch. 902 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 777 ; 29 L. T. N. S.

166; 21 W. E. 761) - - 83, 95, 198, 199, 1165

Danford v. McAmilty (8 Ap. Ca. 456 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 652 ; 49 L. T.

207; 31 W. E. 817) - 916

D'Angibau, Re (15 Ch. D. 228 ; 49 .L. J. Ch. 756 ; 42 L. T. N. S. 135 ;

28 W. E. 930) - - - - - --3

Daniel v. Adams (Amb. 495) 73, 211, 1120
v. Anderson (8 Jur. N. S. 328 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 610 ; 7 L. T. 183 ;

10 W. E. 366) - - - 177

-v. North (11 Ea. 372) - 412

Daniels v. Davison(16V. 253; 17 V. 433) 290, 501, 518,976, 1115,1131

Dann v. Spurrier (7 V. 231) - - 948

Darbey v. Whitaker (4 Dr. 134 ; 29 L. T. 0. S. 351 ; 5 W. E. 772) - 2o7,

258, 1106, 1111, 1183

Darby v. Darby (3 D. 495 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 371 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 271 ; 27
L. T. 39; 4 W. E. 413) - - 1049, 1052

Darcy v. Croft (9 Ir. Ch. E. 19) - - - 853

Dare v. Tucker (6 Y. 460) - 160, 626, 765

Dare Valley E. Co., In re (4 Ch. 554 ; 20 L. T. 717 ; 17 W. E, 717) - 705,

707

Darkin v. Darkin (17 B. 578 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. 278 ; 2 W. E, 135) - 1066

v. Marye (1 Aust. 222) - - - 1333

Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell (11 Ap. Ca. 127; 55 L. J.

Q. B. 529 ; 54 L. T. 882 ; 32 W. E. 947 ; 48 J. P. 823) - 421
— v. Tennant (53 L. T. 257) - - 461

Darlington v. Hamilton (Kay, 550 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 1000 ; 2 Eq. Eep.

906) ..* - 107, 134, 135, 155, 164, 169, 173, 984, 1202, 1244

Darnley (Earl of) v. L. C. & D. E. Co. (L. E. 2 H. L. 43 ; 16 L. T.

217 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 404 ; 15 W. E. 817) 1149, 1156

Darrell v. Tibbitts (5 Q. B. D. 560 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 33 ; 42 L. T. 797 ;

29 W. B, 66) ... 197, 913
Dart v. Clayton : see Dent v. Clayton.

Dartmouth (Earl of) v. Spittle (19 W. E. 444 ; 24 L. T. 67) - - 448
Darvill v. Eoper (3 Dr. 294 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 779 ; 3 Eq. Eep. 1005 ; 25

L. T. 302 ; 3 W. E. 467) - - 77, 429

- v. Terry (6 H. & N. 807 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 355) - ;r 1024, 1028
Darwin v. Upton (cited 3 T. E. 159) - - 368

Dashwood, Ex parte (3 Jur. N. S. 103 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 299 ; 28 L. T.

O. S. 187 ; 5 W. E. 125) - 809
r. Jermyn (12 Ch. D. 776 ; 27 W. E, 868) - - - 1142

C TABLE OF CASES.

Dau— Dav.

Daun v. City of London Brewery Co. (8 Eq. 155 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 454 ;

20 L. T. 601 ; 17 W. E. 663) - 936

Davenport v. Bishopp (1 Ph. 698 ; 2 Y. & C. C. 451 ; 12 L. J. N. S.

Ch. 493 ; 7 Jur. 1077) - - - 616, 1011

v. Charsley (34 W. E. 390 ; 54 L. T. 372) - 155

Vm King (31 W. E. 911 ; 49 L. T. 92 - - - 1301

Vm Eegina (3 Ap. Ca. 115 ; 47 L. J. P. C. 8 ; 37 L. T. 727) 195

Davey v. Durrant (1 D. & J. 535 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 830) 75, 82, 83, 84, 90, 93

-v. Wietlisbach (15 Eq. 269) - 2, 1306

Davidson v. Cooper (13 M. & W. 343 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 276) - - 274

v. Gardner (Sugd. 691) - - 49

- v. Kimpton (18 Ch. D. 213 ; 45 L. T. 132 ; 29 W. E. 912) 391
Davies to Jones, Ee (24 Ch. D. 190 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 720) - - - 1273

-, In re (3 M. & G. 278) - 655

- v. Cooper (5 M. & C. 270) - 107, 288, 843, 845, 1209

- v. Davies (4 B. 54) - - 969
v. (36 Ch. D. 359 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 481 ; 56 L. T. 401 ; 35

W. E. 697) - - - 1111

- v. Games (12 Ch. D. 813 ; 28 W. E. 16) - 1050
v. Hodgson (25 B. 187 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 449 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 252 ;

31 L. T. 49 ; 6 W. E. 355) - - - 56

v. London & Provincial Insurance Co. (8 Ch. D. 469 ; 47 L. J.

Ch. 511 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 478 ; 26 W. E. 794) - 44, 117, 119

- v. Lowndes (7 Sc. N. E. 141 ; 1 M. & G. 473) - 394, 395, 396
— v. Otty (35 B. 208 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 252 ; 13 W. E. 484) - 1063

v. Sear (7 Eq. 427 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 535 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 56 ; 17

W. E. 390) - 608, 609, 975, 1204

- v. Stephens (7 C. & P. 570) - - 412

- v. Thomas (2 Y. & C. 234) - - 928, 935, 974
v. Tollemache : see Davis v. Tollemache.

- v. Vernon (6 Q. B. 443) - 826

- v. Wescomb (2 Sim. 425) - - 76

- v. Whitmore (28 B. 617 ; 8 W. E. 596) - 1270

- v. Williams (16 Q. B. 546 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 338 ; 15 Jur. 752) 424, 432

v. (34 Ch. D. 558 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 123 ; 55 L. T. 663 ;

35 W. E. 182) - - - - - - 436

- v. Wright (32 Ch. D. 220) - 1318, 1321, 1324

Davis' Estate (3 D. & J. 144; 27 L. J. Ch. 712; 6 W. E. 844; 31
L. T. 0. S. 339) - - - - - - - 752

Davis and South Staffordshire E. Co., In re (2 Pract. E. 599) - 706

v. Barrett (14 B. 542) - - 1040

v. Dysart (Lord) (20 B. 405 ; 21 B. 124 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 381 ; 25

L. J. Ch. 122 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 91 ; 26 L. T. O. S. 84; 3

W. E. 393 ; 4 W. E. 41 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1153) - 474

v. James (W. N. (1884) 4; 26 Ch. D. 778; 53 L. J. Ch. 523;

50 L. T. 115; 32 W. E. 406) 916

v. Jones (25 L. J. C. P. 91 ; 17 C. B. 625 ; 4 W. E. 248) 256, 1095

v. Shepherd (1 Ch. 410; 35 L. J. Ch. 581) 601, 736

v. Strathmore (Earl of) (16 V. 419) 528, 959, 967

v. Symonds (1 Cox, 402) ----- 1258

TABLE OF CASES. Cl

Dav — Dea. PAGE

Davis v. Thomas (1 E. & M. 506 ; 9 L. J. Ch. 232) - - 926

• v. Tollemache (2 Jur. N. S. 1181 ; 28 L. T. O. S. 188) -615, 889, 910,

911, 946, 1118

v. Treharne (6 Ap. Ca. 460 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 665 ; 29 W. E. 869)- 422

v. Turvey (32 B. 554 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 954 ; 8 L. T. N. S. 378 ; 2

N. E. 151 ; 11 W. E. 6,79) - 2, 1306

Davisonv. Tennison (11 Ch. D. 341 ; 40 L. T. N. S. 726) - - 64

Davy v. Barber (2 Atk. 490) - - 712

Davys to Saurin, .Re (17 L. E. Ir. 334) 169, 173

Dawdy, .Re (15 Q. B. D. 426 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 574 ; 53 L. T. 800) - 260,

1353
Dawes v. Betts (12 Jur. 412, 709) 123, 134, 1240, 1241, 1242

v. Charsley (W. N. (1886), 78) 143, 492

v. Hawkins (8 C. B. N. S. 848 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 343 ; 7 Jur.

N. S. 262 ; 4 L. T. 288) - - 411

Dawkins v. Penrhyn (Lord) (4 Ap. Ca, 51 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 304 ; 39 L. T.

583 ; 27 W. E. 173) 438, 463

Dawson v. Bank of Whitehaven (6 Ch. D. 218 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 884 ; 37

L. T. 64 ; 26 W. E. 34) - - 584

— — v. Brinckman (3 M. & GK 53) 150, 175, 496

- v. Dawson (8 Si. 346) - - - 240
-v. - -(11 Jur. 984) - 1333

v. Dyer (5 B. & Ad. 584 ; 2 N. & M. 559) - - 883

- v. Ellis (1 J. & W. 524) - 1116

- v. Massey (1 B. & B. 219) - - 43

- v. Paver (5 Ha. 415 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 274 ; 11 Jur. 766)- - 981
v. Prince (2 D. & J. 41 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 169 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 497 ;

30 L. T. O. S. 237 ; 6 W. E. 171) - - 928, 979

- v. Yates (1 B. 301) - - 183, 1212
Day v. Bonaini (55 L. T. 329) - 1334, 1344

- v. Croft (14 B. 219) - 1344
v. Day (1 D. & J. 144 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 585 ; 29 L. T. 0. S. 206 ;

3 Jur. N. S. 782) - 110, 956

- v. - - (L. E. 3 P. C. 751 ; 24 L. T. 856 ; 19 W. E. 1017) - 442

- v. - - (31 B. 270; 10 W. E. 728) - 1346
v. Luhke (5 Eq. 336 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 330 ; 16 W. E. 717) - 483, 484

- v. Newman (cited 10 V. 300) - - 1210

v. Wells (30 B. 220 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1004 ; 9 W. E. 857) - 209, 1174

Deacon v. Colquhoun (2 Dr. 21 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 16 ; 2 Eq. E. 319 ; 2

W. E. 67) - 1065

v. Smith (3 Atk. 243) - - 1068, 1069, 1070

Dean v. Allen (20 B. 1) - 1345

v. MacDowell (8 Ch. D. 344 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 537 ; 38 L. T. 862 ;

26 W. E. 486) - - - 1051

v. Thwaite (21 B. 621) - - 440

Deane v. Eastron (1 Anst. 64) - - 1207

Dear v. Sworder (4 Ch. D. 482 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 100 ; 25 W. E. 124) - 1133

— v. Verity (38 L. J. Ch. 486 ; 21 L. T. 185 ; 17 W. E. 716) 1109, 1147

Dearden, In re (17 Jur. 993 ; 9 Ex. 210 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 14 ; 22 L. T.

0. S. 90; 20. L. E. 308; 2 W. E. 18) - - - - 817

Cll TABLE OF CASES.

Dea— Den. PAGE

Dearie v. Hall (3 Euss. 1 ; 2 L. J. Ch. 62) - - - - 110

De Beauvoir, In re (2 D. P. & J. 5 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 593 ; 8 W. E, 425) - 806, 807

- v. Owen (5 Ex. 166 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 177) 433, 466

De Begnis v. Armistead (10 Bing. 107 ; 3 M. & Sc. 511) 1096, 1162

De Beil v. Thomson (3 B. 469) - 216

De Bernardy v. Harding (8 Ex. 822 ; 22 L. Ex. 340 ; 1 C. L. E, 884 ;

21 L. T. 6. S. 158 ; 1 W. E. 415) - - 215, 1071, 1084

De Brassac v. Martyn (11 W. E. 1020 ; 2 N. E. 511) - 1215

De Bussche v. Alt (8 Ch. D. 286 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 386 ; 38 L. T. N. S.

370) - 40, 54, 57

De Caux v. Skipper (31 Ch. D. 635 ; 54 L. T. 481 ; 34 W. E. 402) - 784,

1038

De Geer v. Stone (22 Ch. D. 243 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 57 ; 47 L. T. N. S.
434 ; 31 W. E, 241) - 29

De Hoghton v. Money (2 Ch. 164 ; 15 L. T. 403 ; 15 W. E, 214) - - 278

Delabere v. Norwood (3 Sw. 144) - - 1128

De Lancey, In re (L. E, 4 Ex. 345) - - 318

Delarue v. Church (20 L. J. Ch. 183 ; 15 Jur. 455) - - 365
De la Salle v. Moorat (1 1 Eq. 8 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 44 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 479 ; 19

W.E. 88 - - - - - - - 63

De la Warr (Earl of) v. Miles (17 Ch. D. 535 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 754 ; 44

L. T. 487 ; 29 W. E. 809) - - 425

De L'Isle Peerage, 228 - 394
Deller v. Prickett (15 Q. B. 1081 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 151 ; 15 Jur. 158;

16 L. T. O. S. 212) - - - 206

- v. Simonds (5 Jur. N. S. 997 ; 34 L. T. O. S. 43) - 499
Delmer v. McCabe (14 Ir. C. L. E. 377) - - - 889
Delves v. Delves (20 Eq. 77 ; 23 W. E. 499) - - 1332
De Mattos v. Gibson (4 D. & J. 276 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 347, 555 ; 32 L. T.

268 ; 33 L. T. 193 ; 7 W. E. 152, 514) - - 1167

De Montmorency v. Devereux (7 01. & F. 188 ; 2 Dr. & Wai. 410 ;

West, 64; 4 Jur. 403) 56, 117

Dempsey v. Dempsey (1 De G. & S. 691) - - 1338

Dendy, He (4 Ch. D. 879 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 25 W. E, 410) - - 1283

- v. Simpson (18 C. B. 831 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 642) - - 379
Denew v. Daverell (3 Camp. 451) - 204, 208
Dening v. Ware (22 B. 184 ; 4 W. E. 523) - - 1018
Denison v. Holiday (3 II. & N. 670) - - 606
Denn v. Diamond (4 B. & C. 243) - - 790
Denne v. Light (3 Jur. N. S. 627 ; 8 D. M. & G. 774 ; 26 L. J. Ch.

459 ; 29 L. T. O. S. 60) - 129, 1147

Dennett v. Atherton (L. E, 7 Q. B. 316 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 165 ; 20 W. E.

442) - - 884, 885

Denning v. Henderson (1 De G. & S. 689; 17 L. J. Ch. 8 ; 12 Jur.

89 ; 10 L. T. O. S. 302) - 143, 719, 1338

Denny, Ex parte (2 C. L. E. 1755) - - 650

- v. Hancock (6 Ch. 1 ; 23 L. T. 686 ; 19 W. E. 54) - 128, 136, 154,

494, 496, 1154, 1174
Densern v. Elsworthy (9 Ha. App. XLII.) - - 1352

TABLE OF CASES. Clll

Den— Die. PAGE

Dent v. Auction Mart Co. (2 Eq. 248 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 555 ; 12 Jur. 447 ;

14 L. T. 827 ; 14 W. R. 709) - 408

v. Bennett (4 M. & C. 269 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 125 ; 3 Jur. 99) - 24

v. Clayton (10 Jur. N. S. 671 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 503 ; 4 N. R. 221 ;

12 W. R. 903) - - - 594

v. Dent (30 B. 363; 31 L. J. Ch. 436; 8 Jur. N. S. 786; 10

W. R. 375) - - 97

- v. Rob (1 Y. & C. 1) - - 401

Denton v. Davies (18 V. 499) - 1066

- v. Donner (23 B. 290) - - 38, 45, 49, 842

Denys v. Shuckburgh (4 Y. & C. 42) - - 447

De Porquet v. Page (20 L. J. Q. B. 28 ; 15 Q. B. 1073 ; 15 Jur.

148 ; 16 L. T. 0. S. 232) - - 251

Depree v. Bedborough (4 Gif. 479 ; 9 L. T. 532 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1317 ;

33 L. J. Ch. 134 ; 3 N. R. 187 ; 12 W. R. 191) 1089, 1354

Derbishire v. Home (3 D. M. & G. 80) 13, 56

Derby Municipal Estates, Re (3 Ch. D. 289 ; 24 W. R. 729) - - 751
Derbyshire & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Bainbridge (15 B. 146) 532, 542

Dering v. Kynaston (6 Eq. 210 ; 18 L. T. 346 ; 16 W. R. 819) - - 1186
Des Barres v. Skey (22 W. R. 273 ; 29 L. T. 592) - 366, 463

Desborough v. Harris (5 D. M. & G. 439 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 985 ; 26 L. T.
0. S. 1 ; 3 Eq. R. 1058; 4 W. R. 2) - 703

De Thoren v. Attorney- General (1 Ap. Ca. 686 ; 3 Rett. (H. L.) 28) - 384

De Vaux v. Steinkeller (6 Bing. N. C. 84 ; 8 So. 202 ; 8 D. P. C. 33 ;

3 Jur. 1053) - 115

Devaynes v. Robinson (24 B. 86 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 707 ; 29 L. T. 0. S.

244 ; 5 W. R. 509) - - 62, 63

_ Vm - — (20 B. 42) - 996

Devenishv. Brown (4 W. R. 783; 26 L. J. Ch. 23; 2 Jur. N. S.

1043; 27 L. T. 287) - - 17

Deverell v. Lord Bolton (18 V. 505) - 350, 494, 1261

Devey v. Devey (9 Ha. 230) - 847

De Yisme, Re (2 D. J. & S. 17 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 332 ; 9 L. T. 668 ; 12

W. R. 140) - - - 1058

- v. De Visme (1 M. & G. 336 ; 1 H. & Tw. 408 ; 18 L. J.

Ch. 159 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 52 ; 13 Jur. 1037 ; 14 L. T. O. S. 169) - 143, 144,

710 720 722 1338

Devon (Duke of ) v. Eglin (14 B. 530 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 495) - -' 1144

Devoy v. Devoy (3 S. & G. 403 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 290 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 79 ;

28 L. T. 336 ; 5 W. R. 222) - 1048, 1058, 1060

Dewar v. Span (3 T. R, 425) - - - 146

Dewell v. Tuffnel (1 K. & J. 324) - 1330, 1332, 1334

Dewhirst v. Wrigley (C. P. Coop. 329) - - 368, 411

D'Eyncourt V.Gregory (3 Eq. 382 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 107; 15 W. R. 186) 608

r. _ _ (3 Ch. D. 635 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 741 ; 25 W. R. 6) 1281

Dicconson, Re (15 Ch. D. 316 ; 29 W. R. 222) 7, 48"

- v. Talbot (6 Ch. 32 ; 24 L. T. 49 ; 19 W. R. 138) - - 1275
Dick v. Donald (1 Bli. N. S. 655) - - 163
Dickens v. Unthank (1 Jur. N. S. 916 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 501 ; 3 W. R. 504) 648
Dickenson v. G. J. C. Co. (15 B. 260) 874

CIV TABLE OF CASES.

Die— Dix. PAGE

Dicker v. Angerstein (3 Ch. D. 600; 45 L. J. Oh. 754; 24 W. E.

844) - 80, 1273

— v. Jackson (6 C. B. 103) - - 1088

Dickin v. Dickin (W. N. (1882), 113) - 1316, 1333

- v. Hamer (1 Dr. & S. 284 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 778 ; 2 L. T. 276) - 586
Dickinson, In re (17 L. T. O. S. 231) - 662
v. Burrell (1 Eq. 337 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 371 ; 12 Jur. 199 ; 13

L. T. 660 ; 14 W. E. 412) - - 279
v. Dickinson (3 Br. C. C. 19) - 691

v. Dodds (2 Ch. D. 463 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 777 ; 34 L. T. 607 ;

24 W. E. 594) - - 267, 268

v. G. Jn. Ey. Co. (7 Ex. 300 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 241 ; 16 Jur.

200) - - 416

v. Heron (Sugd. 630, n.) -718, 1260

— v. Shaw (1 Wat. Cop. 222) - 1058

v. Teasdale (1 D. J. & S. 52 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 37 ; 9 Jur. N. S.

60, 237 ; 7 L. T. 655 ; 1 N. E. 141) - 439, 456, 467

Dicks v. Batten (W. N. (1870), 173)- - 1300

Dickson, In re (3 Jur. N. S. 29 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 89 ; 28 L. T. 0. S.

153 ; 5 W. E. 108) - 817

v. Eeuter's Telegram Co. (3 C. P. D. 1 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 1 ;

37 L. T. 370 ; 26 W. E. 23) - - 1074

Diggle v. Lond. & Blackball Ey. Co. (5 Ex. 442 ; 6 Ey. Ca. 590 ;

19 L. J. Ex. 308 ; 14 Jur. 937 ; 15 L. T. 0. S. 208) - 273

Dike v. Eicks (Cro. Car. 335) - - - 680

Dilkes v. Broadmead (7 Jur. N. S. 56 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 268 ; 3 L. T.

605 ; 9 W. E. 238) - 895

DiUon v. Cruise (3 Ir. Eq. E. 70) - 439, 454

Dilrow v. Bone (3 Giff. 538 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 1 L. T. 71 ; 10 W.

E. 437) - - 1018

Dimmock v. Hallett (2 Ch. 21 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 146 ; 15 L. T. 374 ;

15 W. E. 93) - 155, 1325
Dimsdale v. Dimsdale (3 Dr. 556; 25 L. J. N. S. 806; 27 L. T. 317)- 23, 848
Dinham v. Bradford (5 Ch. 519) - 258, 260
Dinn v. Grant (5 D. G. & S. 451) - - 506
Dinning v. Henderson (2 De G. & S. 485) - - 805
v. (2 Col. 330) - - 1316

Diplock v. Hammond (2 S. & G. 141 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 550 ; 2 Eq. E.

409, 738 ; 2 W. E. 287, 500; 23 L. T. 181) 205, 275

Ditcham v. Worrall (5 C. P. D. 410; 49 L. J. C. P. 688 ; 43 L. T.

N. S. 286; 29 W. E. 59) 6

Divers, In re : see Crystal Palace E. Co., In re.
Dixon v. Arnold : see Arnold v. Dixon.

- v. Astley (1 Mer. 134) 499, 592, 1217, 1218
v. Cal. E. Co. (5 Ap. C. 820 ; 43 L. T. 513 ; 29 W. E. 249) - 130,

423

v. Gayfere (17 B. 421 ; 21 B. 118 ; 1 D. & J. 655 ; 23 L. J.

Ch. 60 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 189 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 148 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1080 ;
3 Jur. N. S. 1157 ; 26 L. T. 0. S. 85 ; 30 L. T. 0. S. 162; 4 W. E.
39 ; 6 W. E. 52) - 464, 465, 634, 830, 831

TABLE OF CASES. CV

Dix — Doe.

Dixon v. Jackson (25 L. J. Ch. 588 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 53; 4 W. R.

450) 751, 760

- v. Muckleston (8 Ch. 155 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 210; 27 L. T. 804 ;

21 W. E. 178) 951, 953

- v. Pyner (7 Ha. 331 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 402 ; 14 Jur. 217) - 1324

- v. White (8 Ap. Ca. 833) - - 422

- v. Wilkinson (22 L. J. Ch. 981 ; 1 W. R. 513) - 1350, 1351

Dobell v. Hutchinson (3 A. & E. 355 ; 5 N. & M. 251 ; 1 H. & W.

394 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 201) - 156, 261

- v. Stevens (3 B. & C. 623 ; 5 D. & R. 490 ; 3 L. J. Q. B. 89) - 113,

905

Doble, Me (26 W. R. 407 ; 38 L. T. 183) - - 1006

Dobson v. Carpenter (12 B. 370) - 1345

- v. Land (8 Ha. 220 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 484 ; 14 Jur. 288) - 41, 764
Docwra, Re (29 Ch. D. 693; 54 L. J. Ch. 1121 ; 53 L. T. 288; 33 W.

R. 574) - 588, 643
Dodd v. Burchall (1 H. & C. 113 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 364; 8 Jur. N. S.

1180) - 413

-- v. Salisbury & Yeovil Ry. Co. (3 D. & J. 158) - - 248

- v. Wake (5 De G. & S. 226 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 356 ; 16 Jur. 776) - 391
Dodds v. Hills (2 H. & M. 424 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 139) - 933
Dodson v. Bishop (Seton, 1396) - - - 1323
Doe d. Counsell v. Caperton (9 C. & P. 112) - 352

- d. Willis v. Martin (4 T. R. 39) - - - 1095

- v. Acklom (2 B. & C. 779 ; 2 L. J. K B. 129) - - 28

- v. Allsop (5 B. & Aid. 142) - - 959

- v. Andrews (15 Q. B. 756) - 385

- v. Angell (9 Q. B. 328) - - 447

- v. Archer (1 B. & P. 531) - 998

- v. Barnard (13 Q. B. 945 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 306 ; 13 Jur. 915) 464, 466
-- v. Barnes (1 Mo. & R. 389) - - 392

- v. Benham (7 Q. B. 976) 444, 446

- v. Benjamin (9 A. & E. 644) - - 1095

- v. Benson (4 B. & Aid. 588) - - 1091

- v. Birch (1 M. & W. 402) - - - 1091

- v. Bold (11 Q. B. 127) - - 444

- v. Bottriell (5 B. & Ad. 131) - - 1004

- v. Bramston (3 A. & E. 63) - - 448

- v. Brooks (3 A. & E. 513) - - - 345

- v. Brown (2 E. & B. 331) - 916

- v. Brydges (7 Sc. N. R. 333) 351, 353, 765

- v. Burt (1 T. R. 701) - - 1092

- v. Burton (16 Q. B. 807 ; 15 Jur. 990) - 311, 503

- v. Caperton (9 C. & P. 112) - 504, 1086

- v. Carpenter (16 Q. B. 181) - - 603
-- v. Carter (9 Q. B. 863) - - 442, 444

- v. Catamore (16 Q. B. 745)- - - 480

- v. Chamberlaine (5 M. & W. 14) 504, 1085, 1086

- v. Clifford (2 C. & K. 448) - ..... 354

CV1 TABLE OF CASES.

Doe.

Doe v. Coombs (6 Jur. 930 ; 11 L. J. Q. B. 36 ; 3 Q. B. 687
& D. 193) -

v. Coulthred (7 A. & E. 235) -

v. Creed (5 Bing. 327) - -

v. Davidson (2 M. & S. 175) - -

• v. Davies (10 Q. B. 314) .

v. Dyeball (M. & M. 346 ; 3 C. & P. 610) -

v. Edmonds (6 M. & W. 295) -

v. Evans (1 C. B. 717 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 237 ; 9 Jur. 712 ; 5 L. T.

0. S. 175) - 278, 359

v. - - (1 Cr. & M. 450) - 526

v. Eyre (17 Q. B. 366) - 436, 444

• v. Eereday (12 A. & E. 23) - 796

v. Ereeman (12 M. & W. 844) - - 352

v. Galloway (5 B. & Ad. 51) - - 603

v. Gardiner (12 C. B. 333) - - - 370

v. Gore (2 M. & W. 320) - 327

• v. Gower (17 Q. B. 589) - - - 444

v. Grazebrook (4 Q. B. 406) - - 383

v. Greenhill (4 B. & Aid. 684) - - 526

v. Groves (10 Q. B. 486 ; 11 Jur. 558) - - 442

v. Gwinnell (1 Q. B. 682) - - - 585

• v. Hampson (4 C. B. 267) - 379

v. Hellard (9 B. & C. 789) - - - 326

v. Hertford (Lord) (13 Jur. 632) - 995

- v. Hinde (2 M. & E. 441) - - - 446
v. Hiscocks (5 M. & W. 363) - - 1092

- v. Hogg (1 B. & P. N. E. 306) - - 773

- v. Hole (15 Jur. 13 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 57) - 308

• v. Horrocks (1 C. & K. 566) - - 446

v. Hughes (6 Ex. 223) - -694, 696, 697

• v. Jackson (1 B. & C. 448) - - - 504

v. Jauncey (8 C. & P. 99) - 464

- v. Jones (15 M. & W. 580 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 58) - 188, 577

v. (13 Q. B. 774 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 260 ; 13 Jur. 824) - 578

v. King (6 Ex. 791 ; 2 L. M. & P. 493 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 301) - 1051

v. Knight (5 B. & C. 692) - - - 639

- v. Langdon (12 Q. B. 711 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 17 ; 13 Jur. 96) - 368

- v. Langton (2 B. & Ad. 695) - - 1091

v. Leeds & Bradford E. Co. (16 Q. B. 796 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 486;

15 Jur. 946; 17 L. T. 50) - 62, 504

v. Lewis (11 C. B. 1035) - 1017, 1021

v. Lightfoot (8 M. & W. 553) - - 436

v. Liversedge (11 M. & W. 517) - - - 448

v. Lock (2 A. & E. 705) 425, 612

- v. Manchester, Bury, &c. E. Co. (14 M. & W. 687) - - 653

- v. Martin (4 T. E. 39) - - 72, 746, 1022
v. Massey (17 Q. B. 373 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 434 ; 15 Jur. 1031 ; 17

L. T. 0. S. 221) - - - 188, 436

TABLE OF CASES. CV11

Doe.

Doe v. Michael (15 Jur. 677 ; 17 Q. B. 276) -351, 353, 364

- v. Mills (4 N. & M. 25) - - - 291

- v. Moore (9 Q. B. 555) - - 444

- v. Morgan (1 0. & M. 235)- - - 1092

- v. Morris (2 Bing. N. C. 189) - - 467
-- v. Moulsdale (16 M. & W. 689 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 169) - 447, 577

- v. Munro (12 M. & W. 845) "- - 777

- v. Needs (2 M. & W. 129) - - - 1092
-- v. Neeld (3 Man. & G. 271) - - 504

- v. Nepean (5 B. & Ad. 86) - - - 388

- v. North Staffordshire E. Co. (16 Q. B. 526; 20 L. J. Q. B. 249;

15 Jur. 944 ; 17 L. T. 59) - - 62, 509, 514, 1100

- v. Oxenhain (7 M. & W. 131) - - 447

- v. Page (5 Q. B. 767) - - 444

- v. Palmer (16 Q. B. 747) - - - 481

- v. Pearsey (7 B. & C. 304 ; 9 D. & E. 908 ; 5 L. J. Q. B. 310) 187

- v. Pearson (6 East, 173 ; 2 Sm. 295) - - 22

- v. Pedgriph (4 C. & P. 312) - - 272

- v. Penfold (8 C. & P. 536) - - - 379

- v. Perkins (3 T. E. 749) - 109

- v. Phillips (8 Q. B. 158) - 353, 442, 443

- v. - -(11 A. &E. 796) - 797

- v. - - (1 Q. B. 84) - - 958

- v. Price (16 M. & W. 603 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 159 ; 11 Jur. 131) - 358,

577, 957

- v. Prince (15 Jur. 632) - - 635

- v. Eock (4 Man. & G. 30) 442, 504

- v. Eoe (6 Sc. 525) - - - 1004
-- v. Eolfe (8 A. & E. 659) - 1007, 1016

- v. Eoss (7 M. & W. 102) - - - 356
v. Eowe (4 Bing. N. C. 737) ----- 1004

v. Eusham (17 Q. B. 723) - - - 1021

v. Saunder (5 A. & E. 664) - 187

v. Sayer (3 Camp. 8) 290, 1085

- v. Seaton (2 A. & E. 171) - 638

v. Smith (2 T. E. 436, 439) - - 30

v. Stanion (1 M. & W. 695 ; 2 Gale, 154 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ex. 253) 129,

163, 290, 501, 1085

v. Stone (3 C. B. 176 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 234 ; 10 Jur. 480) - 595, 911

v. Story (7 A. & E. 909) 359, 957

— v. Sumner (14 M. & W. 39) - - 444

v. Tarver (Ey. & Mo. 141) - 397

v. Thompson (6 A. & E. 721) - - 444

Vt _ _ (13 Q. B. 670) - 892

Vt _ _ (9 Q. B. 1037) - - - 1001

v. Tidbury (14 C. B. 304 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 57 ; 18 Jur. 468 ; 2

Com. L.' Eep. 347) - 188, 795, 918

v. Towns (2 B. & Ad. 585) - - - 781

v. Walker (12 M. & W. 591) 308

CV111 TABLE OF CASES.

Doe— Dow. PAGE

Doe v. Waterton (3 B. & Aid. 149) - - 370

v. Webber (1 A. & E. 733) - 1003, 1021

v. Webster (4 P. & D. 270) - - 840

v. Westlake (4 B. & Aid. 57) - - 1092

v. Weston (2 Q. B. 249) - - - 794

v. Williams (5 A. & E. 291) - 436, 454

v. Willis (5 Bing. 441 ; 3 M. & P. 24 ; 7 L. J. 0. P. 170) - - 187

v. Wood (2 B. & Aid. 724) - 230

v. Woodroffe (2 H. L. C. 811) - - 446

v. Woodward (1 Ex. 273) - 958

Dohertyv.Allman(3Ap.Ca.709; 39L.T.129; 26W.E.513) 870,875,1169
Dolman v. Noakes (22 B. 402) - - 118, 517

Doloret v. Eothschild (1 S. & S. 590) 484, 1105

Dolton v. Hewen (6 Mad. 9) - 78, 673

Domville v. Berrington (2 Y. & C. 723 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq. 58) - 1322
Donaldson, Re (27 Ch. D. 544 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 101 ; 51 L. T. 622) - 208
- v. Donaldson (Kay, 711 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 788 ; 2 W. E. 691) 1018

Vt (3 Ch. D. 743 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 900 ; 24

W. E. 1037) - - - 97

Donegan v. Neill (16 L. E. Ir. 309) - - 461

Donellan v. Eead (3 B. & A. 899 ; 1 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 269) - - 236
Donne v. Hart (2 E. & M. 360 ; 1 L. J. N. S. Ch. 57) - 10

Donnell v. Bennett (22 Ch. D. 835 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 414 ; 48 L. T. 68 ;

31 W. E. 316 ; 47 J. P. 342) - - - 1168

Donnison v. People's Cafe Co. (45 L. T. 187) - 252

Donohoe v. Conrahy (2 J. & L. 688) - - 1053

Donovan v. Fricker (Jac. 165) 502, 504, 505, 903, 1033

Doo v. London & Croydon Canal Co. (1 E. C. 257 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch.
200 ; 3 Jur. 258) - 244, 248

Doody v. Higgins (9 Ha. App. xxxvii.) - - 1352

Doran v. Wiltshire (3 Sw. 699) - 673

Dorin v. Harvey (15 Si. 49; 9 Jur. 648) 1223, 1227

Dorling v. Claydon (1 H. & M. 402) 380, 381

Dormay v. Borradaile (10 B. 263 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 337 ; 11 Jur. 379) - 693
Dorret v. Meux (15 C. B. 142 ; 2 C. L. E. 807 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 221) 363
Dorring's Settled Estate, Re (14 W. E. 125 ; 13 L. T. 494) - - 1344
Doswell v. Eeece (11 Jur. N. S. 764 ; 13 L. T. 156) - - 527

Douglas v. Archbutt (2 D. & J. 148 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 271 ; 4 Jur. N. S.

315 ; 31 L. T. 4 ; 6 W. E. 306) - 96, 208

v. Douglas (Kay, 400) - 308

Douglass v. L. & N. W. E. Co. (3 K. & J. 173 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 181) - 58,

92, 172, 322, 463, 750, 1239

Douglasse v. Waad (1 Ch. Ca. 99) - - 1003

Dover (H. Warden of) v. South East. E. Co. (9 Ha. 489 ; 21 L. J.

Ch. 886) - - 634

Dowell v. Dew (1 Y. & C. C. C. 345) - 997, 1117, 1121, 1137, 1176

Dower v. Dower (15 L. E. Ir. 264) - - 461

Dowle v. Lucy (4 Ha. 311) ----- 1313,1328

TABLE OF CASES. C1X

Dow— Dru.

Dowle v. Saunders (2 H.& M. 242 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 87 ; 12 W. R. 1074 ;

4N. R. 478) - - - 953

Dowley v. Winfield (14 Si. 277 ; 8 Jur. 972)- - 386, 388, 389

Bowling, Exparte (7 L. R. Ir. 173) - 804, 809

- v. Hudson (17 B. 248) 673, 678, 693

- v. Legh (3 J. & L. 716 ; 9 Ir. Eq. R. 413) - - 145

- v. Maguire (L. & G. temp. P. 1) - - 1162
Downes, In re (5 B. 425 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 159) - - 818

— v. Grazebrook (3 Her. 200) 39, 40, 42, 50, 54, 78

Downman v. Jones (7 Q. B. 103 ; 14 L. J. Q. B. 226 ; 9 Jur. 454 ;

5 L. T. 0. S. 77) ..... 212

- v. Williams : see Jones v. Downman.

Downs v. Collins (6 Ha. 437) - - - 1164

Dowson v. Solomon (1 Dr. & S. 1 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 129 ; 6 Jur. N. S.

33 ; 1 L. T. 246 ; 8 W. R. 123) - 285, 287

Doyley v. Powis (Countess) (3 Br. C. 0. 32 ; 1 Cox, 206) - 221, 1333

Drake, In re (8 B. 123) - 816

- v. Trefusis (10 Ch. 364 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 85 ; 23 W. R. 762) 97, 752

— v. West (22 L. J. Ch. 375) - - 880

— v. Whitmore (5 De G. & S. 619) - 1315
Drant v. Yause (1 Y. & C. C. C. 580 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 170 ; 6 Jur.

313) - - 296, 302

Draper v. Blaney (2 Saund. 194 ; 1 Lev. 291) - - - 554

— v. Borlace (2 Yern. 370) - 947
Drax v. Scroupe (1 Dowl. 69 ; 2 B. & Ad. 581) - - - 348

- v. Somerset & Dorset R. Co. (38 L. J. Ch. 232 ; 19 L. T. 626)- 515
Drayson v. Pocock (4 Si. 283) 687, 1275
Dressier, Ex parte (9 Ch. D. 251 ; 48 L. J. Bkcy. 20 ; 39 L. T. 377 ;

27 W. R. 144)- - - - 630

Drew, In re (10 B. 368) - 816

- v. Corp (9 Y. 368) - - 1199
-- v. Hanson (6 Y. 675) - 1203, 1204

- v. Martin (2 H. & M. 130 ; 10 L. T. N. S. 291 ; 10 Jur. N. S.

356 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 367 ; 3 N. R. 637 ; 12 W. R. 547) 1063, 1162

- v. Norbury (Earl of) (3 J. & L. 303) - 770, 824, 972
Drinkwater v. Ratcliffe (20 Eq. 528 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 605 ; 33 L. T. 417 ;

24 W. R. 25) - 1299, 1300

Driver's Settlement, Re (19 Eq. 352 ; 23 W. R. 587) - - 657

Driver v. Cholmondeley (9 C. & P. 559, n.) - - 207

Drought v. Eustace (1 Moll. 328) - - 842

- v. Jones (2 Ir. Eq. R. 303 ; 4 D. & War. 174) 459, 824
Drover v. Beyer (13 Ch. D. 242 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 37 ; 41 L. T. 393 ; 28

W. R. 110) ... . 1253

Druce v. Denison (6 Y. 394) - - 1122

Drummond v. Sant (L. R. 6 Q. B. 763 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 21 ; 25 L. T.

419 ; 20 W. R. 18) - - 188, 442, 443

- v. Tracey (John. 608 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 304 ; 6 Jur. N. S.

369 ; 1 L. T. 364 ; 8 W. R. 207) - 343, 344

Drury v. Macnamara (5 E. & B. 612 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 5 ; 1 Jur. N. S.
1163; 26 L. T. 0. S. 74; 4 W. R. 50) ..... 228

CX TABLE OF CASES.

Dru— Dun. PAGE

Drury v. Man (1 Atk. 95, n.) - 801

Dryden's Settled Estates, Re (50 L. J. Ch. 752 ; 45 L. T. 254 ; 29

W. E. 884) - - 1279, 1282

Dryden v. Frost (3 M. & C. 670 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 235 ; 2 Jur. 1030) 828,

977, 990
Drysdale v. Mace (5 D. M. & G. 103 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 518 ; 2 Eq. Eep.

386 ; 2 W. E. 341) - 112, 166, 178

Duberley v. Day (16 B. 33 ; 16 Jur. 581) - - 9, 10

Dublin (Archbishop of) v. Coote (12 Ir. Eq. E. 251) - 452, 467

Duck v. Braddyll (13 Pr. 455 ; M'Clel. 217) - - 785

Duckle v. Baines (8 Si. 525 ; 6 L. J. Ch. 327 ; 1 Jur. 670) - . - 306

Duckworth v. Ewart (10 Jur. N. S. 214 ; 12 W. E. 608) - - 895

Duddell v. Simpson (2 Ch. 102 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 70; 15 L. T. 305 ; 15

W. E. 115) - - 179, 182

Dudden v. Glutton Union (Guardians of) (1 H. & N. 627 ; 26 L. J.

Ex. 146) - - - - 416

Dudgeon v. Thompson (1 Macq. 714 ; Ct. of Sess. Cas. 2nd Ser.
vol. 17, p. 22 (H. L.) ; 24 L. T. O. S. 39) - - 214

Dudley's (Countess) Contracts, Re (35 Ch. D. 338; 56. L. J. Ch. 478 ;

57 L. T. 10 ; 35 W. E. 492) - - - 1273

Dudley Canal Co. v. Grazebrook (1 B. & Ad. 59) - - 424

(Corporation of), Re (8 Q. B. D. 86 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 121 ; 45

L. T. 733 ; 46 J. P. 340) - - 424

- v. Eolliott (3 T. E. 584) - - 883, 887
Dudson's Contract, Re (8 Ch. D. 628 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 632 ; 39 L. T.

182 ; 27 W. E. 179) - 1274

Duffield v. Scott (3 T. E. 377) - - - 893

Duffill, Ex parte (6 Sc. N. E. 30 ; 5 M. & G. 378) - - 651

Dugdale v. Dugdale (14 Eq. 234; 41 L. J. Ch. 565 ; 27 L. T. 705) - 829

-v. Meadows (6 Ch. 501 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 140; 24 L. T. 113) 316, 668

— v. Eobertson (3 K. & J. 695 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 687) - 422, 609

Du Hourmelin v. Sheldon (1 B. 90 ; 4 M. & C. 525) - 26

Duke v. Barnett (2 Coll. 337 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 173 ; 10 Jur. 87 ; 6 L. T.

O. S. 478) - 164, 169

v, Littleboy (28 W. E. 977 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 802 ; 43 L. T. 216) - 1163

Duly v. Nalder (35 L. J. Ch. 52 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 921 ; 13 L. T. 269;

14 W. E. 45) - 293

Dummer's Will, In re (2 D. J. & S. 515 ; 12 L. T. 621 ; 13 W. E. 908) 752
Dummer v. Pitcher (5 Si. 35 ; 2 M. & K. 262 ; Coop. t. Brough. 257) 1058,

1063

Dumoncel v. Dumoncel (13 Ir. Eq. E. 93) - 26, 384

Dumper v. Dumper (3 Gif. 583 ; 6 L. T. 315 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 503) - 1061

Duncan v. Cafe (2 M. & W. 244 ; M. & H. 1 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ex. 81 ;

1 Jur. 23) - - 207

- v. Tindall (13 C. B. 258; 22 L. J. C. P. 137 ; 17 Jur. 347) - 1163

- v. Topham (8 C. B. 225 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 310 ; 13 L. T. 0. S.
304) - 254

Duncuft v. Albrecht (12 Si. 199) - 233, 1106

Dundas v. Dutens (1 V. 199) - 1141

Dunlop v. Higgins (1 H. L. C. 396 ; 12 Jur. 295) - 254, 268, 1079

TABLE OF CASES. CXI

0

Dun — Dys. PAGE

Dunn v. Bryan (7 Ir. B. Eq. 143) - - 150

v. Flood (25 Ch. D. 629 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 537 ; 49 L. T. 670 ; 32

W. E. 197) 241, 876, 1235, 1275

v.

(28 Ch. D. 586 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 370 ; 52 L. T. N. S. 699 ;

i . i i - ooiffoif"\O'if"\r\ f\f\/\ ^11

33 W. E. 315) - - 83, 158, 198, 199, 200, 741, 1165
v. Snowdon (2 Dr. & S. 201 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 104 ; 7 L. T. 558 ;

11 W. E. 160) - 388

v. Vere (19 W. E. 151 ; 23 L. T. 432) - - 1254

Dunne v. Dunne (7 D. M. & G. 207 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1056 ; 3 Eq. E.

760; 25 L. T. 60; 3 W. B, 380) - - 97

- v. English (18 Eq. 524 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 75) - 37, 39, 50, 217

- v. Ferguson (Hay, 541) - 235
Dunraven (Lord) v. Llewellyn (15 Q. B. 791) - - - 358
Dunsmure v. Boulderson (5 Jur. 958) - 386
Durell v. Pritchard (1 Ch. 251 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 223 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 16 ;

13 L. T. 545 ; 14 W. E. 212) - - - - 408

Durham and Sunderland B. Co. v. Walker (2 Q. B. 967 ; 2 G. & D.

326 ; 3 By. Ca. 36) - - - 612

(Earl of) v. Legard (34 B. 611 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 589 ; 13 L. T.

82 ; 13 W. B. 959) - 151, 157, 737, 740

Durrell v. Evans (7 Jur. N. S. 585 ; 6 II. & N. 660 ; 30 L. J. Ex.

254 ; 4 L. T. 255 ; 9 W. E. 628) - - - 210, 213

Dutch v. Warren (cited 2 Burr. 1011) - - - 1072

Dutton v. Taylor (2 Lutw. 1487) - - 412

v. Thompson (23 Ch. D. 278 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 661 ; 31 W. E.

596) ... - . 1H9

Duval v. Mount (cited 1 K. & J. 216) - 1333

Du Vigier v. Lee (2 Ha. 326 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 345 ; 7 Jur. 299) - 460
Dwyer v. Collins (7 Ex. 639 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 225 ; 16 Jur. 569) - 995

Dyas v. Cruise (2 J. & L. 460 ; 8 Ir. Eq. E. 407) - - 210

v. Stafford (7 L. E. Ir. 590 ; 9 L. B. Ir. 520) - 203, 209, 265, 271

Dye v. Dye (13 Q. B. D. 147 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 442 ; 51 L. T. 145 ; 33

W. E. 2) - - - 1054

Dyer v. Dyer (2 Cox, 92 ; 1 Wh. & T. L. C.) - - 1055, 1058, 1061

v. Hargrave (10 V. 505) 152, 485, 715, 738, 1204

v. Painter (33 W. E. 806 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1133) - - 1300

v. Pulteney (Barn. C. 160) - - - 285

Dyers' Co. v. King. (9 Eq. 438; 39 L. J. Ch. 339; 22 L. T. 120; 18

W. E. 404) - 406

Dyke's Estate, In re (7 Eq. 337 ; 20 L. T. 292 ; 17 W. E. 658) - 244

Dyke v. Eendall (2 D. M. & G. 209 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 905; 16 Jur. 939) 584,

831, 1263

Dykes v. Blake (4 Bing. N. C. 463; 6 So. 320; 1 Am. 209; 7 L. J.

N. S. C. P. 282) - - - 134, 135, 156, 1084

-v. Taylor (16 Si. 563) 1274, 1314

Dymond v. Croft (3 Ch. D. 512; 45 L. J. Ch. 604; 34 L. T. N. S.

786; 24 W. B. 842) - 81

Dyne v. Nutley (14 C. B. 122 ; 2 C. L. B. 81) - - - 602

Dysart Peerage (6 Ap. Ca. 489) - 395

Dyson v. Hornby (4 De G. & S. 481) - - 710, 722

CX11 TABLE OF CASES.

«

Ead— Ecc. PAGE

Eadie v. Addison (52 L. J. Ch. 80 ; 47 L. T. 543 ; 31 W. E. 320) - 265

Eads v. Williams (4 D. M. & G. 674; 1 Jur. N. S. 193; 24 L. T.

0. S. 162; 3 Eq. E. 244; 3 W. E. 98) - - 704, 705, 1212, 1214

Eagle, Ex parte (4 K. & J. 549 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 828 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1140 ;

6W. E. 779) - 218

Eardley v. Granville (3 Ch. D. 826; 45 L. J. Ch. 669; 34 L. T. 609;

24 W. E. 528) - 423

Earl v. Baxter (2 W. Bl. 1228) - - - 368

Earle & Webster, Re (24 Ch. D. 144 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 828 ; 48 L. T.

961 ; 31 W. E. 887) - 1272
v. Hopwood (7 Jur. N. S. 775; 9 C. B. N. S. 566; 30 L. J.

C. P. 217; 3 L. T. 670; 9 W. E, 272) - -

Early v. Early (16 Ch. D. 214 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 826) - -

v. Garrett (9 B. & C. 929; 8 L. J. K. B. 76; 4 Man. & E. 687) 103,

106, 898, 905
East Dereham (Vicar of), Ex parte (20 L. J. Ch. 677) - 760

Grinstead Case (Duke's Char. Uses, 640) - - 944, 968, 1023

- India Co. v. Cavel (Ch. Free. 377) - 1019

-v. Hensley (1 Esp. 112) - - 211

Lincolnshire Eailway Act, In re (1 Si. N. S. 260) 297, 298

London Union v. Metropolitan E. Co. (L. E. 4 Ex. 309 ; 38 L. J.

Ex. 225) - 1086, 1087

Eastern Counties E. Co. v. Haukes (1 D. M. & G. 758; 5 H. L. C.

331; 7Ey.Ca. 188; 22 L. J. Ch.77; 16 Jur.
1051 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 117, 148; 1 W. E. 25,
41 ; 3 W. E. 609) 1173, 1176, 1178, 1205, 1211
- v. Philipson (16 C. B. 1; 24 L. J. C. P. 140) - 1088
Easton v. Pratt (9 Jur. N. S. 1345 ; 2 H. &C. 676; 33 L. J. Ex. 31;

10 L. T. 841 ; 3 N. E. 133 ; 12 W. E. 157) - 192

Eastwood v. Lever (4 D. J. & S. 114; 33 L. J. Ch. 355 ; 9 L. T. 615;

3 N. E. 232 ; 12 W. E. 195) - - - 868

Eaton v. Basker (7 Q. B. D. 529 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 444 ; 44 L. T. 703 ;

29 W. E. 597) - - 218

— v. Sanxter (6 Si. 517 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 197) 293, 530, 681

v. Swansea Waterworks Co. (17 Q. B. 267 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 482 ;

15 Jur. 675) - 432

Ebbs v. Boulnois (10 Ch. 479 ; 32 L. T. N. S. 650 ; 23 W. E. 820) - 34
Ebrand v. Dancer (2 Ch. Ca. 26) - - 1057

Ecclesall, In re (16 B. 297) - - 1351

Eccleshill Local Board, Ee (13 Ch. D. 367 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 214; 28 W.

E. 536) - - 711

Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Commissioners of Sewers (14 Ch. D.

305 ; 28 W. E. 824) - - - 243

Vm Kino (14 Ch. D. 213 ; 49 L. J. Ch.

529 ; 42 L. T. 201 ; 28 W. E.
544) - 406

• — v. London and South Western E. Co.

(14 C. B. 743 ; 2 C. L. E. 1797 ; 23

L. J. C. P. 177 ; 18 Jur. 911) - 802
. v. Eowe (5 Ap. Ca. 736 ; 49 L. J. Q.

B. 771 ; 43 L. T. 353; 29 W. E.

159; 45 J. P. 36)- - 452

TABLE OF CASES. CX11

Ecc— Edw. PAGE

Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Sligo (Lord) (5 Ir. Ch. B. 46) - - 459

Echliff v. Baldwin (16 V. 267) - 1131, 1222

Edden v. Eead (3 Camp. 338) - - - 1075

Eddlestone v. Collins (3 D. M. & G. 1 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 480 ; 17 Jur.

331 ; 20 L. T. O. S. 298 ; 1 W. B. 169) - 580, 648

Ede v. Knowles (2 Y. & C. C. C. 172) - 1003, 1028

Eden v. Blake (13 M. & W. 614 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 194 ; 9 Jur. 213) - 124

v. Bute (Earl of) (3 Br. P. C. 679) - 1091

v. Thompson (2 H. & M. 6 ; 10 L. T. 335, 522 ; 4 N. E. 87 ; 12

W. E. 789) - 806

Edgar v. Special Commissioners for English Fisheries (23 L. T. 732) 425,

426, 427

Edge v. Boileau (16 Q. B. D. 117 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 90; 53 L. T. 907 ;

34 W. E. 103) - - 882, 883

v. Strafford (1 Tyr. 295 ; 1 C. & J. 391 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 101) - 236

Edgell v. Day (L. E. 1 C. P. 80 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 7 ; 1 H. & Euth.

8 ; 12 Jur. 27 ; 13 L. T. 328 ; 14 W. E. 87) - - 205, 220, 1075

EJgeworth v. Edgeworth (12 Ir. Eq. E. 81) 1274, 1350, 1351

Edinburgh and Dundee E. Co. v. Leven (1 Macq. 284) 62, 243

• , Perth and Dundee E. Co. v. Philip (2 Macq. 514 ; 3 Jur.

N. S. 249 ; 28 L. T. 345 ; 5 W. E. 377) - - 1101

Edmonds v. Millett (20 B. 54) - 242

- v. Peake (7 B. 239 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 13) - - 208, 223
v. Waugh (1 Eq. 418 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 234 ; 12 Jur. N. S.

326 ; 13 L. T. 739 ; 14 W. E. 257) 455, 461

Edwards, Re (33 W. E. 578) - 660, 663, 1253, 1348

- v. Browne (2 Coll. 100) - 845, 850

- v. Burt (2 D. M. & G. 57) 845, 849, 850, 854

- v. Edwards (2 Y. & C. 123) - 1055

— v. Fashion (Ch. Prec. 332 ; 19 V. 444) - - 1049
v. Fidel (3 Mad. 237) - 1055

v. Grand Junction E. Co. (1 M. & C. 650 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ch.

47 ; 1 Ey. & Can. Cas. 173) -219, 1173

- v. Harben (2 T. E. 587) - - 1026

- v. Harvey (G. Coop. 40 ; 2 Sw. 287) - - - 94

- v. Hodding (5 Taun. 815 ; 1 Marsh. 377) - - 207

v. McLeay (G. Coop. 312 ; 2 Sw. 287) 105, 116, 504, 898, 900,

902

v. Meyrick (2 Ha. 60 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 49 ; 6 Jur. 924) 45,

46

— v. Tuck (23 B. 268) - 391

v. Warden (1 Ap. Ca. 281 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 713; 35 L. T.

174) - - 438

v. West (7 Ch. D. 858 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 463 ; 38 L. T. 481 ;

26 W. E. 507) - 297, 913
v. Wickwar (1 Eq. 68 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 48 ; 13 L. T. N. S.

428; 14 W. E. 79) - 106, 168, 175

Edwards- Wood v. Marjoribanks (3 D. & J. 329; 7 H. L. C. 806 ; 28

L. J. Ch. 298 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 181 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 304 ; 7 W. E.

165 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1167 ; 3 L. T. 222 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 176) - 1196, 1202

D. h

CX1V TABLE OF CASES.

Edw— Elw. PAGE

Edwick v. Hawkes (18 Ch. D. 199 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 577 ; 45 L. T. 168 ;
29 W. E. 913) - - - 1170

Egerton v. Brownlow (Lord) (4 H. L. C. 1 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 348; 21

L. T. 0. S. 306) 277,612

- v. Jones (3 Si. 392 ; 1 E. & M. 694) - - - 1240

Egmont (Earl of) v. Smith (6 Ch. D. 469 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 356) - 206, 284,

734, 1130, 1255

Egremont (Lord), In re (12 Jur. 618) - 753

Eidsforth v. Armstead (2 K. & J. 333 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 237 ; 26 L. T.
323 ; 4 W. E. 279) - - 699

Eisdell v. Hammersly (31 B. 255 ; 6 L. T. N. S. 706) - - - 87

Eland v. Eland (4 M. & C. 420 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 289 ; 3 Jur. 474) 673,

675, 676, 678, 699

Ellard v. Llandaff (Lord) (1 B. & P. 241) - - 1187

Elliott's Settled Estates, Re (W. N. (1879) 135) - 1279

Elliott, In re (2 De G. & S. 17 ; 17 L. T. 0. S. 241 ; 12 Jur. 445) - 704,

706, 807

- v. Brown (3 Sw. 489) - 1049

- v. Dearsley (16 Ch. D. 322 ; 44 L. T. 198 ; 29 W. E. 494) - 925

- v. Edwards (3 B. & P. 181) - - 832

- v. Elliott (2 Ch. Ca. 231) - 1059, 1061, 1062

v. Ince (7 D. M. & G. 475 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 821 ; 3 Jur. N. S.

597 ; 30 L. T. 92 ; 5 W. E, 465, 482) - - 6, 7

- v. Merrimaii (Barn. C. 78 ; 1 Wh. & T. L. C.) - 674, 678, 691
v. North East. E, Co. (10 H. L. C. 333; 32 L. J. Ch. 4<>i> ;

9 Jur. N. S. 555 ; 8 L. T. 307 ; 2 N. E. 87 ; 11 W. E.
604) - - - 421

— v. South Devon E. Co. (5 Ey. Ca. 500 ; 2 Ex. 725 ; 17 L. J.

Ex. 262) - - 861

- v. Turner (13 Si. 477) - - - 719
Ellis' Trusts, In re (17 Eq. 409 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 444 ; 22 W. E. 448) - 10
Ellis, In re (24 B. 426) - 655

- v. Lewis (3 Ha. 310; 13 L. J. Ch. 210 ; 8 Jur. 238) - - 614

v. Manchester Carriage Co. (2 C. P. D. 13 ; 35 L. T. 476 ; 25

W. E, 229) - - 409, 608, 612

v. Eogers (29 Ch. D. 661 ; 53 L. T. 377) - 129, 130, 157, 163, 404,

1151, 1179, 1180, 1276
Ellison, In re (1 Jur. N. S. 1155 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 379 ; 26 L. T. O. S.

134 ; 4 W. E. 136) - 812

- v. Ellison (6 Y. 656 ; 1 Wh. & T. L. C.) - - 1018
Elmhirst v. Spencer (2 M. & G. 45 ; 14 L. T. 0. S. 433) - - 415
Elmore v. Kingscote (5 B. & C. 583 ; 8 D. & E, 343) - 256
Elmslie, In re (12 B. 538) - - 816
Else v. Barnard (28 B. 228 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 729 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 621 ;

2 L. T. N. S. 203) - 73, 91, 209, 1328

v. Else (13 Eq. 196 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 213 ; 25 L. T. 927 ; 20 W. E.

286) - 169, 173, 1326, 1336

Elsey v. Lutyens (8 Ha. 159) - 960

Elton v. Elton (27 B. 632 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 136) - - - 473

Elvey v. Norwood (5 De G. & S. 240; 21 L. J. Ch. 716; 16 Jur.

493) - - 461

Elwes v. Elwes (7 Jur. N. S. 747 ; 4 L. T. 593 ; 9 W. E, 820) - - 856

TABLE OF CASES. CXV

Elw — ESS. PAGE

Elwin v. Elwin (8 V. 547) - - 63

Elworthy v. Billing (10 Si. 98 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 176) - - 1322

v. Tanner : see Tanner v. Elworthy.

Elwyn v. Williams (7 Jur. 337) - 1122

Ely (Dean and Chapter of) v. Bliss (5 B. 574 ; 2 D. M. £ G. 469 ; 11

L. J. N. S. Ch. 351 ; 6 Jur. 496) 402, 447

- v. Cash (15 M. & W. 617) - - - 433

Emanuel, Ee (33 Ch. D. 40; 55 L. J. Ch. 710; 55 L. T. 79; 34

W. E. 613; 51 J. P. 22 - - 822

Embrey v. Owen (6 Ex. 353 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 212 ; 15 Jur. 633) - - 415

Emery v. Grocock (6 Mad. 54) 366, 371, 377, 1233, 1235, 1277

- v. Pickering (13 Si. 583) - - - 1224

- v. Wase (8 V. 505) - . - 1186

- v. (5 V. 846) 704, 1212

Emly v. Guy (3 Mer. 702) - - 1064

Emmerson v. Heelis (2 Taun. 38) 209, 240, 271, 275
Ernmett v. Dewhirst (3 M. & G. 596 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 497 ; 15 Jur.

1115) - - 1090
v. Tottenham (10 Jur. N. S. 1090 ; 11 L. T. 404 ; 13 W. E.

123) - - - - 844

Empress Engineering Co., Re (16 Ch. D. 125; 43 L. T. N. S. 742 ;

29 W. E, 342) - 62, 216, 219, 1010, 1125

Emuss v. Smith (2 D. G. & S. 722) - 296, 302, 308

Engel v. Fitch (L. E. 4 Q. B. 659 ; L. E. 3 Q. B. 314 ; 37 L. J.

Q. B. 145 ; 18 L. T. 318 ; 16 W. E. 785) 181, 1080, 1081, 1082
England v. Slade (4 T. E. 682) - 366
English v. Murray (49 L. T. 35 ; 32 W. E, 84) - 151, 155, 1197, 1236
Eno v. Eno (11 Ha. 177) 1231, 1232, 1235
v. Tatham (3 D. J. & S. 443 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 311 ; 9 Jur. N. S.

481; 8L. T. 127; IN. E. 529; 11 W. E. 475) - - 923

Enraght v. Fitzgerald (2 Ir. Eq. E. 87 ; 2 D. & War. 43) - 708, 712
Ensworth v. Griffith (5 Br. P.C. 184) - - 925, 926

Enthoven v. Cobb (2 D. M. & G. 632 ; 19 L. T. 0. S. 291) - - 996

Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. (3 Ap. Ca. 1284 ; 48 L. J.

Ch. 73; 39 L. T. N. S. 269 ; 27 W. E. 65) 24, 1072

Ernest v. Croysdill (2 D. F. & J. 175 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 740; 2 L. T.

616 ; 8 W. E. 736) - - - 903

Errington v. Metr. Dist. E. Co. (19 Ch. D. 559 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 305 ;

46 L. T. 433 ; 30 W. E. 663) 248, 423

Erskine v. Adeano (8 Ch. 756; 42 L. J. Ch. 835, 849 ; 29 L. T. N. S.

324 ; 21 W. E. 802) - 69, 232, 1094

Esdaile v. Oxenham (3 B. & C. 225 ; 5 D. & E. 49) - 639, 826

— v. Payne (33 W. E. 864 ; 52 L. T. 530) - - - 403

v. Stephenson (1 S. & S. 122 ; 6 Mad. 366) - 143, 322, 709, 719,

1205, 1239, 1242

Espin v. Pemberton (3 D. & J. 547 ; 4 Dr. 333 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 308,
311 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 55, 157 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 250, 345 ; 7 W. E.
123, 221) 951, 952, 990, 991

Esron v. Nicholas (1 De G. & S. 118 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 489) - 5, 947

Essex v. Baugh (1 Y. & C. C. C. 620; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 374; 6
Jur. 1030) - 773, 960, 964

CXvi TABLE OF CASES.

Ess— Eyk.

Essex v. Daniell (L. E. 10 C. P. 538 ; 32 L. T. 476) - 185, 741

v. Essex (20 B. 442) 227, 242, 1051, 1052, 1133

Estcourt v. Kingscote (4 Mad. 140) - - 401

Eton College, Ex parte (20 L. J. Ch. 1) - - - 812

European, &c. Eoyal Mail Co. v. Eoyal Mail, &c. Co. (4 3L & J.

676; 5 Jur. N. S. 310) - - 1163

Evan v. Corporation of Avon (29 B. 144; 30 L. J. Ch. 165 ; 6 Jur.

N. S. 1631 ; 3 L. T. N. S. 347 ; 9 W. E. 84) - - - 93

Evans' Settlement, Re (14 Ch. D. 511 ; 43 L. T. 172) - 758

Evans, Ex parte, jfo Watkins ( 13 Ch. D. 252; 49 L. J. Bkcy. 1;

41 L. T. 565 ; 28 W. E. 127) - - 542, 547

- v. Bicknell (6 V. 174) - 108, 109, 942, 950, 952, 984
v. Davis (10 Ch. D. 747 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 223 ; 39 L. T. 391 ;

27 W. E. 285) - - - 869

v. Edmonds (13 C. B. 786 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 211 ; 17 Jur. 883;

1 Comm. L. E. 653 ; 21 L. T. 155; 1 W. E. 412) - 114

- v. Evans (2 Ir. Ch. E. 242) - - 1003

- v. - - (31 W. E. 495 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 304 ; 48 L. T. 567) - 1299

- v. Jackson (8 Si. 217 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ch. 8) - - 88

- v. Jones (Kay, 29 ; 2 Eq. E. 421) - - 837

- v. Llewellyn (2 Br. C. C. 150) - 840V 1174

- v. O'Donnell (18 L. E. Ir. 170) 453, 560

- v. Prothero (2 M. & G. 319 ; 1 D. M. & G. 572 ; 21 L. J.

Ch. 772; 19 L. T. 0. S. 117) - 275

v. Eoberts (5 B. & C. 829 ; 8 D. & E. 611 ; 4 L. J. K. B.

313) - - 234, 235

v. Eobins (1 H. & C. 302 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 465; 8 Jur. N. S.

846; 6 L. T. 897 ; 10 W. E. 776) - - 138, 155

- v. Stratford (10 Jur. N. S. 861 ; 10 L. T. 713) - 485

- v. Upsher (16 M. & W. 675; 16 L. J. Ex. 185) - - - 802
— v. Vaughan (4 B. & C. 261 ; 6 D. & E. 349) - - 884

v. Williams (2 Dr. & S. 324; 11 Jur. N. S. 256 ; 11 L. T.

762 ; 13 W. E. 423) - - - 551

Evelyn v. Evelyn (2 P. W. 664) - 919

- v. Templar (2 Br. C. C. 148) 1002, 1004
Everett v. Eobinson (4 Jur. N. S. 1083) - 458

Everitt v. Everitt (10 Eq. 405; 39 L. J. Ch. 777; 23 L. T. 136; 18
W. E. 1020) -------- 1022

Eversfield v. Mid Sussex E. Co. (3 D. & J. 286 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 107 ;

5 Jur. N. S. 777; 32 L. T. 0. S. 202 ; 7 W. E. 102) - 248

Ewart v. Belfast Guardians (9 L. E. Ir. 172) - 416

v. Cochrane (4 Macq. 117 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 925 ; 5 L. T. 1 ; 10

W. E. 3) - 520, 608

- v. Graham (7 H. L. C. 331 ; 29 L. J, Ex. 88 ; 5 Jur. N. S.
773; 7 W. E. 621) 425, 612

Ewer v. Corbet (2 P. Wms. 148) - 673, 678

Ewing v. Osbaldiston (2 M. & C. 53 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ch. 161 ; 1 Jur.

50) 506, 1096, 1162

Exefer (Marquis of) v. Exeter (the Marchioness of) (3 M. & C. 321 ;

7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 240 ; 2 Jur. 535) - - - 838

Eykyn's Trust (6 Ch. D. 115 ; 37 L. T. 261) - 1059

TABLE OF CASES. CXV11

Eyl— Far. PAGE

Eyles v. Ellis (4 Bing. 112 ; 12 Moore, 306 ; 5 L. J. C. P. 110) - 220
Eyre, In re (2 Ph. 367 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 277) - - 815

v. McDonnell (15 Ii\ Ch. R. 534) - - - 43

- v. McDowell (9 H. L. C. 619, 642) 549, 957
v. Saunders (4 Jur. N. S. 830 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 704 ; 28 L. J. Ch.

439; 7 W. R. 366) - 1281, 1283

Eyre's Settled Estate (4 K. & J. 268 ; 31 L. T. 0. S. 79) - 1249, 1344
Eyston v. Simmonds (1 Y. & C. C. C. 608 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 376 ; 6

Jur. 817) 1178, 1179

Eyton v. Dicken (4 Pr. 303) - - - - - - 1234

Fagg v. Dobie (3 Y. & C. 96 ; 2 Jur. 681) -630, 1046

Fahey v. Dwyer (4 L. R. Ir. 271) - 177, 430

Fain v. Ayres (2 S. & S. 533) - - 473, 887

Faine v. Browne (2 V. sen. 307) - 1170

Fairbrother v. Prattent (Dan. 64) - - 205

Fairley v. Tuck (3 Jur. N. S. 1089 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 28 ; 30 L. T. 126 ;
6 W. R. 9) - 614

Fairlie v. Fenton (L. R. 5 Ex. 169 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 107 ; 22 L. T. 373) 1073

Falcke v. Gray (4 Dr. 661 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 645 ; 33 L. T. 0. S. 297 ; 7

W. R. 535) - - 842, 1105, 1207

Falkner v. Equitable Reversionary Co. (4 Dr. 352 ; 28 L. J. Ch.

132 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1214; 32 L. T. 181 ; 7 W. R. 73) 84, 178,

198, 199, 1275, 1338

v. Somerset & Dorset Railway Co. (16 Eq. 458 ; 42 L. J.

Ch. 851) - - 246

Falmouth (Earl of) v. Roberts (9 M. & W. 469 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ex.

180) - - - - 274

(Lord) v. Thomas (1 C. & M. 105 ; 3 Tyr. 26) 234, 235, 237

Fane v. Fane (20 Eq. 698) - - 848

v. Spencer (2 Mer. 430, n.) - 330, 331

Farebrother v. Gibson (1 D. & J. 602) 124, 125, 158, 999, 1189, 1196, 1204
— v. Simmons (5 B. & Aid. 333) - 209, 210

Farley v. Bonham (2 J. & H. 177 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 239 ; 7 Jur. N. S.
232 ; 3 L. T. 806 ; 9 W. R. 299) - - 586

Farmer v. Dean (32 B. 327) - - 50, 91, 1323

- v. Farmer (1 H. L. C. 724) 841, 847, 855

- v. Robinson (2 Camp. 339, n.) - 216

- v. Russell (1 B. & P. 296) - - 1163
Farquhar v. Farley (7 Taunt. 592) - - 1076
Farquharson v. Floyer (3 Ch. D. 109 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 750 ; 35 L. T. 355) 309,

702

Farrar v. Winterton (Lord) (5 B. 1 ; 4 Y. & C. 472) 303, 799

Farrer v. Lacey Hartland (31 Ch. D. 42 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 149 ; 53 L. T.

N. S. 515 ; 34 W. R. 22) 81, 140, 205, 221, 747, 836

- v. Nightingal (2 Esp. 639) - 128, 1072
Farrow v. Rees (4 B. 21 ; 4 Jur. 1028) - - 950, 968, 1264

Farwell v. Searle (18 L. J. Ch. 189 ; 13 Jur. 483 ; 13 L. T. 0. S. 23) 668,

942

CXV111 TABLE OF CASES.

Fau— Fie.

Faulkner, Re (W. N. (1887), 167) - - 204

- v. Daniel (3 Ha. 212 ; 8 Jur. 29) - - 454

- v. Llewellyn (10 W. E. 506) - - - 1113
Faussett v. Carpenter (2 Dow & C. 232) 589, 600, 838
Faversham Charities, In re (10 W. E. 291 ; 5 L. T. 787) - - 759
Fawcus v. Porter (3 C. & K. 309) - 912
Fawell v. Heelis (Amb. 724)- - 825

Fearnside v. Flint (22 Ch. D. 579 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 479 ; 48 L. T. 154 ;

31 W. E. 318) - 67, 438, 455, 460, 695

Featherstonhaugh v. Fenwick (17 V. 298) - - 1051

Fechter v. Montgomery (33 B. 22) - - 1167

Fector, Ex parte (Buck, 428) - 223

Fee v. Cobine (11 Ir. Eq. E. 406) - - 926

Feilden v. Slater (7 Eq. 523 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 379 ; 20 L. T. 112 ; 17

W. E. 485) - 138, 865, 869, 981

Feilder v. Studley (Finch, 90) - 891

Fell v. Chamberlain (2 Dick. 484) - - 1056

Fellows v. Clay (4 Q. B. 313) - 402

- v. Gwydyr (Lord) (1 E. & M. 83) - - 1182

Fenner v. Hepburn (2 Y. & C. C. C. 159) - 571, 1113

Fenton v. Browne (14 V. 144) - 110, 111, 208, 1260

v. Clegg (9 Ex. 680 ; 2 C. L. E. 1014 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 197) - 673

Fenwick v. Bulman (9 Eq. 165 ; 21 L. T. 628 ; 18 W. E. 179) 1128, 1132

Feret v. Hill (15 C. B. 207 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 186 ; 2 C. L. E. 1366 ; 10
Jur. 1014)- 856, 1096

Fergus (Executors of) v. Gore (1 Sch. & L. 350) - - 1331

Ferguson v. Gibson (14 Eq. 379 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 640) - - 1340

v. Livingstone (9 Ir. Eq. E. 202) - - 461

v. London & Brighton E. Co. (3 D. J. & S. 653 ; 33 L. J.

Ch. 28 ; 9 L. T. 134 ; 2 N. E. 566 ; 11 W. E. 1088) - 246

— v. Tadman (1 Si. 530) - -739, 1247
Ferraby v. Hobson (2 Ph. 261 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 499) - 47, 1151
Ferrand v. Bradford (Corporation of) (21 B. 412 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 175 ;

27 L. T. 0. S. 11) - - - 510

— v. Wilson (4 Ha. 385 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 41 ; 9 Jur. 860) - 72
Ferrars v. Cherry (2 Vern. 384 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 3, pi. 11, 331, pi. 5) - 973, 1018
Ferrers (Earl) v. Stafford & Uttoxeter E. Co. (13 Eq. 524 ; 41 L. J. Ch.

362 ; 26 L. T. 652 ; 20 W. E. 478) - 515, 1221

Ferrier v. Ferrier (11 L. E. Ir. 56) - - 685

Few v. Guppy (13 B. 457) - - 996

Fewster v. Turner (6 Jur. 144; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 161) - 135, 739, 1116,

1266, 1269

Field, Be (29 Ch. D. 608 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 661 ; 52 L. T. 480 ; 33 W. E.

504, 553 ; 49 J. P. 613)- - 822, 823

v. Boland (1 D. & Wai. 37) 211, 269

v. Caernarvon & Lanberis E. Co. (5 Eq. 190; 37 L. J. Ch. 176;

17 L. T. 534 ; 16 W. E. 273) - - 508, 509, 1100

v. Churchill (4 Jur. 739) - - - 1262

' v. Donoughmore (Lord) (1 D. & War, 227) - - - 1004

TABLE OF CASES. CX1X

Fie — Fie. PAGE

Field v. Lelean (7 Jur. N. S. 918 ; 6 H. & N. 617 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 168 ;

4 L. T. 121 ; 9 W. E. 387) 1091

v. Moore (7 D. M. & G. 691 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 66 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 145 ;

26 L. T. O. S. 207 ; 4 W. E. 187) - 2, 9, 1120

Fielder v. Higginson (3 Y. & B. 142) - 1265, 1337

Fife v. Clayton (1 Coop. t. Cott. 351 ; 13 V. 546) - 130, 1247, 1265

Fildes v. Hooker (3 Mad. 193 ; 2 Mer. 429) 164, 1240, 1241

Fillingham v. Bromley (T. & E, 530) - - - 1273

Finch, In re (4 D. M. & G. 108 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 670) - - 817

- v. Finch (15 Y. 51) J* - 1057

v. G. W. E. Co. (5 Ex. D. 254 ; 41 L. T. 731 ; 28 W. E. 229 ;

44 J. P. 8) - - - - - 414

- v. Hattersley (3 Euss. 345, n.) - - - 693

- v. Shaw (19 B. 500 ; 18 Jur. 935 ; 2 W. E. 655) 334, 950

Finlay v. B. & E. E. Co. (21 L. J. Ex. 117 ; 7 Ex. 409 ; 7 Ey. Ca.
449) - ... 274

Finnis to Forbes (24 Ch. D. 587 ; 48 L. T. 813) - - 20

Firbank's Exors. v. Humphreys (18 Q. B. D. 54 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 57 ;
56 L. T. 36 ; 35 W. E. 92) ' 213, 1074

Firmin v. Pulham (12 Jur. 410 ; 2 De G. & S. 99) - - 1258

Firth v. Greenwood (1 Jur. N. S. 866 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 51 ; 3 W. E,

358) - 1213, 1261

v. Midland E. Co. (20 Eq. 100 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 313 ; 32 L. T. 219;

23 W. E. 509) - - - 1110

v. Eidley (33 B. 516) - - 1164

Fish v. Klein (2 Mer. 431) - - 28

Fisher & Haslett, Re (13 L. E. Ir. 546) - 686

Fisher, In re (2 H. & Tw. 449) - - 1351

v. Bridges (3 E. & B. 642 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 276 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

157) - 835, 1096

- v. Dixon (12 C. & F. 312 ; 9 Jur. 883) 606, 607

- v. Drewett (48 L. J. Ex. 32 ; 39 L. T. 253 ; 27 W. E. 12) - 214
v. Budding (3 Man. & G. 238 ; 3 Sc. N. E. 516 ; 9 D. P. C.

872) - - - - - - - - - 531

Fitch v. Weber (6 Ha. 51 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 73 ; 12 Jur. 76 ; 10 L. T.

0. S. 284) - 27

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald (8 C. B. 592 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 126 ; 14 Jur. 485) 354
- v. Yicars (2 D. & Wai. 298) - 1147

Fitzmaurice v. Bayley (6 E. & B. 868 ; 8 E. & B. 664 ; 9 H. L. C.

78 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 264 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 506 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1215 ; 30 L. T.

O. S. 230; 3 L. T. 69; 26 L. J. Q. B. 114; 27 L. J. Q. B. 143; 8

W. E. 750) - - 239, 256

Fitzwalter Peerage (10 C. & F. 953)- - 159, 354, 362, 394

Fitzwater v. Waterhouse (52 L. J. Ch. 83) - - 1310

Flack v. Downing CoUege (13 C. B. 945) - - 580

- v. Longmate (8 B. 420 ; 5 L. T. O. S. 35) - - - 312

Flammank, Ex parte : see East Lincolnshire Eailway Act, Re.
Fleet v. Murton (L. E. 7 Q. B. 126 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 49 ; 26 L. T. 181 ;

20 W. E. 97) - - 1073

Fleetwood v. Green (15 V. 594) - - 499, 1214, 1227, 1243, 1258

CXX TABLE OF CASES.

Fie— For. PAGE

Fleming v. Armstrong (34 B. 109 ; 11 L. T. 470) - 10, 1311

v. Crouch (W. N. (1884) 111) - 1300

v. Hardcastle (33 W. E. 776 ; 52 L. T. 851) - - 822, 823

Flemon's Trusts, In re (10 Eq. 612 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 86) - 806

Fletcher v. Ashburner (1 Br. C. C. 497 ; 1 Wh. & T. L. C.) - 293, 303

— v. Sedley (2 Vern. 490 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 148, pi. 4) - 1025, 1063

v. Tayleur (17 C. B. 21 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 65) - - - 894

Flewitt v. Walker (33 W. E. 894 ; 53 L. T. 287) - 905

Flight v. Barton (3 M. & K. 282) 106, 107, 133

- v. Bentley (7 Si. 149) - 914

- v. Bolland (4 Euss. 298) - 3, 1161

v. Booth (1 Bing. N. C. 379; 1 Sc. 190 ; 4 L. J. N. S. C. P. 66) 133,

151, 156

- v. Eobinson (8 B. 22 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 425 ; 8 Jur. 888)- - 996
v. Thomas (8 C. & F. 231 ; 3 P. & D. 442 ; 11 A. & E. 688 ;

West, 671 ; 5 Jur. 811) 430, 431, 432

Flinn v. Calow (1 Man. & G. 589) - - 914

Flint v. Woodin(9Ha. 621 ; 16 Jur. 719) - 108, 112, 117, 134, 204, 224, 490
Flood's Trusts, Re (11 L. E. Ir. 355) - 11

Flood v. Pritchard (40 L. T. 873) 135, 155, 164, 174, 191, 1264

Flower and Metr. Board of Works, Re (27 Ch. D. 592 ; 53 L. J. Ch.

955; 51 L. T. 257 ; 32 W. E. 1011) 685, 745
, Ex parte (1 Ch. 599 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 872 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 193 ;

15 L. T. 258 ; 14 W. E. 1016) - - 805

v. Hartopp (6 B. 476 ; 8 B. 200 ; 12 L. J. Ch. 507 ; 7 Jur. 613)- 175,

1235,1241, 1277, 1336

v. London & Brighton E. Co. (2 Dr. & S. 330; 11 Jur. N. S.

406 ; 12 L. T. 102 ; 13 W. E. 518) - - 248

Fludyer v. Cocker (12 Y. 25) - 499, 710, 711

Flureau v. Thornhill (2 W. Bl. 1078) - 893, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1080

Foley, Ex parte (8 Si. 395 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 56 ; 2 Jur. 1012) - - 659

- v. Smith (20 L. J. Ch. 621 ; 17 L. T. 0. S. 273) - 818
Foligno v. Martin (16 B. 586) 272, 1254, 1354
Foljambe, In re (9 B. 402) - - 816
Follett v. Jefferyes (1 Sim. N. S. 3 ; 13 Jur. 972 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 65) - 995,

996
Fooks, In re (2 M. & G. 357) - 511

- v. Wilts S. & W. E. Co. (5 Ha. 199 ; 4 Ey. Ca. 210) - - 511
Foord v. Wilson (2 J. B. Moore, 592) - 890
Foot v. Hayne (Ey. & Mo. 165) - - - 994

Footner v. Sturgis (5 D. G. & S. 736; 21 L. J. Ch. 741 ; 19 L. T.
O. S. 324) - - - 543, 1320, 1321

Forbes v. Adams (9 Si. 462 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 116) - - 648

- v. Moifatt (Tud. L. C. 384) - - 1067

v. Peacock (1 Phill. 717 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 371 ; 12 Si. 528) - 65, 322,

673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 695, 1271

- v. — - (11 M. & W. 637 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 460) - - - 694

- v. Steven (10 Eq. 178 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 485 ; 22 L. T. 703 ; 18

W. E. 686) - - 1049

TABLE OF CASES. CXX1

For — Fos. PAGE

Ford and Hill, Re (10 Ch. D. 365 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 327 ; 40 L. T. 41 ; 27

W. E. 371) - 66, 103, 167, 372, 516
v. Ager (2 N. E, 366 ; 2 H. & C. 279 ; 32 L. J. Ex. 269 ; 9 Jur.

N. S. 804 ; 8 L. T. 46 ; 11 W. E. 1073) - - 436

- v. Chesterfield (Lord) (16 B. 516 ; 26 L. T. 288 ; 1 W. E. 217) - 1269

- v. Heely (3 Jur. N. S. 1116) - 73, 82
— v. Olden (3 Eq. 461 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 651 ; 15 L. T. 558) - - 41

- v. Stuart (15 B. 493 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 514) - 1005, 1011, 1016, 1019, 1164

v. Tynte (2 D. J. & S. 127 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 429 ; 3 N. E. 676 ; 10

L. T. 209; 12 W. E. 613) - - 31

v. - - (2 H. & M. 324 ; 10 Jur. N. 1193 ; 11 L. T. 367) - 1060

v. Wastell (6 Ha. 229 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 372) - - - 543

v. White (16 B. 123) - 943, 959, 1269

v. Yates (2 Man. & G. 549 ; 2 So. V. E. 645 ; 10 L. J. N. S. C. P.

117)

Forder, Ex parte (W. N. (1881), p. 117)

Fordham v. Wallis (10 Ha. 217 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 548 ; 17 Jur. 228 ; 1

W. E. 118) - - - 456

Fordyce v. Ford (4 B. C. C. 494) - - 1199, 1204

Forrer v. Nash (35 B. 167 ; 11 Jur. 789 ; 14 W. E. 8) - - - 1180

Forrester v. Leigh (Amb. 173) - 919

Forshaw v. Higginson (8 D. M. & G. 827 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 342 ; 3 Jur.

N. S. 476 ; 29 L. T. 0. S. 43 ; 5 W. E. 424) - - 95

v. Welsby (30 B. 243 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 331 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 299 ;

4 L. T. 170 ; 9 W. E. 225) - 1022

Forster v. Abraham (17 Eq. 355 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 199 ; 22 W. E. 386) - 1236

v. Hale (3 V. 713 ; 5 V. 308) - 250, 1053

v. Hoggart (15 Q. B. 155 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 340 ; 14 Jur. 757 ;

15 L. T. 134) - 82, 168, 323

v. Patterson (17 Ch. D. 132 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 603 ; 44 L. T. 465 ;

29 W. E. 463) - - 434

v. Eowland (7 H. & N. 103 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 396 ; 7 Jur. N. S.

998) - - 272

- v. Thompson (4 D. & War. 303) - - - 434
Forsyth v. Bristowe (8 Ex. 716 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 255 ; 17 Jur. 675) - 451
Fort v. Clarke (1 Euss. 601) - 397, 1277
Forte v. Vine (2 Eolle's Eep. 19) - - 883
Forteblow v. Shirley (2 Sw. 223; 13 V. 81) - - 131, 503, 709, 1202
Fortescue v. Barnett (3 M. & K. 36 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 106)- - 1018
Forth v. Norfolk (Duke of) (4 Mad. 505) 526, 530, 542
Fosbrook v. Balguy (1 M. & K. 226 ; 2 Jur. N. S. Ch. 135) - 39, 1067
Foster and Lister, *Re (6 Ch. D. 87 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 480 ; 36 L. T. 582 ;

25 W. E. 553) - - 49, 1005, 1007, 1274, 1276

— , In re (2 D.F. & J. 105 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 687 ; 2 L. T. 553 ; 8 W. E.

620) - - - 817

- v. Bates (12 M. & W. 226 ; 1 D. & L. 400 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 88 ;

7 Jur. 1093) - 216

-v. Blackstone(l M. & K. 307; 2 L. J. N. S. Ch. 84) - - 530

— v. Charles (6 Bing. 396 ; 4 M. & P. 61 ; 8 L. J. C. P. 118) - 114

v. Cockerell (3 C. & F. 456) - - 518

CXX11 TABLE OF CASES.

Fos— Fra. PAGE

Foster v. Crabb (12 C. B. 136 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 189 ; 16 Jur. 835) - 473

- v. Deacon (3 Mad. 395) - - - 733
v. Foster (1 Ch. D. 588 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 301 ; 24 W. E, 185) - 299,

1303

- v. Harvey (4 D. J. & S. 59 ; 9 L. T. 404 ; 3 N. E. 98 ; 12

W. E. 92) - 1319

- v. Jennings (W. N. (1884), p. 200) - - 1312

- v. Leonard (Cro. Eliz. 1) - 149

- v. Mapes (Cro. Eliz. 212) - - 883

• v. Eoberts (29 B. 467 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 666 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 400 ; 4

L. T. 760 ; 9 W. E. 605) 844, 849, 850, 853, 854

- v. Wright (4 C. P. D. 438 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 97 ; 44 J. P. 7) - 380
Fotherby v. Metrop. Ey. Co. (2 C. P. 188 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 88 ; 15 L. T.

243; 15 W. E. 112) 62, 1098, 1099

Fothergill v. Eowland (17 Eq. 132 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 252 ; 29 L. T. 414 ;

22 W. E. 42) - - - 1168

Fountain v. Young (6 Esp. 113) - 994

Fourdrin v. Gowdey (3 M. & K. 383 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 171) - 26, 28
Fourth City Mutual Society v. Williams (14 Ch. D. 140 ; 49 L. J. Ch.

245 ; 42 L. T. 615 ; 28 W. E. 572) - 937, 938

Fowke v. Draycott (29 Ch. D. 996 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 977 ; 52 L. T. 890 ;

33 W. E. 701) - - 651

Fowkes v. Lamb (8 Jur. N. S. 385 ; 31 L. J. Q. B. 98 ; 10 W. E. 348) 1073,

1091

v. Pascoe (10 Ch. 343 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 367 ; 32 L. T. 545 ; 23

W. E. 538) --- - 1058, 1059, 1065

Fowle v. Freeman (9 Y. 354) -268, 269, 276

- v. Welsh (1 B. & C. 29 ; 2 D. & E. 133) - - 883
Fowler v. Scott (19 W. E. 972 ; 20 W. E. 199 ; 25 L. T. 784) 1307, 1349

- v. Walker (51 L. J. Ch. 443) 406, 407

- v. Ward (6 Jur. 547) - - 1219
Fox v. Birch (1 Mer. 105) - - 1218

v. Chester (Bishop of) (3 Bli. N. S. 123) - - - 281

v. Hanbury (Cowp. 445) - 94

v. Mackreth (1 Wh. & T. L. C. ; 2 B. C. C. 400) - 37, 39, 51, 118

v. Purssell (3 S. & G. 242) - 285

v. Scard (33 B. 327) - - 1183

v. Wright (6 Mad. Ill) - 849

Foxlowe v. Amcoates (3 B. 496) - - 1224
Frail v. Ellis (16 B. 350 ; '22 L. J. Ch. 467 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 197 ; 1

W. E. 72)- -831,832,979
Frame v. Dawson (14 Y. 386) - 1135, 1139
Frampton v. Frampton (4 B. 294) - - 1005
v. Stephens (21 Ch. D. 164; 51 L. J. Ch. 562; 46 L. T. 617 ;

30 W. E. 726) - - - 586

France v. France (13 Eq. 173; 41 L. J. Ch. 150; 25 L. T. 785; 20

W. E. 230) 2, 1306

Francis v. Clemow (Kay, 435 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 288; 18 Jur. 223; 23

L. T. 0. S. 57 ; 2 Eq. E, 426 ; 2 W. E. 308)- - - 692
v. Francis (2 D. M. & G. 73 ; 5 D. M. & G. 108) - 476

TABLE OF CASES. CXX111

Fra— Fre. PAGE

Francis v. Grover (5 Ha. 39; 15 L. J. Ch. 99 ; 10 Jur. 280) - 439, 459,

461, 462

v. Hayward (22 Ch. D. 177 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 291 ; 48 L. T. 297;

31 W. E. 488; 47 J. P. 517) 602, 977

v. Minton (L. K. 2 C. P. 543 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 201 ; 16 L. T.

352) - .... 839

- v. Wigzell (1 Mad. 258) - 1119, 1121
Frank v. Mainwaring (2 B. 115) - 7, 1117
Franklin's Settled Estate, Tile (7 W. E. 45) - - 1284
Franklin v. Brownlow (Lord) (14 V. 550) - - 1233
Franklinski v. Ball (33 B. 560 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 606 ; 10 L. T. 447 ; 4

N. E. 128; 12 W. E. 845)- - 1171

Franklyn, Ex parts (I De G. & S. 528 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 166 ; 12 Jur. 642) 760

v. Lamond (4 C. B. 637 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 221 ; 11 Jur. 780 ;

9 L. T. O. S. 246) - - - . 203

Franks v. Bollans (3 Ch. 717 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 664 ; 18 L. T. 623; 16

W. E. 1158) - 38, 643, 649

Fraser v. Hill (1 Macq. 392 ; 1 W. E. 538) - - 1096

- v. Jones (5 Ha. 475 ; 12 Jur. 443) - - 998
v, Kershaw (2 K. & J. 501 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 445 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

880; 4 W. E. 431) - - - 94

. v. Thompson (4 D. & J. 659 ; 1 Gif. 49 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 669 ;

33 L. T. O. S. 219 ; 7 W. E. 607) - 1017, 1065

- v. Wood (8 B. 342 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 270) - - - 1242
Frayne v. Taylor (10 Jur. N. S. 119 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 228 ; 9 L. T. 706;

3 N. E, 360 ; 12 W. E. 287) - 296

Freebody v. Perry (G. Coop. 91) - - 1219

Freeland v. Pearson (7 Eq. 246) - 1335

Freeman v. Baker (5 B. & Ad. 797 ; 2 N. & M. 446 ; 3 L. J. N. S.

Q. B. 17) - - - 103
v. Cooke (6 D. & L. 187 ; 2 Ex. 654 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 114 ; 12

Jur. 777; 12 L. T. 66) - 114
— v. Phillipps (4 M. & S. 486) - - 358, 397
v. Pope (5 Ch. 538; 39 L. J. Ch. 689; 21 L. T. 816; 18

W. E. 906) - - 1029, 1030

- v. Steggell (13 Jur. 1030 ; 14 L. T. O. S. 129)- - - 481

- v. Whitbread (1 Eq. 266 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 137 ; 13 L. T. 550 ;

14 W. B. 188) - 99

Freer v. Hesse (4 D. M. & G. 495 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 338 ; 2 Eq. E. 13)- 525,

553, 577, 581, 1233, 1264, 1270, 1273

-v. Rimner (14 Si. 391) - 140

Freesh v. Burr (L. E. 9 C. P. 208 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 91 ; 29 L. T. 773 ;

22 W. E. 370)- - - 1089

Freke v. Carbery (Lord) (16 Eq. 461) - 364

Freme v. Blade (2 D. & J. 582 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 697 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 746;

6W.E. 739)- - - 854

- v. Wright (4 Mad. 364) - 169
French v. French (6 D. M. & G. 95 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 169 ; 26 L. T'. 0. S.

172; 4 W. E, 139) - - - 1024
v. Hope (56 L. J. Ch. 363 ; 56 L. T. 57) - - 931, 953

CXX1V TABLE OF CASES.

Fre— Gab. PAGE

Frend v. Buckley (L. E. 5 Q. B. 213 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 90 ; 23 L. T.

170; 18 W. E. 680; 10 B. & S. 973) - 331, 335, 337, 345

Frere v. Moore (8 Pr. 475) - 825, 928

Frewen v. Eelfe (2 Br. C. 0. 220) -312, 1117

Friar v. Grey (5 Ex. 584 ; 4 H. L. C. 565 ; 15 Jur. 814 ; 18 Jur. 1036) 1088
Fripp, Ex parte (De G. 293) - - - 910

Frith and Osborne, Re (3 Ch. D. 618 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 780 ; 35 L. T.

146 ; 24 W. E. 1061) - - 89, 1275
v. Cameron (12 Eq. 169; 40 L. J. Ch. 778; 24 L. T. 791; 19

W. E. 886) -'- - - - - -2

Fritz v. Hobson (14 Ch. D. 542 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 735 ; 42 L. T. 677 ; 28
W. E. 722) - 412

Frogley v. Lovelace (Earl of) (John. 333) - 230, 1043

Frost v. Beavan (17 Jur. 369) 7, 224

-v. Brewer (3 Jur. 165) - - 731

v. Knight (L. E. 7 Ex. Ill ; 41 L. J. Ex. 78, 82; 26 L. T. 77;

20 W. E. 471) - - - 1089

Friihling v. Schroeder (2 Bing. N. C. 77) - - 1076

Fry v. Fry (27 B. 144 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 591 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1047 ; 34 L.

T. 0. S. 51)- 62, 91

v. Noble (7 D. M. & G. 687 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 144 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

128; 26 L. T. O. S. 145; 4 W. E. 145) - - 614

v. Porter (1 Mod. 311) - - 967

Fryer, In re (3 K. & J. 317 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 398 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 485 ; 5

W. E. 552) - - 742, 746

• v. Morland (3 Ch. D. 675 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 817 ; 35 L. T. 458 ;

25 W. E. 21) - 314

Fulham v. M'Carthy (1 H. L. C. 703) - 1129, 1132

Fuller, Ex parte (16 Ch. D. 617 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 448 ; 44 L. T. 63; 29

W. E. 448) - - - 476

- v. Abrahams (3 Br. & B. 116 ; 6 Moore, 316) - 120

- v. Bennett (2 Ha. 394 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 355 ; 7 Jur. 1056) 988

- v. Fenwick (3 C. B. 705 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 79 ; 10 Jur. 1057) - 704

- v. Eedman (26 B. 600 ; 33 L. T. 0. S. 313 ; 7 W. E. 430) 527, 533

- v. Wilson (3 Q. B. 58 ; 1 H. L. C. 615 ; 2 G. & D. 460) - 905
Furniss v. Midland E, Co. (6 Eq. 473) - - 244, 247
Fursdon v. Clogg (10 M. & W. 572) - - 445
Fury v. Smith (1 Hud. & B. 735) - 769, 964
Futcher v. Futcher (29 W. E. 884; 50 L. J. Ch. 735; 46 L. T. 306) 1148
Fyson, In re (9 B. 117) 816, 818

- v. Kittou (3 C. L. E. 705 ; 24 L. T. 232 ; 3 W. E. 233) 240, 250

GABRIEL v. Smith (16 Q. B. 847 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 386 ; 15 Jur. 1124 ;

17 L. T. 0. S. 61) - - 161

v. Sturgis (5 Ha. 97 ; 15 L. J. N. S. Ch. 201 ; 10 Jur.

215) - 1126, 1269

Gaby v. Driver (2 Y. & J. 549) ----- 203, 207

TABLE OF CASES. CXXV

Gad— Oar. PAGE

Gadd v. Houghton (1 Ex. D. 357 ; 46 L. J. Q. B. 71 ; 35 L. T. 222 ;

24 W. R. 975) 213, 1074

Gainsborough (Earl of) v. Watcombe Terra Cotta Clay Co. (54 L. J.

Ch. 991 ; 53 L. T. 116) - ... 971, 978

Gainsford v. Griffith (1 Saund. 58) - - 890

Gaitskell, In re (1 Ph. 576 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 450 ; 9 Jur. 909) - - 815
Gale, Re (22 Ch. D. 820 ; 48 L. T. 101 ; 31 W. R. 538) - 456

v. Gale (21 B. 349 ; 4 W. E. 277) - - 300, 303

v. (6 Ch. D. 144 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 809 ; 36 L. T. 690 ; 25

W. R. 772) - .... 1014

v. Squier (4 Ch. D. 226 ; 5 Ch. D. 625 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 373, 672 ;

36 L. T. 632 ; 25 W. R. 226) - - - 1249

Gall v. Fenwick (43 L. J. Ch. 178 ; 29 L. T. 822 ; 22 W. R. 211) - 921

Gallimore v. Gill (2 S. & G. 158 ; 8 D. M. & G. 567 ; 23 L. J. Ch.

604 ; 18 Jur. 480 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 279 ; 4 W. R. 773) - - - 692

Galloway v. Mayor, &c., of London (4 N. R. 77 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 552 ;

10 L. T. 439 ; 12 W. R. 891) - 248

Galton v. Emuss (1 Coll. 243 ; 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 388 ; 8 Jur. N. S.

507; 3L. T. N. S. 219) 121,1165

- v. Hancock (2 Atk. 425) - 310

Games v. Bonnor (33 W. R. 64; 54 L. J. Ch. 517) 371, 377, 462, 1236,

1266, 1277

Gamston (Rector of), Ex parte (I Ch. D. 477 ; 33 L. T. 803 ; 24 W. R.
359) ----- . 752

Gandy v. Gandy (30 Ch. D. 58; 54 L. J. Ch. 1154; 53 L. T. 306; 33
W. R. 803) - ... . . 1010

Gann v. Free Fishers of Whitstable (11 H. L. C. 192; 12 L. T. 150;

13 W. R. 589) 419

„. Gregory (3 D. M. & G. 777 ; 23 L. T. 136 ; 2 Eq. R. 605 ;

2 W. R. 484) - - - - - - --481

Ganvil v. TJtting (9 Jur. 1081) - 380

Gardiner v. Blesinton (1 Ir. Ch. R. 64) - - 770, 773

- v. Gardiner (12 I. C. L. R. 565) - - 1006

— v. Tate (10 I. R. C. L. 460) - 128, 152, 209

Gardner, Ex parte (4 Y. & C. 503 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq. 46) - 490

v. Charing Cross R, Co. (2 J. & H. 248 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 181 ;

8 Jur. N. S. 151 ; 5 L. T. N. S. 418 ; 10 W. R. 120) - 245

v. London, Chatham & Dover R. Co. (2 Ch. 385 ; 15 L. T.

644 ; 15 W. R. 324) 548, 1221

Garland v. Mead (L. R. 6 Q. B. 441 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 179; 24 L. T.

421 ; 19 W. R. 1156) - - - 580

Garmstone v. Gaunt (1 Coll. 577; 14 L. J. Ch. 162; 9 Jur. 78; 4

L. T. 0. S. 310) - -2,1276,1350

Garner v. Briggs (4 Jur. N. S. 230 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 483 ; 31 L. T. 0. S.

68 ; 6 W. R. 378) - - - 535

- v. Hannyngton (22 B. 627) - - 473

- v. Moore (3 Dr. 277 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 687 ; 3 W. R. 497) 688, 1067
Garnett v. Acton (28 B. 333) 305, 1242

— , Ormes, and Hargreaves, Re (25 Ch. D. 595 ; 53 L. J. Ch.
196 ; 49 L. T. 655 ; 32 W. R. 313) - - - 1273

Garnham v. Skipper (55 L. J. Ch. 263 ; 53 L. T. 940 ; 34 W. R. 135) 935

CX XVI TABLE OF CASES.

Gar— Ger. PAGE

Garrard v. Frankel (30 B. 445 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 604 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 985) 839

- v. Grinling (2 Sw. 344 ; 1 Wils. 46) - - 1153

- v. Lauderdale (Lord) (3 Si. 1 ; 2 E. & M. 451) - 1004, 1020

- v. Tuck (8 C. B. 248 ; 13 Jur. 871 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 338) 368, 378, 443
Garratt v. Lancefield (2 Jur. N. S. 177 ; 27 L. T. O. S. 12) - - 1345
Garrick v. Camden (Lord) (2 Cox, 231) - 285, 1343

— v. Taylor (29 B. 79 ; 9 W. E. 181 ; 10 W. E. 49 ; 30 L. J. Ch.

211 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 68 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 116, 1174 ; 3 L. T. 460) - - 1056
Gartshore v. Chalie (10 Y. 9) - 1068

Gartside v. Outram (26 L. J. Ch. 113; 3 Jur. N. S. 39; 28 L. T.

0. S. 120; 5 W. E, 35) - - - 995

Gascoigne v. Thwing (1 Vern. 36) - - 1056

Gascoyne's Case (cited Dougl. 656) - - 114

Gaskarth v. Lowther (Lord) (12 V. 107) 306, 1176

Gaskell's Trusts, Re (11 Jur. N. S. 780) - 10, 11

Gaskin v. Balls (13 Ch. D. 324 ; 28 W. E, 552) 868, 874

Gaslight Co. v. Towse (35 Ch. D. 519; 56 L. T. 602) - 999, 1083, 1114,

1117, 1164

v. Turner (5 Bing. N. C. 666; 8 Sc. 609) - 1096, 1162

Gaston v. Frankum (2 De G. & S. 561 ; 13 Jur. 739) - - - 331

Gateward's Case (6 Co. 60) - - 24

Gayford v. Moffatt (4 Ch. 133) - - 412, 608

Geary v. Physic (5 B. & C. 234 ; 7 D. & E. 653 ; 4 L. J. K B. 147) - 270
Gedge : see Gedye.

Gedling (Eectory of), Re (53 L. T. 244) - - - 806

Gedye, Re (14 B. 56 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 410 ; 15 Jur. 851) 815, 816

- v. Montrose (Duke of) (26 B. 45) 484, 485, 1266, 1113
Gee, In re (2 D. & L. 997 ; 10 Jur. 694) - 477

v. Pearse (2 De G. & S. 341) - 184, 223, 1214, 1215, 1256, 1271

Geldard v. Eandall (9 Jur. 1085) - - - - - 1322

Gell v. Vermedun (Freem. 199) - - -1116

v. Watson (3 Mad. 225 ; 2 S. & S. 402 ; Sug. 325) 736, 1218, 1333

General Cemetery Co., In re (2 Jur. N. S. 972 ; 6 E. & B. 415 ; 25

L. J. Q. B. 342) - - 575

— Finance, &c. Co. v. Liberator Building Society (10 Ch. D. 15 ;

39 L. T. 600 ; 27 W. E, 210) - 595, 636, 912

Meat Association v. Bouffler (40 L. T. 126 ; 41 L. T. 719) - 1021

George v. Clagett (2 Sm. L. C.) - - 1072

- v. Evans (4 Y. & C. 211) - 841

— v. Milbanke (9 V. 190) - - - 1019
Gerahty v. Malone (1 H. L. C. 81) - - 1257

Gerhard v. Bates (2 E. & B. 476 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 364 ; 17 Jur. 1097 ;

1 Com. L. E. 868 ; 1 W. E, 383) - 113, 905

German v. Chapman (7 Ch. D. 271 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 250 ; 37 L. T. 685 ;

26 W. E. 149) - 874, 875

Gerrard v. Lewis (L. E. 2 C. P. 305; 36 L. J. C. P. 173; 15 L. T.

663; 15 W. E. 581)- - - 636

- v. O'Eeilly (3 D. & War. 414) 855, 988
Gervais v. Edwards (2 D. & War. 80) - - - - - 1164

TABLE OF CASES. CXXV11

Ger— Gil. PAOE

Gery v. Eedman (1 Q. B. D. 160 ; 45 L. J. Q. B. 267 ; 24 W. E. 270) 380

Ghost v. Waller (9 B. 497) - - 743

Gibbins v. Eyden (7 Eq. 371 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 377; 20 L. T. 516 ; 17

W. K. 481) - - - - 309, 702, 829

v. N. E. Metrop. Asylum (11 B. 1 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 5 ; 12 Jur.

22 ; 10 L. T. O. S. 301) - - 264, 268, 1228, 1244
Gibbons' Trusts, Re (W. N. (1882), 12 ; 45 L. T. 756 ; 30 W. E. 287) 660
Gibbons v. Baddall (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 682, n.) - -. . - 829
v. Snape (1 D. J. & S. 621 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1096 ; 2 N. E.

563 ; 11 W. E. 1087) - - 348, 780

Gibbs v. Daniel (11 W. E. 653 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 632 ; 8 L. T. N. S. 374) 46
• v. Guild (9 Q. B. D. 59 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 313 ; 46 L. T. 248 ; 30

W. E. 591) - 440, 881

v. Harding (5 Ch. 336; 39 L. J. Ch. 374 ; 18 W. E. 361) - - 1166

v. Haydon (30 W. E. 726 ; 41 L. T. 184) - 1301

v. Pike (6 Jur. 465) - - 535

Gibert v. Gonard (33 W. E. 302 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 439 ; 52 L. T. 54) - 1066
Gibson v. Clark (1 J. & W. 159 ; 1 V. & B. 500) 366, 1218, 1219, 1276

v. D'Este (2 Y. & C. C. C. 542 ; 8 Jur. 94 ; 2 L. T. O. S. 186) - 105,

134, 156, 901, 903

v. Gibson (1 Dr. 42) - - 614

v. Goldsmid (5 D. M. & G. 757 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 279 ; 1 Jur.

N. S. 1 ; 24 L. T. O. S. 176 ; 3 Eq. E. 106) - 1216
v. Hammersmith & City E. Co. (11 W. E. 299 ; 32 L. J. Ch.

337 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 221 ; 8 L. T. 43 ; 1 N. E. 305) - 245, 247

v. Holland (L. E. 1 C. P. 1 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 5 ; 1 H. & Euth.

1 ; 11 Jur. 1022 ; 13 L. T. 293 ; 14 W. E. 8) - - 239

— v. Ingo (6 Ha. 124) - 968, 979
v. Jeyes (6 V. 266) - 23, 35

- v. May (4 D. M. & G. 512) - - 476
v. Eussell (2 Y. & C. C. C. 104 ; 7 Jur. 875) 24, 842

- v. Seagrim (20 B. 614 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 782 ; 26 L. T. O. S. 65) 1036
v. Spurrier (Pea. A. C. 50) 131, 1084

- v. Wollard (5 D. M. & G. 835 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 56 ; 24 L. T.

137 ; 3 Eq. E. 152 ; 3 W. E. 94) - - 1326

Gilbert v. Cooper (15 Si. 343 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 265) - - 477

v. Overton (2 H. & M. 110; 33 L. J. Ch. 683 ; 4 N. E. 420 ;

12 W. E. 1141) - - 1018

v. Smith (11 Ch. D. 78 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 352 ; 40 L. T. 635 ; 27

W. E. 719) - 1301, 1302

v. (2 Ch. D. 686 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 514 ; 35 L. T. 43; 24

W. E. 568) - 1310

, Vt _ _ (8 Ch. D. 548 ; 26 W. E. 906) - - 1311

Gilbertson v. Eichards (4 H. & N. 277) - 875

Gilchrist, Ex parte (17 Q. B. D. 521 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 578; 55 L. T.

538; 34 W. E. 709) - - - 1125
Giles v. Homes (15 Sim. 359) - 71
v. L. C. & D. E. Co. (1 Dr. & S. 406 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 603 ; 7 Jur.

N. S. 509 ; 5 L. T. 479 ; 9 W. E, 587) - - 245

Gill, Ex parte (\ Bing. N. C. 168) - - - - - 650

. , Re (8 Ex. 376) - - - - - - 789

CXXV111 TABLE OF CASES.

Gil— Goe. PAGE

Gill v. Dickinson (5 Q. B. D. 159 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 262 ; 42 L. T.
510; 28 W. E. 415; 44 J. P. 587) - 422

Gillett v. Abbott (7 A. & E. 783 ; 3 N. & P. 24 ; 1 W. W. & H. 89 ;

2 Jur. 300) - - - 354

- v. Peppercorne (3 B. 78) - 23

- v. Eippon (M. & M. 406) - - 894
Gilliatt v. Gilliatt(9 Eq. 60; 39 L. J. Ch. 142; 21 L. T. 522; 18

W. E. 203) - 127, 140, 224

Gillibrand v. Gould (5 Si. 149; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 100) - - - 691

Gillow v. Lillie (1 Sc. 597; 1 Bing. N. C. 695; 1 Hodges, 160; 4
L. J. N. S. C. P. 222) ... 6

Gilmore, Exparte(3C. B. 967)- - - 651

Gingell v. Parkins (4 Ex. 720 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 129) - 597, 787, 788, 791

Girdlestone v. Lavander (9 Ha. App. LIII.) - - 1316

Girling v. Girling (W. N. (1886), 18) 190, 773

Gisborne v. Gisborne (2 Ap. Ca. 300 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 557 ; 36 L. T.

564 ; 25 W. E. 516) - - - 96

Glaister v. Hewer (8 V. 199 ; 9 V. 12 ; 11 V. 377 ; 1 Wh. & T. L. C.

255) - - - 1057, 1064

Glanvill, Re (31 Ch. D. 532 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 236, 325 ; 53 L. T. 752 ;

54 L. T. 411 ; 34 W. E. 118, 309 ; 50 J. P. 662) - - 1121

Glascodine, Re (52 L. T. 781) - 822

Glascott v. Lang (2 Ph. 310 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 429 ; 11 Jur. 642) 1151, 1258

Glasgow (City of) Union E. Co. v. Caledonian E. Co. (L. E. 2 Sc. Ap.
160; 9Macph. (H. L.) 115) - - - 859

Glass v. Eichardson (2 D. M. & G. 658) 580, 1275

Glegg v. Eees (7 Ch. 71 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 243 ; 25 L. T. 621 ; 20 W. E.

193) - - - 1004

Glenny and Hartley, Re (25 Ch. D. 611 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 50 L. T.

79;V32 W. E. 457) - 1273

Glenton to Haden (53 L. T. 434) 182, 183, 483, 1191

Gloag and Miller's Contract (23 Ch. D. 321 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 654 ; 48

L. T. 629 ; 31 W. E. 601) 125, 129, 499, 1198, 1204

Glossop v. Heston Local Board (12 Ch. D. 102) - - - 1102

Gloucester (Dean and Chapter of), Ex parte (19 L. J. Ch. 400) - 756

Glover v. Coleman (L. E. 10 C. P. 108 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 66; 31 L. T.

684; 23 W. E, 163) - - - 431

v. Eogers (11 Jur. 1000 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 2) - - 1269

Glyn v. Caulfield (3 M. & G. 463 ; 15 Jur. 807) - 994, 995

Glynn v. Locke (3 D. & War. 11) - - 673

Goddard v. Complin (1 Ch. Ca. 119) - - 784

- v. Jeffreys (30 W. E. 269 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 67 ; 45 L. T. 674) 1156
Godfrey's Trusts, In re (23 Ch. D. 205 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 479 ; 48 L. T.

389 ; 31 W. E. 426) - - - 657

Godfrey v. Tucker (33 B. 280 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1188 ; 9 L. T. 359 ; 3

N. E. 20 ; 12 W. E. 33) - 528, 542, 547

Godley, In re (10 Ir. Eq. E. 222) - - 805

Godson v. Turner (15 B. 45) - - 170

Godwin v. Francis (L. E. 5 C. P. 295 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 121 ; 22 L. T.

338) 269, 1079

Goe's Estate, In re (3 W. E. 119 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 152) - - - 807

TABLE OF CASES. CXxix

Gok— Goo. PAGE

Gokuldoss v. Eambux (11 Ind. Ap. 126) - - 1041

Golden v. Gillam (20 Ch. D. 389; 51 L. J. Ch. 154; 46 L. T. 222) - 1027
Goldham v. Edwards (16 C. B. 437 ; 17 C. B. 141 ; 18 C. B. 389 ; 24

L. J. C. P. 189 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 223 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 684 ; 2 Jur. N.

S. 493 ; 25 L. T. O. S. 198 ; 3 W. E. 551 ; 4 W. E. 550) - - 281
Goldicutt v. Townsend (2 B. 445) - - - - 1140
Goldney v. Crabb (19 B. 338; 2 W. E. 579) ... 1274
Golds' and Norton's Contract, Re (33 W. E. 333 ; 52 L. T. 321) 717, 724
Goldsmid v. Stonehewer (9 Ha. Ap. xxxviii.) - 1352
v. Tonbridge Wells, &c. Commissioners (1 Ch. 349 ; 35 L.

J. Ch. 382 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 308 ; 14 L. T. 154 ; 14 W. E. 562) - 417
Goldsmith v. Eussell (5 D. M. & G. 547 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 285 ; 3 W.

E. 218) - - 1024

Gomm v. Parrott (3 C. B. N. S. 47 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 279 ; 3 Jur. N.

S. 1150) - - 940

Gompertz v. Bartlett (2 E. & B. 849 ; 2 C. L. E. 395 ; 23 L. J. Q.

B. 65 ; 18 Jur. 266) - - - 908

Gooch's Estate, Re (3 Ch. D. 742) - - 758

- case (5 Co. 60) - - 1002
Goodall v. Harding (52 L. T. 126) - - 264

v. Little (1 Si. N. S. 155 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 132; 15 Jur. 309) - 994,

995

v. Skerratt (3 Dr. 216 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 57 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 323 ;

23 L. T. O. S. 6 ; 3 Eq. E. 295 ; 3 W. E. 152) - 432, 449

Gooday v. Colchester E. Co. (17 B. 132 ; 7 Ey. Cas. 375) - - 219

- v. Sleigh (1 Jur. N. S. 201 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 121 ; 3 W. E. 87) 1264
Goodchildv. Dougal (3 Ch. D. 650; 24 W. E. 960) - 650, 1119
Goode v. Burton (1 Ex. 189; 16 L. J. Ex. 309 ; 11 Jur. 851) - - 826

- v. Harrison (5 B. & Aid. 147) - - 30
— v. Job (5 Jur. N. S. 145 ; 28 L. J. Q. B. 1 ; 7 W. E. 7) 445, 458

- v. Waters (20 L. J. Ch. 72) - - 433

Goodhart v. Hyett (25 Ch. D. 162 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 219 ; 50 L. T. 95 ;

32 W. E. 165) 156, 1202

Goodman v. Mayor of Saltash (7 Ap. Ca. 633; 53 L. J. Q. B. 193;

48 L. T. 239; 31 W. E. 293) - - - 24

Goodricke v. Taylor (2 H. & M. 380 ; 2 D. J. & S. 135 ; 9 L. T. 604 ;

10 L. T. 113 ; 3 N. E. 245, 678 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 414 ; 12 W. E. 301,

632) - 1024, 1025

Goodright v. Cator (Doug. 477) - - - 87

v. Moses (2 W. Bl. 1019) - - 1003

v. Moss (2 Coup. 594) - - 394, 395

Goodson v. Ellison (3 Euss. 594) - - 654

Goodtitle v. Meredith (2 M. & S. 5) - - 307

- v. Pope (7 T. E. 185) - 311

Goodwin's Settled Estates, In re (3 Giff. 620; 6 L. T. N. S. 530 ; 10

W. E. 612) - - 1281, 1330, 1332, 1334

Goodwin v. Clarke (2 Dick. 497) - 1253

v. Fielding (4 D. G. M. & G. 90 ; 21 L. T. 0. S. 147) 78, 239,

1207

D. i

CXXX TABLE OF CASES.

Goo— Gov.

Goold v. Teague (5 Jur. N. S. 116; 7 W. E. 84 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 251) 296,

302, 827

'. v. White (Kay, 683; 2 Eq. Eep. 110; 24 L. T. 0. S. 43) 166,

1277

Goom v. Aflalo (6 B. & C. 117 ; 9 D. & E. 148) - 271

Gordon (Lord) v. Hertford (Marquis) (2 Mad. 106) 1153, 1174

— v. Ball (1 S. & S. 178) - 1225

— v. Crawford (Sug. 276) - - - 841
- v. Gordon (2 Sw. 467) - 848

— v. James (30 Ch. D. 249 ; 53 L. T. 641 ; 34 W. E. 217) - 742

v. Woodford (27 B. 603 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 222 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 59 ;

1 L. T. 260) - 150

Gore, Exparte (3 M. D. & D. 77 ; 7 Jur. 136) - - - 38

v. Bowser (1 Jur. N. S. 392 ; 3 S. & G. 1 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 316 ;

25 L. T. 0. S. 243; 3 Eq. E. 319 ; 3 W. E. 157) - 528, 536

v. Bowser : see Gore v. Harris.

v. Gibson (13 M. & W. 623 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 151 ; 9 Jur. 140) - 1095

v. Harris (15 Jur. 1168 ; 5 De G. & S. 30 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 10) - 995

v. Stackpoole (1 Dow. 18) - - 469, 1131, 1352

Gore-Langton's Estate, Re (10 Ch. 328; 44 L. J. Ch. 405 ; 32 L. T.
785 ; 23 W. E. 842) - - - - - - 811

Gore-Langton, Exparte (II Jur. 686) - - - 812

Gorely, Ex parte (4 D. J. & S. 477 ; 34 L. J. Bkcy. 1 ; 10 Jur. N.

S. 1085 ; 11 L. T. 317 ; 13 W. E. 60) - 197

Gorge's (Lady) Case (cited Cro. Car. 550) 1058, 1063

Goring, Ex parte (1 V. 169) - 59

Gosbell v. Archer (2 A. & E. 507 ; 4 N. & M. 485 ; 1 H. & W. 31 ;

4 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 78) - - 216, 240, 250, 271, 472, 1071, 1076

Gosling's Case : see Tunstall v. Trappes.
Gosling v. Carter (1 Coll. 652 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 9 Jur. 324 ; 4 L.

T. O. S. 491) 70, 697

Goss v. Nugent (Lord) (5 B. & Ad. 58 ; 2 N. & M. 28 ; 2 L. J. N.

S. K. B. 127) - 124, 1090, 1096

Gossip v. Wright (11 W. E. 632 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 648 ; 9 Jur. N. S.

592 ; 8 L. T. 627 ; 2 N. E. 152) - 41, 925

Gough's Trust, Re (24 Ch. D. 569 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 200 ; 49 L. T. 494 ;

32 W. E. 147) - - 811

Gough v. Davies (2 K. & J. 623 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 677 ; 27 L. T. 0. S.

181 ; 4 W. E. 618) - - - 15

v. Offley (5 D. G. & S. 653 ; 19 L. T. 0. S. 324) - 476

Gould, Re (24 B. 442) - - - 805

(19 Q. B. D. 92 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 333 ; 56 L. T. 806 ; 35

W. E. 569) - 1031

v. Gould (2 Jur. N. S. 484; 25 L. J. Ch. 642 ; 4 W. E. 516) 11

v. Staffordshire Potteries Waterworks Co. (5 Ex. 214 ; 1 L.

M. & P. 264 ; 6 Ey. Ca. 568 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 281 ; 14 Jur.
528) - - - 814

v. Tripp (W. N. (1883) 72) - - 755

Gourlay v. Somerset (Duke of) (19 V. 430) - 257, 704

Govett v. Eichmond (7 Si. 1) - 947

TABLE OF CASES. CXXXl

PAGK

Go wan v. Tighe (L. & G. t. PI. 168) - - 1343

Gowland v. De Faria (17 V. 20) - - 55, 844, 849, 853

Grace v. Baynton (25 W. E. 506) - - 1252

Graham v. Furber (14 0. B. 410 ; 2 C. & P. 452 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 51 ;

18 Jur. 226) - - 1028

— v. Graham and Griffith (L. E. 1 P. & D. 711 ; 20 L. T. 500 ;

17 W. E. 628) - - 857

— v. Jackson (6 Q. B. 811 ; 14 L. J. Q. B. 129 ; 9 Jur. 275) - 642
v. Massey (23 Ch. D. 743 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 750 ; 48 L. T. 701 ;

32 W. E. 147) - - 1107

v. Musson (5 Bing. N. C. 603 ; 7 Sc. 769 ; 8 L. J. N. S. C. P.

324 ; 3 Jur. 483) - 209, 213, 251

— v. Oliver (3 B. 124) 1178, 1192

— v. Parsons (W. N. (1885), 146) - 391
v. Sime (1 East, 632) - - - 801

Grainge, Ex parte (3 Y. & C. 62 ; 2 Jur. 640) - 757

Granby v. Allen (1 Eaym. 224 ; Comb. 450) - - 32

Grand Junction Canal Co. v. Dimes (15 Si. 402 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 148) - 1039

- v. Shugar (6 Ch. 483) - 416, 417

Grange v. White (18 Ch. D. 612 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 620 ; 45 L. T. 128 ; 29

W. E. 713) - 1308

Granger v. Worms (4 Camp. 83) - - 134

Grant v. Ellis (9 M. & W. 113) 434, 447

- v. Mills (2 V. & B. 306) - - 825, 829
-v. Hunt (G. Coop. 177) 102, 738

— v. Yea(3M. & K. 245) - - - 779

Graves v. Weld (5 B. & Ad. 105 ; 2 N. & M. 725 ; 2 Jur. N. S. Q. B.

176) - - - 234

- v. Wright (2 D. & War. 79 ; 1 Con. & L. 267) - 222
Gray's Settled Estates, Re (W. N. (1875), 106) - - 77, 1279
Gray v. Bateman (21 W. E. 137) - - 438

- v.^Briscoe (Noy. 1421) - 881, 892
-- v. "Fowler (L. E. 8 Ex. 249 ; 29 L. T. 297 ; 42 L. J. Ex. 161 ;

21 W. E. 916) 142, 179, 180, 183, 184, 321, 340, 494, 1191

- v. Gray (1 B. 199) - 1353

- Vm - (2 Sim. N. S. 273 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 745) - - 1003

- v. Gutteridge (1 Man. & Ey. 614 ; 3 C. & P. 40 ; 6 L. J. Q. B.

154) - - 207, 212

- v. Liverpool & Bury E. Co. (9 B. 391 ; 4 Ey. & Can. Cas. 235 ;

10 Jur. 364) - 61

- and Metr. E. Co., Re (44 L. T. 567) - 634, 635
Great Berlin Steamboat Co. (26 Ch. D. 616; 54 L. J. Ch. 68; 51

L. T. 445) - - 1162

Great Luxemburg E. Co. v. Magnay (25 B. 586 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 839 ;

31 L. T. 293 ; 6 W. E. 711) - - - 56

Great Northern E. Co., Ex parte (16 Si. 171 ; 5 Ey. Ca. 269 ; 17 L. J.

Ch. 314 ; 12 Jur. 835) - - 803

--- v. East C. E. Co. (9 Ha. 306) - 1162

1 2

CXXxii TABLE OF CASES.

Gre.

Great Northern E. Co. and Sanderson, In re (25 Ch. D. 788 ; 53 L. J.

Ch. 445 ; 50 L. T. 87 ; 32 W. K, 519) 177, 181, 667, 1172, 1185, 1316
Great Western E. Co. v. Bennett (L. E. 3 H. L. 27 ; 36 L. J. Q. B.

133 ; 16 L. T. 186 ; 15 W. E. 647) - 424

- v. Cripps (5 Ha. 91) - -1174

v. Fletcher (5 H. & N. 689 ; 29 L. J. Ex.

253; 8 W. E. 501) - 424

v. May (L. E. 7 H. L. 283 ; 43 L. J. Q. B.

233 ; 31 L. T. 137 ; 23 W. E. 141) - 856

v. Swindon, &c. E. Co. (22 Ch. D. 677 ; 52

L. J. Ch. 306 ; 47 L. T. 709 ; 31 W. E. 479) 79

Greatrex v. Hayward (8 Ex. 291 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 137) - - - 418

Greaves v. Ashlin (3 Camp. 426) - 124

v. Tofield (14 Ch. D. 563 ; 43 L. T. 100 ; 28 W. E. 840 ; 50

L. J. Ch. 118) - 568, 959

v. Wilson (25 B. 290 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 546 : 4 Jur. N. S. 271 ;

31 L. T. 68 ; 6 W. E. 482) 179, 181, 182, 198, 540

Green v. Bailey (15 Si. 542 ; 11 Jur. 258) - 159

v. Baverstock (10 Jur. N. S. 47 ; 14 C. B. N. S. 204 ; 32 L. J.

C. P. 181 ; 8 L. T. 360) - - 224

-v. Biggs (W. N. (1885), 128) - - 1320

- v. Briggs (6 Ha. 633) - - - 1257
v. Cramer (2 Con. & L. 54 ; 3 Dr. & War. 87 ; 5 Ir. Eq. E.

12) - 239, 263

v. Humphreys (26 Ch. D. 474 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 625 ; 51 L. T. 42) 445,

458, 459

- v. Laurie (1 Ex. 335 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 61 ; 11 Jur. 997)- - 981

v. Low (22 B. 625; 2 Jur. N. S. 848 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 269 ; 4

W. E. 669) 241, 1157, 1173

- v. Lowes (3 Br. C. C. 217) - - 703

— v. O'Kearney (2 Ir. C. L. E. 267) - - 1007
v. Paterson (32 Ch. D. 95 ; 54 L. T. 738 ; 34 W. E. 728)- - 348,

780, 1005, 1010

- v. Pulsford (2 B. 70) - 374, 1236, 1276
v. Saddington(7 E. & B. 503; 29 L. T. 0. S. 144; 3 Jur.

N. S. 717 ; 5 W. E. 593) - 232, 237

- v. Sevin (13 Ch. D. 589; 41 L. T. 724) 488, 1260

— v. Smith (1 Atk. 572) - - - 305
Greenaway v. Burt : see Greenaway v. Hart.

v. Hart (14 C. B. 340 ; 18 Jur. 449 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 115 ;

14 C. B. 340 ; 2 C. L. E. 370) - - 917, 1002

Greene's Estate, .Re (13 L. E. Ir. 461) - 434

Greene, In re (10 Jur. N. S. 1098 ; 11 L. T. 301) - - 1282

v. Foster (22 Ch. D. 566 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 470 ; 48 L. T. 411 ;

31 W. E. 285) - - - 81

v. West Cheshire E. Co. (13 Eq. 44; 41 L. J. Ch. 17; 25

L. T. 409; 20 W. E. 51) - - 1110,1111

Greenhalgh v. Manchester & Birmingham E. Co. (3 M. & C. 784 ;

8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 75 ; 1 Ey. Ca. 68 ; 3 Jur. 693) - - 513

Greenlaw v. King (1 B. 137 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 92) - - 994

v. — (3 B. 49 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 377 ; 4 Jur. 622) - -42, 52"

TABLE OF CASKS. CXXX111

Ore— Gri. PAGE

Greenough v. Littler (15 Ch. D. 93 ; 42 L. T. 144 ; 28 W. E. 318) - 81,

1317

Greenslade v. Dare (20 B. 284 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 294 ; 3 W. E. 220) - 440,

480, 768, 978

- v. - - (17 B. 502) - 856, 1223

Greenwood's Trusts, Re (27 Ch. D. 359 ; 51 L. T. 283) - 656

Greenwood v. Bairstow (5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 179) - - - 918

v. Churchill (8 B. 413 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 143; 9 Jur. 196 ; 4

L. T. O. S. 471) - 143, 719

v. - - (6 B. 314 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 400) - - 986

v. Greenwood (2 D. J. & S. 28) - - 848

v. Hornsey (33 Ch. D. 471 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 917; 55 L. T.

135 ; 35 W. E. 163) - 871

— v. Penny (12 B. 403) - - 306

v. Eothwell (7 B. 291) - - 475

and Titterington, In re (9 A. & E. 699) - - - 704

Greetham v. Colton (34 B. 615 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 848 ; 13 W. E. 1009 )- 694,

697

Gregory v. Gregory (G. Coop. 201 ; Jac. 631) -54, 55

v. Mighell (18 V. 328) - 257, 1136, 1143, 1146

v. Spencer (11 B. 143) - 1228

v. Wilson (9 Ha. 689; 16 Jur. 304 ; 19 L. T. 0. S. 102) - 719,

1143, 1217

Greisley v. Chesterfield (Lord) (13 B. 288) - 63, 64

Grell v. Levy (10 Jur. N. S. 210 ; 16 C. B. N. S. 73 ; 9 L. T. 721 ;

12 W. E. 378) - - - - 277

Gresley v. Mousley (2 K & J. 288 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 156) - 995

v. (4 D. & J. 78; 3 D. F. & J. 433 ; 28 L. J. Ch.

620 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 537; 5 Jur. N. S. 583; 8 Jur. N. S. 320; 33

L. T. O. S. 154 ; 6 L. T. 86 ; 7 W. E. 427 ; 10 W. E. 222) 23, 45, 54
Greswold v. Marsham (2 Ch. Ca. 170) - - 529, 1040

Greville v. Browne (7 H. L. C. 689 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 849 ; 7 W. E. 673) 692

- v. Da Costa (Pea. A. C. 113) - 1071

• v. Tylee (7 Mo. P. C. 320) - - 481
Grey's Settlements, Re (34 Ch. D. 712 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 511 ; 56 L. T.

350 ; 35 W. E. 560) - 10

Grey (Earl) v. Durham (Earl of) (57 L. T. 164) - - - 594

- v. Grey (2 Sw. 594) - - 1057, 1058, 1060, 1061, 1062

v. Jenkins (26 B. 351) 1283, 1289

Greycoat Hospital (Governors of) v. Westminster, &c. Commissioners

(1 D. & J. 531 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 52 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 17 ; 31 L. T. O. S.

64 ; 6 W. E. 120) - 285, 581, 834, 1276, 1346

Grierson v. Cheshire Lines Committee (19 Eq. 83; 44 L. J. Ch. 83 ;

32 L. T. 428 ; 23 W. E. 68) - 243, 247, 509

Griffin v. Caddell (9 I. E. C. L. 488) - 907

- v. Clowes (20 B. 61 ; 3 W. E. 309) - 745, 746

- v. Stanhope (Cro. Jac. 454) - - 1004, 1021
Griffith's Will, Re (49 L. T. 161) - - . 755
Griffith, Exparte (23 Ch. D. 69; 52 L. J. Ch. 717 ; 48 L. T. 450 ; 31

W.E.878) ..,,_..„ 1032

CXXX1V TABLE OF CASES,

Gri— Gun.

Griffith v. Eicketts (7 Ha. 307) - - 1004, 1019

— v. Young (12 Ea. 513) - 232
Griffiths v. Hatchard (1 K & J. 19 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 957 ; 18 Jur. 649 ;

23 L. T. O. S. 295 ; 2 W. E. 672) - - 162, 763, 765

v. Jenkins (10 Jur. N. S. 207 ; 9 L. T. 732 ; 3 N. E. 489 ;'

12 W. E. 533) - - 235

v. Penson (9 Jur. N. S. 385 ; 8 L. T. 84 ; 11 W. E. 313) - 603

— v. Porter (25 B. 236) -' - 743, 745
Grigby v. Cox (1 V. sen. 518) 12, 1120
Grigg v. Sturgis (5 Ha. 93 ; 10 Jur. 133) - - 1269
Griggs v. Staples (2 De G. & S. 572)- - 1174
Grimoldy (Eector of), Ex parte (2 Ch. D. 225 ; 24 W. E. 723) - 752, 753
Grimwood v. Bartels (25 W. E. 843 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 788) - 1303
Grissall v. Stelfox (9 Jur. 890) - - - 388
Grissell v. Bristowe (L. E. 3 C. P. 112 ; L. E. 4 C. P. 36 ; 38 L. J.

C. P. 10 ; 19 L. T. 390 ; 17 W. E. 123) 333, 1106

— v. Peto (2 S. & G. 39 ; 18 Jur. 591 ; 2 W. E. 178) - - 158

Groom v. Booth (1 Dr. 548 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 961 ; 17 Jur. 927 ; 21 L. T.
O. S. 253 ; 1 W. E. 423) 169, 198, 201

Grose v. West (7 Taun. 39) - 187, 379

Grosse v. Gayer (Cro. Car. 172 ; Sir W. Jones, 217) 15

Grosvenor v.* Green (5 Jur. N. S. 117 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 173; 32 L. T.

0. S. 252 ; 7 W. E. 140) - 106

v. Hampstead Jn. E. Co. (1 D. & J. 446 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 731 ;

3 Jur. N. S. 1085 ; 29 L. T. O. S. 319 ; 5 W. E. 812) - - - 245
Grove v. Bastard (2 Ph. 619 ; 1 D. M. & G. 69 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 351 ; 12

Jur. 385) 364, 374, 726, 1271, 1277

-v. Comyn (18 Eq. 387 ; 22 W. E. 723) - 2, 1306, 1310

Grover v. Hugell (3 Euss. 428) 42, 48

Groves v. Groves (12 W. E. 45 ; 9 L. T. 533) - - - 391

_ Vm _ — (3 Y. & J. 163) - - 1056

- v. Perkins (6 Si. 576) - - - 840

Growsock v. Smith (3 Anst. 877) - - 712

Grugeon v. Gerrard (4 Y. &0. 119) - - 81

Grymes v. Peacock (Bulst. 17) - 609

Guadiano v. Brown (2 Jur. N. S. 358) - - - 706

Gudgen v. Besset (3 Jur. N. S. 212 ; 6 E. & B. 986 ; 26 L. J. Q. B.

36) - 826, 1095

Guest v. Cowbridge E. Co. (6 Eq. 619 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 909 ; 17 W. E.

7) - - - 289, 546, 550

v. Homfray (5 Y. 818) 347, 489, 500, 1215, 1260

v. WiUasey (12 Mo. 2) - - - 307

Guilden Sutton (Incumbent of), Ex parte (8 D. M. & G. 380 27 L. T.

O. S. 163 ; 4 W. E. 582) - - 805

Gun v. M'Carthy (13 L. E. Ir. 304) - - 839

Gunn v. Bolckow (10 Ch. 492 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 732 ; 32 L. T. 781 ; 23
W. E. 739) - - 829

Gunnis v. Erhart (1 H. Bl. 289)- - - 124

Gunter v. Gunter (23 B. 571 ; 29 L. T. 0. S. 244 ; 5 W. E. 485) 310, 1067

v. Halsey (Amb. 586) .... H38, 1148

TABLE OF CASES. CXXXV

Gur— Hal. PAGE

Gurney v. Jackson (1 S. & G. 97 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 17 Jur. 204 ;

20 L. T. 176; 1 W. R. 91) - - 1269, 1270

Guthrie v. Pugsley (12 Johnson's Rep. 126) - - 892

Gwillim v. Stone (14 V. 128) - - - - 116, 117

Gwynn v. Lethbridge (14 V. 585) - - 1247, 1250

Gyde, Exparte (1 Gl. & J. 323) - - - 185

Gyett v. Williams (2 J. & H. 429 ; 6 L. T. 279) - - - 692

H. v. W. (3 K. & J. 382) - 277, 1165

Haberdasher's Co., Re (55 L. T. 758) - - - 759

Hacking v. Whalley (51 L. J. Ch. 944) - 1304

Hadley v. Baxendale (9 Ex. 341 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 179 ; 18 Jur. 358 ; 2

C. L. R. 517) - 894, 1078, 1079

v. London Bk. of Scotland (3 D. J. & S. 70 ; 1 1 Jur. N. S. 554 ;

13 W. R. 978) 1223

Hafield's Estate, In re (29 B. 370 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 383)- - 759

Haig v. Homan (4 Bl. N. S. 380) - - 1000

Haigh v. Jaggar (2 Coll. 231) - 1222

Haines v. Burnett (27 B. 500 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 289 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1279 ;

1 L. T. 18 ; 8 W. R. 130) - 192
v. Guthrie (13 Q. B. D. 818 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 521 ; 33 W. R.

99 ; 48 J. P. 756) - - - - 395

— v. Roberts (7 E. & B. 625 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 49 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 886) 420

Hale v. City of New Orleans (18 Lousiana, 321) - - 895

Hales v. Cox (32 B. 118 ; 8 L. T. 134 ; 1 N. R. 344 ; 11 W. R. 331) - 1003

v. Freeman (1 Br. & B. 391) - - 668

v. Stevenson (9 Jur. N. S. 300 ; 7 L. T. 317 ; 11 W. R. 33) - 458

Haley v. Hammersley (3 D. F. & J. 587 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 771 ; 7 Jur.

N. S. 765 ; 4 L. T. 269 ; 9 W. R. 562) - - - 149

Halfhide v. Robinson (9 Ch. 373; 43 L. J. Ch. 398; 30 L. T. 216;

22 W. R. 448)- ... 8, 1306, 1307

Hall's Estate, Re (9 Eq. 179 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 392) - 759

Hall, Exparte (10 Ch. D. 615; 48 L. J. Bkcy. 79; 40 L. T. 179; 27

W. R. 385)- - 231,1139

(IV. &B. 112) - - -1004

v. Betty (4 Man. & G. 410 ; 5 Sc. N. R. 508 ; 11 L. J. N. S.

C. P. 256) 163,251,330,1076

v. Bushell (35 L. J. Ch. 381 ; 12 Jur. 243 ; 14 L. T. 246; 14

W. R. 495) - - - 799

v. Byron (4 Ch. D. 667 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 297 ; 36 L. T. 367 ; 25

'W. R. 317) 605

v. Dewes (Jac. 189) - - 686

v. Franck (11 B. 519 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 362 ; 13 Jur. 222) - 744, 745

v. Hale (51 L. T. 226) - - 1253

v. Hall (8 Ch. 433 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 444 ; 28 L. T. 383 ; 21 W. R.

' 373) .... 1018, 1022

v. (51 L. T. 86) - - 692

v. Jenkinson (2 V. & B. 125) - - - • - 1220

CXXXvi TABLE OF CASES.

Hal-Han.

Hall v. Layer (3 Y. & C. 196) 503, 1132, 1227

v. Lichfield Brewery Co. (49 L. J. Ch. 655 ; 43 L. T. 380) - 410

v. Macdonald (14 Si. 1) - 1341

v. May (3 K. & J. 585 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 791 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 907) - 683,

684, 1259, 1273

v. Noyes (cited 3 V. 748 ; 3 B. C. C. 483) - - - 54

v. Smith (14 V. 426) - 105, 132, 1196

v. Swift (4 Bing. N. C. 381 ; 6 Sc. 167 ; 1 Am. 157) - - 417

v. Warren (9 V. 605) - 7, 1182

v. Waterhouse (5 Giff. 64 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 361 ; 12 L. T. N. S.

297 ; 6 N. E. 20 ; 13 W. E. 633) - 12, 644

Hall-Dare's Contract, Re (21 Ch. D. 41 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 671 ; 46 L. T.

755 ; 30 W. E. 556) - 73, 1274, 1290, 1310

Hall-Dare v. Hall-Dare (31 Ch. D. 251 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 154 ; 54 L. T.

120; 34 W. E. 82)- 946, 1117

Hallen v. Eunder (1 C. M. & E. 266 ; 3 Tyr. 959) - 235, 236

Hallett's Estate, Re (13 Ch. D. 696 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 415 ; 42 L. T. 421 ;

28 W. E. 732) - - - 1065, 1066, 1068

Hallett to Martin (24 Ch. 624 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 804 ; 48 L. T. 894) - - 999

- v. Middleton (1 Euss. 243) - 887,911

Halsey v. Brotherhood (15 Ch. D. 514; 49 L. J. Ch. 786; 43 L. T.

366 ; 29 W. E. 9) - 121

- v. Grant (13 V. 77) - - 1200
Halstead Charities, Re (20 Eq. 48) - - 811
Haly v. Barry (3 Ch. 452 ; 18 L. T. 490 ; 16 W. E. 654)- - - 550
Hamblyn v. Ley (3 Sw. 301) - 1033
Hamer v. Sharp (19 Eq. 108; 44 L. J. Ch. 53; 31 L. T. 643; 23

W. E. 158) - - - -74, 210, 1166

Hamilton (Duke of) v. Dunlop (10 Ap. Ca. 813)- - - 423

- v. Graham (L. E. 2 Sc. & D. 166 ; 7 Macph. 976) 423

v. Buckmaster (3 Eq. 323 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 58 ; 15 L. T. 177 ;

15 W. E. 149) - 94, 694, 1232, 1273

- v. Denny (1 B. & B. 199) - - 1050

— v. Grant (3 Dow. 33) - - 1177

— v. Molloy (5 L. E. Ir. 339) - - - 1006

v. Musgrove (6 I. E. C. L. 129) - - 425

v. Eoyse (2 Sch. & L. 315) - - - 1035

- v. Terry (11 C. B. 954 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 132) - 263

v. Worley (2 Y. 62) - - - 919

v. Wright (9 C. & F. 123)- - - - - 51

Hammersley v. De Biel (12 C. & F. 64, n.) 250, 947, 948, 1140, 1142, 1156

Hammond v. Hammond (19 B. 29) - - 594

v. Hill (Com. 180) - 882

v. Smith (33 B. 452)- - - 458

Hampshire v. Bradley (2 Coll. 34) - - 653

v. Wickens (7 Ch. D. 555 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 243 ; 38 L. T.

408 ; 26 W. E. 491) - 191, 192, 256

Hampstead Junction E. Co., In re: see Buck, Ex parte.

Hanbury v. Lichfield (2 M. & K. 633 ; 1 Ha. 62) 984, 1151, 1191, 1195

TABLE OF CASES. CXXXV11

Han — Har. PAGE

Hanby, Re (25 W. E. 427) - - 390

Hand v. Hall (2 Ex. D. 355 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 603 ; 36 L. T. 765 ; 25

W. E. 734) - - 229

Handcock v. Handcock (1 Ir. Ch. E. 444) 551, 944, 1035, 1043

Handley v. Wood (9 Ha. 201) - 462

Hanks v. Palling (6 E. & B. 659 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 375 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

688 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 170 ; 4 W. E. 607) - - 170

Hanley v. Cassan (11 Jur. 1088 ; 10 L. T. 0. S. 189) 221, 746

Hannah v. Hodson (9 W. E. 729, 733 ; 30 B. 19 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 738 ; 7

Jur. N. S. 1092 ; 5 L. T. 42) - 4, 373

Hannington v. True (33 Ch. D. 195 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 914 ; 55 L. T. 549 ;

35 W. E. 103)- - 702, 925

Hansard v. Hardy (18 V. 462) - 977

Hanslip v. Padwick (5 Ex. 622 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 372) 322, 323, 482, 1076,

1077, 1078

Hanson v. Keating (4 Ha. 1 ; 14 L. J. N. S. Ch. 13 ; 8 Jur. 949) - 10,

649, 1216

- v. Lake (2 Y. & C. C. C. 328) 800, 1262

- v. Eoberdeau (Pea. N. P. 163) - - - 203
Harbidge v. Warwick (3 Ex. 552; 18 L. J. Ex. 245) 403, 431

v. Wogan (5 Ha. 258) - - - 1022

Harbroe v. Combes (43 L. J. Ch. 336) 2

Harcourt v. White (28 B. 303 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 681 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1087 ;

3 L. T. 4 ; 8 W. E. 715) - 54, 455

Hardaker v. Moorhouse (26 Ch. D. 417 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 713 ; 50 L. T.

554 ; 32 W. E. 638) - 88

Hardey v. Hawkshaw (12 B. 552 ; 14 Jur. 707) - - - 296
Hardiman, Re (16 Ch. D. 360 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 272 ; 43 L. T. 749 ; 29

W. E. 495) - 1300, 1309

Harding, In re (10 B. 250 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 288) - 816

- v. Harding (2 Gif. 597 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 906) - - - 318

v. (13 Eq. 492 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 523 ; 26 L. T. 656) - 827,

923

v. (4 M. & C. 514) - 1353

v. Metrop. E. Co. (7 Ch. 154; 41 L. J. Ch. 371 ; 26 L. T.

109 ; 20 W. E. 321) -243, 298, 631, 1099, 1112

v. Pingey (10 Jur. N. S. 872 ; 10 L. T. 323, 597 ; 4 N. E.

10; 12 W. E. 684, 703, 817) - - 654

Hardman v. Child (28 Ch. D. 712 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 695 ; 52 L. T. 465;

33 W. E. 544)- - 178, 576, 1191

Hardwicke (Earl of), Ex parte (1 D. M. & G. 297 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 422) 727,

808

(Lord) v. Sandys (Lord) (12 M. & W. 761 ; 13 L. J. Ex.

233 ; 3 L. T. 0. S. 60) 285, 1343

— (Lord) v. Vernon (4 V. 411) - - - 50

Hardy's Estate, Re (18 Jur. 370) - 805, 807

Hare v. Burges (4 K. & J. 45 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 86 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1294 ;

30 L. T. 255 ; 6 W. E. 144) - - 622, 623

v. Horton (5 B. & Ad. 715 ; 2 N. & M. 428) - 149, 606

v. Shearwood (1 V. 241) - ... 1149

CXXXV111 TABLE OF CASES.

Har.

Harford v. Purrier (1 Mad. 539) -286, 287, 733

Hargrave v. Hargrave (9 B. 555 ; 10 Jur. 957) - - - 381

- v. (2 C. & K. 701) - 382

. v. (23 B. 484) - - 543

v. Le Breton (4 Burr. 2422) - 120

Hargreayes and Thompson, Re (32 Ch. D. 454 ; 55 L. T. 239 ; 34

W. E. 708) - - - 1272

Vt Diddams (L. E. 10 Q. B. 585 ; 44 L. J. M. C. 178 ;

32 L. T. 600 ; 23 W. E. 828) - 426

Vt Eothwell (1 Ke. 154 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 118) - 988, 989

• - v. Wright (1 W. E. 408)- - 1251

Harington v. Hoggart (1 B. & Ad. 577 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 14)- - - 207
Harland v. Binks (15 Q. B. 713 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 126 ; 14 Jur. 979) - 1019
Harley v. King (2 C. M. & E. 18 ; 1 Gale, 100 ; 5 Tyr. 692) - - 1046

Harlock v. Ashberry (19 Ch. D. 539 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 394 ; 46 L. T. 356 ;
30 W. E. 327) - ' 453, 455, 456

Harman's Estate, In re (I Eq. E. 246) - 760
Harman v. Eichards (10 Ha. 81 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 1066) - 1004, 1007, 1018
and Uxbridge E. Co. (24 Ch. D. 720 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 808 ; 49

L. T. 130 ; 31 W. E. 857) - - 342

Harmer v. Bean (3 C. & K. 307)- - - 914

Harmood v. Oglander (8 Y. 106) - 306

Harriett v. Baker (20 Eq. 50 ; 32 L. T. 382 ; 23 W. E. 559) - 165, 173
v. Yielding (2 Sch. & L. 549) 1163, 1174, 1185, 1195

Harper, Ex parte (20 Eq. 39 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 407 ; 32 L. T. 214 ; 23

W. E. 371) - - 705

v. Bird (23 W. E. 646 ; 32 L. T. 428) - - - 1303

v. Eaulder (4 Mad. 129) 950, 952

v. Hayes (2 D. E. & J. 542 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 245 ; 3 L. T. 530 ;

9 W. E. 504) - - 75, 78, 90, 91, 1331

— and Jones, Re (10 B. 284) - 816, 817

Harpham v. Shacklock (19 Ch. D. 207 ; 45 L. T. 572 ; 30 W. E. 50)- 935,

945

Harrington v. Long (2 M. & K. 590) - 279

v. Price (3 B. & Ad. 170) - - - 826

Vt Victoria Graving Dock Co. (3 Q, B. D. 549 ; 47 L. J.

Q, B. 594 ; 39 L. T. 120 ; 26 W. E. 740) - - 216

v. Wheeler (4 Y. 686)

Harris' Settled Estates, Re (28 Ch. D. 171 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 208 ; 51
L. T. 855 ; 33 W. E. 393) - - 1293

Harris, Re (56 L. T. 477) - - 822
v. Amery (L. E. 1 C. P. 148 ; 1 H. & E, 358 ; 35 L. J. C. P.

89 ; 1 H. & P. 294 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 165 ; 13 L. T. 504 ;

14 W. E. 199) - - 1163

v. Booker (4 Bing. 96 ; 12 Moore, 283) - - - 526

v. Davison (15 Sim. 128 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 255 ; 10 Jur. 257) 537, 538

v. De Pinna (33 Ch. D. 238 ; 54 L. T. 38, 770 ; 50 J. P. 308,

486) 405, 407, 410, 430

v. Eergusson (16 Si. 308) - 1047

• v. Harris (29 B. 110; 7 Jur. N. S. 955; 9 W. E, 444) - - 454

TABLE OF CASKS. CXXX1X

Har. PAGE

Harris v. Kemble (5 Bl. N. S. 730) - 1156, 1174

- v. Mott (14 B. 169 ; 15 Jur. 978) - 1120, 1243

- v. Pepperell (5 Eq. 1 ; 17 L. T. 191 ; 16 W. E. 68) 601, 838, 839

- v. Pugli (4 Bing. 335 ; 12 Moore, 577) - - - 526

- v. Eyding (5 M. & W. 60) - 420, 422
Harrison's Estate, In re (10 Eq. 532 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 77 ; 23 L. T. 654) 812
Harrison, Exparte (13 Jur. 381) - - 704

-, In re (10 B. 57 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 170 ; 11 Jur. 197) - 816, 817, 818
— , Ee (Seton, 516) - - 655

v. Barton (1 J. & H. 287 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 213 ; 7 Jur. N. S.

19 ; 3 L. T. 614 ; 9 W. E. 177) - 1048, 1049

- v. Coppard (2 Cox, 318) 473, 1265

- v. Good (11 Eq. 338 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 294 ; 24 L. T. 263 ; 19

W. B, 346) - 868, 875, 1045
v. Guest (6 D. M. & G. 432 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 544 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

911 ; 27 L. T. O. S. 208 ; 4 W. E. 585 ; 8 H. L. C. 481) 24,

842, 843

- v. Harrison (1 E. & M. 71) - 303

- v. Pennell (4 Jur. N. S. 682 ; 6 W. E. 712) - - - 1270

— v. Southampton (Corporation of) (4 D. M. & G. 137 ; 22 L. J.

Ch. 372 ; 21 L. T. 149 ; 1 W. E. 422) - - 384

v. Southcote (2 V. sen. 389) - - 506, 834

Harrisson v. Duignan (2 D. & War. 295) - 434, 460, 997

Harrop's Estate, In re (3 Dr. 726 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 516 ; 3 Jur. N. S.

380 ; 29 L. T. O. S. 49 ; 5 W. E. 449) - - 16, 298, 761

Trusts, In re (24 Ch. D. 717 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 137 ; 48 L. T.

937) 758

Harryman v. Collins (18 B. 19 ; 18 Jur. 501 ; 23 L. T. 0. S. 17 ; 2

W. E. 189) - - - 985

Harston v. Tenison (20 Ch. D. 109 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 645 ; 45 L. T. 777 ;

30 W. E. 376) - 54

Hart v. Hart (1 Ha. 1 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 9 ; 5 Jur. 1007) - 159, 370

v. (18 Ch. D. 670 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 697 ; 45 L. T. 13; 30

W. E. 8) - 1166

v. Swaine (7 Ch. D. 42 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 5 ; 37 L. T. 376 ; 26

W. E. 30) - - 900, 903

v. Tulk (2 D. M. & G. 300 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 649) - 269

v. Windsor (12 M. & W. 68 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 129 ; 8 Jur. 150) - 636

Hartcup v. Bell (C. & E. 19) - 1001

Harter v. Colman (19 Ch. D. 630 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 481 ; 45 L. T. 154 ;

30 W. E. 484) 574, 654, 784, 1037

Hartington (Eector of), Exparte (23 W. E. 484) - - 752

Hartland v. Murrell (27 B. 204 ; 7 W. E. 650) - 693

Hartley, In re (2 Jur. N. S. 449 ; 4 W. E. 483) - - 815

v. Hudson (4 C. P. D. 367 ; 48 L. J. C. P. 701) - - 192

- v. O'Flaherty (L. & G. t. Plunkett, 208) - - 944

— v. Smith (Buck. 368) 1234, 1236, 1277
Hartop, Exparte (12 V. 352) - 203,1073

Cxi TABLE OF CASES.

Har— Haw. PAGE

Hartopp v. Hartopp (21 B. 259 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 471 ; 27 L. T. 37) - 848

- v. Huskisson (55 L. T. 773) - 945
Harvey's Settled Estates, Re (21 Ch. D. 123 ; 30 W. B. 697) - - 1279
Harvey, Ex parte (15 Q. B. D. 682; 54 L. J. Q. B. 554; 53 L. T.

768) - - - 1031

-, He (Seton, 520) - - 657

v. Barnard's Inn (Principal of) (50 L. J. Ch. 750 ; 45 L. T.

280 ; 29 W. E. 922) - - 266

- v. Brooke (9 Ha. App. xi. ; 17 Jur. 1) - - 1250, 1345

- v. Grabham (6 N. & M. 754 ; 5 A. & E. 61 ; 2 H. & W. 146) 1096

- v. Harvey (2 Str. 1141) - - 608

- v. Mount (8 B. 439 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 233 ; 9 Jur. 741) - 24

- v. Phillips (2 Atk. 541) - 159, 353

- v. Tebbutt (1 J. & W. 197) - 469
Harvie v. South Devon B. Co. (23 W. B. 202 ; 32 L. T. 1) - - 246
Harwood, Re (35 Ch. D. 470 ; 56 L. T. 502) - 656

- v. Bland (Fl. & K. 540) - - 497

- v. Tooke (2 Si. 192) - 911
Hasker v. Sutton (2 S. & S. 573) - - 1275
Haslam v. Cron (19 W. B. 968) - 394
Haslock v. Fergusson (7 A. & E. 86 ; 2 N. & P. 269 ; 6 L. J. N. S.

Q. B. 247; 1 Jur. 689) - - 115

Hastie v. Couturier (9 Ex. 102 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 299 ; 17 Jur. 1127) - 908
Hastings (Corporation of) v. Ivall (19 Eq. 558 ; 22 W. B. 724) 366, 378

- v. Wilson (Holt, N. P. 290) - - - 292
Hatch v. Hatch (9 V. 292) - - 24
Hatherton (Lord) v. Bradburne (13 Si. 599; 13 L. J. Ch. 171 ; 7

Jur. 1100) - - 293

Hatton v. Haywood (9 Ch. 229 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 372 ; 30 L. T. 279 ; 22

W. B. 356) - 536, 545, 546

Havens v. Middleton (10 Ha. 641 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 746 ; 17 Jur. 271 ;

22 L. T. O. S. 62 ; 1 W. B. 256) - - 194, 1274

Haw v. Ogle (4 Taunt. 10) 6

Hawes v. Draeger (23 Ch. D. 173 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 449 ; 48 L. T. 518 ;

31 W. B. 576) - 382

Hawkes v. Eastern Counties B. Co. (5 H. L. C. 331 ; 24 L. J. Ch.

601 ; 3 W. B. 609) - - 20, 62, 92, 219

Hawkesworth v. Chaffey (54 L. T. 72 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 335) - 265, 266
Hawkins, Ex parte (13 Si. 569) - 297, 298, 303

v. Gardiner (2 S. & G. 441) 742, 825

v. Gathercole (6 D. M. & G. 1 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 332 ; 1 Jur.

N. S. 481 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 281 ; 3 Eq. B.

348 ; 3 W. B. 194) - 541

v. (1 Si. N. S. 150 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 303 ; 15 Jur.

186) - - - 996

v. Holmes (1 P. W. 770) - 272,1147

v. Kemp (3 Ea. 410) - - 86, 685

- v. Maltby (3 Ch. 188 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 58 ; 17 L. T. 0. S. 397 ;

16 W. B. 209) - - 1106
v. Perry (25 L. J. Ch. 656 ; 4 W. B. 686) - - - 656

TABLE OF CASES. Cxli

Haw— Hea. PAGE

Hawkins v. Rutt (Pea. 248) - - 220

Hawksbee v. Hawksbee (11 Ha. 230) - - - 464

Hawley, Ex parte (20 L. T. 0. S. 258) - 994

— , In re (2 De G. & S. 33 ; 12 Jur. 389 ; 5 Ry. Ca. 383) 704, 707
Hay v. Smithies (22 B. 510 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 1011 ; 28 L. T. O. S. 183) 151

Hayden v. Kirkpatrick (34 B. 645 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 836 ; 13 L. T. 56 ;

13 W. R. 1010) - - 1041

Haydon v. Bell (1 B. 337 ; 2 Jur. 1008) 497, 499, 1248

Hayes v. Bridges (R. L. & S. 390) - - 427

Hayford v. Griddle (22 B. 480) 132, 135, 155, 1201, 1202

Hay garth v. Wearing (12 Eq. 320 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 577 ; 24 L. T. 825 ;

20 W. R. 11) - 24, 842, 843

Haynes v. Barton (1 Dr. & Sm. 483 ; 1 Eq. 422 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 699 ;

35 L. J. Ch. 233; 13 L. T. 787 ; 9 W. R. 777 ; 14 W. R. 257) 805,

806, 809, 810

v. Forshaw (11 Ha. 99; 22 L. J. Ch. 1060; 17 Jur. 930;

1 W. R. 346) - - 678

- v. Hare (1 H. Bl. 664) - - - 121
v. Haynes (1 Dr. & S. 426; 30 L. J. Ch. 578 ; 7 Jur. N. S.

595 ; 4 L. T. 199 ; 9 W. R. 497) 243, 297, 298, 1098, 1099

- v. (3 Jur. N. S. 504) - - - 1043

Hays v. Bailey (cited Sugd. 621) - - 1255

Hayter v. Tucker (4 K. & J. 243 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 257 ; 32 L. T. 0. S.

121 ; 6 W. R. 243) - 233

Hay wood v. Brunswick Building Society (8 Q,. B. D. 403 ; 51 L. J.

Q. B. 73 ; 45 L. T. 699 ; 30 W. R. 299 ; 46 J. P. 356) - 865

v. Cope (25 B. 140 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 468 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 227 ;

31 L. T. O. S. 48 ; 6 W. R, 304) - 105, 255, 488, 1114, 1147, 1173,

1174, 1211, 1214, 1215

Head's Case (3 Eq. 84; 36L. J. Ch. 121 ; 15 L. T. 262 ; 15 W. R. 142) 333
Head v. Egerton (3 P. W. 280) - 952

v. Godlee (John. 536 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 633 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 495 ; 8

W. R. 141) - 848

Headen v. Rosher (M'C. & Y. 89) - - 849

Heald v. Kenworthy (10 Ex. 739 ; 24 L. J. Ex. 76 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 70) 1075
Healy v. Knight (8 Ex. 839, n.) - 314

- v. Thome (4 Ir. R. C. L. 495) - - 378, 429
Heap v. Tonge (9 Ha. 90; 20 L. J. Ch. 661) - 1007, 1016
Heaphy v. Hill (2 S. & S. 29) - 487, 1214
Heard v. Cuthbert (1 Ir. Ch. R. 369) - 799

-v. Pilley (4 Ch. 549 ; 21 L. T. 68 ; 17 W. R. 750) - 1056, 1057

Hearn v. Tomlin (1 Pea. 253) - 128

Heasman v. Pearce (8 Eq. 599) - • - - - 915

Heath v. Bucknall (8 Eq. 1; 38 L. J. Ch. 372; 20 L. T. 549; 17

W. R. 755) 404, 406

v. Crealock (10 Ch. 22 ; 18 Eq. 215 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 169 ; 44 L. J.

Ch. 157 ; 29 L. T. 763 ; 31 L. T. 650 ; 23 W. R. 95) - 341, 476,

595, 745, 911, 912, 929, 930, 941

- v. Weston (3 D. M. & G. 606) - 691
Heathcote v. North Staffordshire R. Co. (2 M. & G. 100 ; 2 H. & Tw.

382 ; 6 Ry. Ca. 358 ; 14 Jur. 859) - - - 1168

Cxlii TABLE OF CASES.

Hea— Hep.

Heather, Be (5 Ch. 694 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 781 ; 18 W. E. 1079) - - 819

, v. O'Neill (2 D. & J. 417 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 512 ; 31 L. T. 0. S.

125; 6 W. E. 484) - 1120

Heatley v. Newton (19 Ch. D. 326 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 225 ; 45 L. T. 455 ;

30 W. E. 72) - 204, 206, 225, 1270

Hedgeley, Re (34 Ch. D. 379 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 360 ; 56 L. T. 19 ; 35

W. E. 472) 57, 703

Hele v. Bexley (Lord) (17 B. 14 ; 20 B. 127 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 1007) - 1043
Hellard v. Moody (31 Ch. D. 504 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 265 ; 54 L. T. 549 ;

34 W. E. 159) 71

Hellawell v. Eastwood (6 Ex. 295 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 154) - - - 107

Helling v. Lumley (3 D. & J. 493 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 255 ; 5 Jur. N. S.

301 ; 33 L. T. 18 ; 7 W. E. 152) 1170, 1171

Helsham v. Barnett (21 W. E. 309) - 845

- v. Langley (1 Y. & C. C. C. 175) - - 1166

Heming v. Archer (7 B. 515; 8 B. 294; 9 B. 366; 14 L. J. N. S.

Ch. 169 ; 8 Jur. 945) - 1340, 1347

Hemingway, In re (15 Q, B. 305 ; 3 N. & M. 860) - - 257

v. Fernandes (13 Si. 228 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 130 ; 7 Jur.

865, 1132, 1172

Hemming v. Blanton (42 L. J. C. P. 158 ; 21 W. E. 636) -

- v. Spiers (15 Si. 550 ; 11 Jur. 294) - - 389, 390

Henderson v. Australian S. M. Co. (5 E. & B. 409 ; 24 L. J. Q. B.
322 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 830 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 234 ; 3 W. E.
571) - 220,273

v. Barnewall (1 Y. & J. 387) - 204, 209

v. Dodds (2 Eq. 532 ; 14 L. T. 752 ; 14 W. E. 900) - 1340

v. Eason (17 Q. B. 701 ; 2 Ph. 308) - - - 1051

v. Eothschild (33 Ch. D. 459 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 939 ; 55 L. T.

165 ; 34 W. E. 769) - 1020

Hendry v. Turner (32 Ch. D. 355 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 562 ; 54 L. T. 292 ;

34 W. E. 513)- - - 1167

Hennessey v. Bray (33 B. 96; 9 Jur. N. S. 1065; 9 L. T. 41; 11

W. E. 1053) - 95

Hennett v. Luard (12 B. 479) - 1267, 1268

Henniker v. Chafy (28 B. 621 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 87) 805, 809

v. Henniker (1 E. & B. 54 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 94 ; 17 Jur. 436) 597

Henning v. Burnet (8 Ex. 192 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 79) - - 414

Henry v. Armstrong (18 Ch. D. 668 ; 44 L. T. 918 ; 30 W. E. 472) - 1022,

1023

v. Eoot (33 N. Y. 526) - - 30

v. Smith (2 D. & War. 381) - 454, 459

Henshaw v. Angell (9 Eq. 451 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 524; 21 L. T. 784) - 1240
Hensman v. Fryer (3 Ch. 420 ; 2 Eq. 627 ; 14 L. T. 882 ; 17 L. T.

394 ; 14 W. E. 983 ; 16 W. E. 162) 309, 702, 829

Henson v. Coope (3 Sc. N. E. 48) - - 1090

Henty v. Schroder (12 Ch. D. 666; 48 L. J. Ch. 792 ; 27 W. E. 833) 1254
Henvell v. Whitaker (3 Euss. 343) - - 693

Hepburn v. Leather (50 L. T. 660) - - 1109

Heppenstall v. Hose (33 W. E. 30 ; 51 L. T. 589 ; 49 J. P. 100) 178, 1190

TABLE OP CASES. Cxliii

Hep— Hie. PAGE

Hepworth v. Hepworth (11 Eq. 10 ; 40 L. J. Ch. Ill ; 23 L. T. 388 ;

19 W. E. 46) - - 1057

— v. Heslop (3 Ha. 485 ; 9 Jur. 796) - - 1340

v. Hill (30 B. 476 ; 6 L. T. 403 ; 10 W. E. 477) - - 920

Herbert v. Salisbury, &c. Eail. Co. (2 Eq. 221 ; 14 L. T. 507 ; 14

W. E. 706) - 142, 145, 726

— v. Tuckal (T. Eaym. 84) - - - 394

Hercy v. Birch (9 V. 357) - - 1166

v. Ferrers (4 B. 97 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 273) - - 476

Hereford (Bishop), In re (5 De G. & S. 265 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 608) - 807
Heriot's Hospital (Feoffees of) y. Gibson (2 Dow, 301)- - - 136

Heritage, Re (3 Q, B. D. 726 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 509 ; 38 L. T. 509 ; 26

W. E. 633) - - 818

Herman v. Hodges (16 Eq. 18 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 192 ; 21 W. E. 571) - 1164
Hernaman v. Coryton (5 Ex. 453 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 353; 15 L. T. 346) 254
Heron v. Treyne (2 Eaym. 750) - 888

Herring v. Clobery (1 Ph. 91; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 149; 6 Jur.

202) - - 995, 996

Hersey v. Giblett (18 B. 174; 23 L. J. Ch. 818; 2 W. E. 206) 1116, 1214
Hertford (Marquis of) v. Boore (5 V. 719) - - 1214

Hervey v. Smith (22 B. 299 ; 1 K. & J. 389) - 520, 521, 974

Heseltine v. Simmons (6 W. E. 268) - 1233

Hesse v. Briant (6 D. M. & G. 623 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 297 ; 5 W. E. 108) 42

v. Stevenson (3 B. & P. 565) - - 890, 981

Hester v. Hester (34 Ch. D. 607 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 247 ; 55 L. T. 862 ;

35 W. E. 233) - - 823

Hetherington v. Hetherington (12 P. D. 112; 56 L. J. P. D. & A. 78) 381
Hewison v. Negus (16 B. 598 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 655 ; 17 Jur. 567 ; 21

L. T. 0. S. 203 ; 1 W. E. 262) - - 49, 1004

Hewitt, In re (27 L. J. Ch. 302 ; 6 W. E. 537) - 658

v. Loosemore (9 Ha. 449 ; 6 W. E. 637) - 479, 766, 826, 858, 951,

952, 980, 987, 990, 991

- v. Nanson (28 L. J. Ch. 49 ; 32 L. T. 100 ; 7 W. E. 5) 1317, 1324
Hewson v. L. & S. W. E. Co. (8 W. E. 467 ; 2 L. T. 369) - - 246

Hext v. Gill (7 Ch. 699 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 761 ; 27 L. T. 291 ; 20 W. E.

957) - - 77, 130, 422, 429
Heyward v. Barnes (23 L. T. 0. S. 68) - 264
Heywood v. Lomax (1 Vern. 24 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 147, pi. 1) - - 905
v. Mallalieu (25 Ch. D. 357 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 492 ; 49 L. T.

658 ; 32 W. E. 538) - 123, 125, 127, 131, 151, 156, 177, 1202, 1277
Hibbert v. Bayley (2 F. & F. 48) - - 208

v. Cook (1 S. & S. 552) - 2

— v. Shee (1 Camp. 113) - 128

Hibon v. Hibon (9 Jur. N. S. 511 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 374; 8 L. T. 195;

1 N. E, 532; 11 W. E. 455) - - - 309

Hichin's Estate, In re (1 W. E. 505) - 760

Hick v. PhiUips (Ch. Prec. 575)- - - 1199

Hickley, Re (54 L. J. Ch. 608 ; 52 L. T. 89 ; 33 W. E. 320)- - 822

v. Hickley (2 Ch. D. 190 ; 45 L. J. Ch, 401 ; 34 L. T. 441 ;

24 W. E. 604) 49

Cxlfv TABLE OF CASES.

Hie— Hil. PAGE

Hickman v. Haynes (L. E. 10 C. P. 598 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 358 ; 32

L. T. 873 ; 23 W. E. 871) - - - 1097

v. Upsall (4 Ch. D. 144 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 245 ; 35 L. T. 919 ;

25 W. E. 175) 388, 459, 1033

Hicks v. Hankin (4 Esp. 114) - - - 211

- v. Hastings (3 K. & J. 701) - 139, 1032, 1034

- v. Morant (3 Y. & J. 286 ; 5 Bl. N. S. 643 ; 2 Dow & C. 414) 398, 746
v. Sallitt (3 D. M. & G. 782 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 671 ; 18 Jur. 915 ;

2 Eq. Eep. 818 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. 322 ; 2 W. E. 173) - 139, 1032, 1034

Hick son v. Collis (1 J. & L. 94) - 555
v. Darlow (23 Ch. D. 690 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 453 ; 48 L. T. 449;

31 W. E. 417)- - - 82
Hide v. Hide (1 Coop. t. Cott. 379) - - 1337
Hiern v. Mill (13 V. 122) -977, 1151
Higginbotham v. Hawkins (7 Ch. 676 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 828 ; 27 L. T.

328 ; 20 W. E. 955) - 437

Higgins and Hitchman, Re (21 Ch. D. 95 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 772 ; 30 W.

E. 700; 46 J. P. 805) -858, 1277

v. Samels (2 J. & H. 460 ; 7 L. T. 240) - 111, 1174

- v. Senior (8 M. & W. 844) - - 1073
v. Shaw (2 D. & War. 356) 678, 703

- v. York Building Co. (2 Atk. 107) - - 526
Higginson v. Clowes (15 V. 521) - 123, 124, 125, 149, 227, 1154, 1247
Higgs v. Borkis (13 Eq. 280 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 150 ; 25 L. T. 903 ; 20

W. E. 279) - 1306, 1311

Highgate Archway Co. v. Jeakes (12 Eq. 9 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 408 ; 24

L. T. 567 ; 19 W. E. 692) -858, 1235

Hilbers v. Parkinson (25 Ch. D. 200 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 194 ; 49 L. T. 502;

32 W. E. 315) - 946, 1118, 1186
Hill and Chapman, Re (54 L. J. Ch. 595 ; 52 L. T. 290 ; 33 W. E.

570) 495, 800, 1238
, Ex parte (23 Ch. D. 695 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 903 ; 49 L. T. 278 ; 32

W. E. 177) - - 1032

v. Buckley (17 V. 394) - 158, 729, 735, 736, 738

v. Edmonds (5 De G. & S. 603 ; 16 Jur. 1133) - 9

v. Exeter (Bishop of) (2 Taunt. 69) - - 1003

v. Gomme (5 M. & C. 250 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 54 ; 4 Jur. 165)- 1010

v. Gray (1 Stark. 434){ - - 104

v. Gt. N. E. Co. (5 D. M. & G. 66 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 524 ; 2 W. E.

335) 244, 1151

v. Hibbit (19 W. E. 250 ; 25 L. T. 183) - - - 395

v. Kirkwood (28 W. E. 358 ; 42 L. T. 105) - 81

v. Magan (2 Moll. 460) - - 94

v. M. E. Co. (21 Ch. D. 143 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 774 ; 47 L. T. 225 ;

30 W. E. 774) -244,508,511

v. Pritchard (Kay, 394 ; 2 Eq. E. 374 ; 2 W. E. 297) - 87, 88

v. Spurgeon (29 Ch. D. 349 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 816 ; 52 L. T. 398 ;

33 W. E. 449) - • - - 1323

v. Stawell (2 Jebb & S. 389) - - 458

Hillary v. Waller (12 V. 239) - - 366,371,391,1231,1235,1276

TABLE OF CASES. Cxlv

Hil— Hob. PAGE

Hillman, Ex parte (10 Ch. D. 622 ; 48 L. J. Bk. 77 ; 40 L. T. 177 ;

27 W. E. 567)- 1006, 1031

Hills v. Croll (2 Ph. 60) - 1164, 1167

v. Laming (9 Ex. 256 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 60) - - - 595

Hilton v. Barrow (1 V. 284) - - - - -1199

v. Eckersley (6 E. & B. 47 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 199 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

587 ; 26 L. T. O. S. 314 ; 4 W. E. 326) - 277
v. Woods (4 Eq. 432 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 941 ; 16 L. T. 736 ; 15

W. E. 1105) - - - 280

Hincksman v. Smith (3 Eus. 433) - 844, 849

Hinde v. Blake (3 B. 234 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 346) - - 1019

v. Poole (1 K. & J. 383 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 371 ; 3 Eq. E. 449 ; 3

W. E. 331) 686, 1273

v. Whitehouse (7 Ea. 558 ; 3 Smith, 528) - - 257

Hinder v. Streeten (10 Ha. 18 ; 16 Jur. 650) 800, 1262
Hindle v. Dakins (1 Coop. t. Cott. 378) - 1338, 1343
Hindley Chapel (Trustees of), Ex parte (V.-C. K. 29th June, 1855)- 99
v. Emery (11 Jur. N. S. 874; 1 Eq. 52; 35 L. J. Ch. 6;

13 L. T. 272 ; 14 W. E. 25) - - 223, 870
Hine v. Dodd (2 Atk. 275) - - 965
Hinton v. Hinton (2 Y. sen. 634) - 586, 1115, 1117
v. Sparkes (L. E. 3 C. P. 161 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 81 ; 17 L. T.

600; 16 W. E. 360) - 222

Hiorms v. Holton (16 B. 259 ; 16 Jur. 1077) - 746, 929, 1269, 1320
Hipgrave v. Case (28 Ch. D. 356; 54 L. J. Ch. 399; 52 L. T. 242) - 1104,

1150, 1152

Hippesley v. Spencer (5 Mad. 422) - - 289

Hipwell v. Knight (1 Y. & C. 401 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq. 52) 484, 490,

491, 492

Hislop v. Leckie (6 Ap. Ca. 560) - 867

Hitchcock v. Giddings (4 Pr. 135) - - 907

- v. Sedgwick (Sugd. 762) - - 981

Hitchins v. Lander (G. Coop. 34) - - 278

Hitchman v. Walton (4 M. & W. 409 ; 1 H. & H. 374 ; 8 L. J. Ex.
31) - ... 149

Hobbs v. Midland Ey. Co. (20 Ch. D. 418; 51 L. J. Ch. 320; 46

L. T. 270; 30 W. E. 516) 858, 859, 861, 862

Hobby v. Collins (4 De G. & S. 289 ; 17 L. T. O. S. 2) - 648

Hobday v. Peters (28 B. 349 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 780 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 794 ;

2 L. T. 590 ; 8 W. E. 512) - - - 47

Hobhouse ?;. Hamilton (1 Sch. & L. 207) - - 354

Hobson's Trusts, Re (7 Ch. D. 708 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 310 ; 38 L. T. 365 ;

26 W. E. 470) - 758

Hobson, Re (33 Ch. D. 493 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 754 ; 55 L. T. 255 ; 34 W. B.

786) - - - - 529

v. Bell (2 B. 17 ; 8 L. J. Ch. 241 ; 3 Jur. 190) - 142, 158,

184, 198, 200, 372, 377

v. Burns (13 Ir. L. E. 286) - - 459

v. Middleton (6 B. & C. 295 ; 9 D. & E. 249) - 886

v. Neal (8 Ex. 368 ; 17 B. 178) - - - 314

D. k

Cxlvi TABLE OF CASES.

Hob— Hoi.

Hobson v. Trevor (2 P. W. 191) - 1183

Hoby v. Eoebuck (7 Taun. 157 ; 2 Marsh. 433) - - - 236

Hochster v. De Latour (2 E. & B. 678; 22 L. J. Q. B. 455; 17

Jur. 972) - 894, 1089

Hoddel v. Pugh (33 B. 489 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 534 ; 10 L. T. 446 ; 12

W. E. 782) - - 293, 800

Hodder v. Euffin (Taml. 341 ; 1 V. & B. 544) 1330, 1342, 1353

Hodge, Ex parte (IG Si. 159; 12 Jur. 239) - - 807

Hodges v. Blagrave (18 B. 404) - 622

- v. Croydon Canal Co. (3 B. 86) - - - 460
v. Hodges (20 Ch. D. 749; 51 L. J. Ch. 549; 46 L. T. 366;

30 W. E. 483) - 11, 391

— v. Horsfall (1 E. & M. 116) - - 1092
^ v. Litchfield (Lord) (1 Bing. N. C. 499 ; 1 Sc. 449) - 348, 569,

1076, 1077

Hodgkinson v. Cooper (9 B. 304 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 160 ; 10 Jur. 39) - 332, 334

v. Crowe (10 Ch. 622 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 680; 33 L. T. 388 ;

23 W. E. 885) .... 192

v. Ennor (4 B. & S. 229 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 231 ; 9 Jur.

N. S. 1152; 8L. T. 451; 11 W. E. 775) - - 416

v. Fernie (27 L. J. C. P. 66 ; 3 C. B. N. S. 189) - 704

Hodgson, Re (11 Ch. D. 888; 41 L. T. 327 ; 28 W. E. 233) - - 655

- v. Dean (2 S. & S. 221) - 973, 981

— v. Johnson (E. B. & E. 685 ; 28 L. J. Q. B. 88 ; 5 Jur.

N. S. 290) - - 231
v. Le Bret (1 Camp. 233) - - 271

- v. Pearson (31 L. T. 679) - - 398

- v. Shaw (11 Jur. 95) - 1345
Hodkinson v. Quinn (1 J. & H. 303 ; 3 L. T. N. S. 804; 30 L. J.

Ch. 118 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 65 ; 9 W. E, 197) 694, 696, 697, 698

Hodson and Drewry, In re (7 Dowl. 569) - - 704

— and Howes, Ee (35 Ch. D. 668; 56 L. J. Ch. 760; 56 L. T.

857 ; 35 W. E. 553) - - 1276

- v. Carter (1 N. E. 179 ; 7 L. T. 504) 799, 1263

v. Coppard (29 B. 4; 30 L. J. Ch. 20; 7 Jur. N. S. 11 ; 9

W. E, 9) - - - - - - - 865

Hoggart v. Cutts (Cr. & Ph. 197 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 314) - 206

— v. Scott (1 E. & M. 293) 1178, 1179
Hoghton v. Hoghton (15 B. 278 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 482 ; 17 Jur. 99) - 23, 847,

848
Holden, In re (1 H. & M. 445) - 812

v. Hayn (1 Mer. 47) - - 1132

Holdsworth v. Goose (29 B. Ill; 30 L. J. Ch. 188; 7 Jur. N. S.
301 ; 4 L. T. 196; 9 W. E. 443) - - 87

Hole v. Barlow (4 C. B. N. S. 334 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 207 ; 31 L. T.
134; 6 W. E. 619) - - - 875

Holford v. Bailey (13 Q. B. 426 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 109 ; 13 Jur. 278) - 427

v. George (L. E. 3 Q. B. 639 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 185 ; 18 L. T.

817 ; 16 W. E. 1204) - - 426
v. Phipps (3 B. 434 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 209 ; 5 Jur. 36) - 653

TABLE OF CASES. Cxlvii

'Hoi. PAGE

llolker v. Porritt (L. R. 10 Ex. 59 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 52 ; 33 L. T. 125 ;

23 W. R. 400) - r;y. - - - 415

Holland, Ex parts (4 Mad. 483) - 1274

Re (16 Ch. D. 672; 50 L. J. Ch. 271 ; 44 L. T. 561 ; 29

W. R. 449) - - 656

— v. Clarke (1 Y. & C. C. C. 151) - 436, 445

— v. Eyre (2 S. & S. 194) - - 264

v. Hodgson (L. R. 7 C. P. 328; 41 L. J. C. P. 146; 26

L. T. 709 ; 20 W. R. 990) - 607

- v. Holland (13 Eq. 406) - - 1308

- v. King (20 L. T. O. S. 123) - 1336
v. Worley (26 Ch. D. 578 ; 50 L. T. 526 ; 32 W. R. 749 ;

49 J. P. 7) - 871

Hollick, Exparte (16 L. J. Ch. 71) - - 757

Holliday v. Overton (14 B. 467 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 769 ; 16 Jur. 346) - 594
Hollier v. Burne (16 Eq. 163 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 789 ; 28 L. T. 531 ; 21

W. R. 805) - - - - - - - 755

Hollins v. Verney (13 Q, B. D. 304 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 430 ; 33 W. R.

5;48J. P. 580) - - 431,432

Hollis v. Claridge (4 Taun. 807) - - - 476
Holloway v. Radcliffe (23 B. 163; 26 L. J. Ch. 401 ; 3 Jur. N. S.

198 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 301 ; 5 W. R. 271) - 689

- v. York (25 W. R. 627) - - 1126
Holman v. Johnson (1 Cowp. 343) - - 1162
v. Loynes (4 D. M. & G. 270; 18 Jur. 839; 2 Eq. R. 715;

23 L. J. Ch. 529; 22 L. T. O. S. 296; 2 W. R. 205) - 23, 44,

45, 46
Holmes, Re (29 Ch. D. 786 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 33) 959, 966

- v. Baddeley (1 Ph. 476 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 113 ; 9 Jur. 289) - 996
v. Bellingham (7 C. B. N. S. 329; 29 L. J. M. C. 132; 6

Jur. N. S. 534) - - 411
v. Blogg (8 Taunt. 42, 508 ; 2 Moore, 552) - 30, 31

- v. Buckley (1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 27) - - - 897

- v. Goring (2 Bing. 76; 9 Moore, 166) - 413

— v. Hoskins (9 Ex. 753 ; 23 L. T. O. S. 70 ; 2 W. R. 376) - 234

— v. Newlands (11 A. & E. 44) - 464

- v. Penny (3 K. & J. 90 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 179 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 80 ;

28 L. T. 0. S. 156 ; 5 W. R. 132) - 1024, 1028
v. Powell (8 D. M. & G. 572) 520, 975, 1116

- v. Shaw (52 L. T. 797) - - - 1225

- v. Sixsmith (7 Ex. 802) - 785

v. Tutton (24 L. J. Q. B. 346 ; 5 E. & B. 65 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 975) 529

Holroyd v. Marshall (10 H. L. C. 191 ; 7 L. T. N. S. 172 ; 9 Jur. N. S.

213; 11 W. R. 171) - - - 1186

- v. Wyatt (2 Col. 329 ; 1 De G. & S. 125 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 174 ;

11 Jur. 261) - 1330, 1333

Holroyde, Re (29 W. R. 599 ; 43 L. T. 722 ; 45 J. P. 437) - - 819

Holt v. Collyer (16 Ch. D. 718 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 311 ; 44 L. T. 214 ; 29

W. R. 502) - 138
v. Ely (1 E. & B. 795 ; 17 Jur. 892) - - 1075

Cxlviii TABLE OF CASES.

Hoi— Hop. PAGE

Holt v. Kelly (13 Ir. L. E. 33) - - 1026

Holwood v. Baily (cited 4 Buss. 271) - - - 1265

Holyman, Ex parte (8 Jur. 156 ; 2 L. T. 0. S. 405) - - 38

Holy well- cum-Needing worth (Eector of), Ex parte (27 W. R. 707) - 752,

805, 806

Homan v. Andrews (1 Ir. Ch. E. 106) - - - 456

Home, Ex parte (54 L. T. 301) - 1024, 1031

Homersham v. Wolverhampton W. W. Co. (6 Ex. 137 ; 6 Ry. Ca. 790 ;

20 L. J. Ex. 193) -. - 273

Homfray v. Scroope (13 Q. B. 509) - - 400

Honeycombe v. Waldron (2 Str. 1064) - - - 964

Honeyman v. Marryat (6 H. L. C. 112; 26 L. J. Ch. 619; 4 Jur.

N. & 17) - - - - 264, 267
— v. - — (21 B. 24 ; 25 L. T. 170, 242 ; 3 W. R. 502) - 483

Honeywood v. Forster (30 B. 1 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 930 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1264 ;

9 W. R. 855) 348, 780

Honywood v. Honywood (18 Eq. 306; 43 L. J. Ch. 652 ; 30 L. T.

671 ; 22 W. R. 749) 150

Hood v. Barrington (Lord) (6 Eq. 218) - 253

v. Beauchamp (8 Si. 26) - - - 395

v. Hall (14 Jur. 127) - - 1348

v. Hood (3 Jur. N. S. 684 ; 5 W. R. 747) - 304, 539, 827, 921

v. N. E. Ry. Co. (5 Ch. 525 ; 23 L. T. 206 ; 18 W. R. 473) - 1110

v. Oglander (34 B. 513 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 627 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 498 ;

13 W. R. 705) - - 1172, 1174, 1187

v. Phillips (3 B. 513) - - 1067

v. Pimm (1 C. P. Coop. t. Cott. 279; 4 Sim. 101 ; 9 L. J. Ch. 63) 1213

Hooke's Estate, Re (W. N. (1875) 29) - 1285

Hoole v. Smith (17 Ch. D. 434 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 576 ; 45 L. T. 38 ; 29

W. R. 601) - 82

Hooper, Ex parte (19 V. 479) - 1137, 1138

v. Bourne (3 Q, B. D. 258 ; 5 Ap. Ca. 1 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 437 ;

37 L. T. 594 ; 42 L. T. 97 ; 26 W. R, 295 ; 28 W. R. 493)- 858,

859, 860, 861

- v. Cooke (20 B. 639 ; 3 W. R. 636) - - 1034

- v. Goodwin (G. Coop. 95) 1322, 1330

- v. Smart (18 Eq. 683) - 1190
Hopcraft v. Hickman (2 S. & S. 130) - - - 704
Hope v. Booth (1 B. & Ad. 498) 292, 835

v. Hope (22 B. 365 ; 27 L. T. O. S. 227 ; 4 W. R. 583) - 505, 1164

v. Liddell (21 B. 183 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 90 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 105 ; 26

L. T. O. S. 305 ; 4 W. R. 145 ; 7 D. M. & G. 331) - 55, 476, 685,

699, 743, 974, 986

Hopkins v. Grazebrook (6 B. & C. 31 ; 9 D. & R. 22) - 893, 1079, 1080,

1081

v. Hopkins (1 Atk. 590) - 1131

v. Miall (2 R. & M. 86) - - 1121

Hopkinson v. Levering (11 Q. B. D. 92 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 391 ; 47 J. P.

519)- - - 630
v. Lusk (34 B. 215) - - - - - - 594

TABLE OF CASES. CxllX

Hop -HOW. PAGE

Hopkinson v. Eolt (9 H. L. C. 514 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 468 ; 7 Jur. N. S.
1209 ; 9 W. E. 900) - 936

Hopper, In re (L. E. 2 Q. B. 367 ; 36 L. J. Q. B. 97 ; 15 W. E. 443) 260,

1353

- v. Conyers (2 Eq. 549 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 328 ; 14 W. E. 628) - 1065
Horan v. MacMahon (17 L. E. Ir. 641) - - - 1023

Hordern, Ex parte (2 De G. & S. 263 ; 12 Jur. 846) - - 758

Horlock v. Smith (2 M. & C. 523 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Oh. 236 ; 1 Jur. 302) 471
-v.- -(17B. 572; 22 L. T. O. S. 232; 2 W. E. 117)- -1070
Horn v. Horn (2 S. & S. 448) 674, 703

Hornby v. Matcham (16 Si. 325 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 471 ; 12 Jur. 825) - 477
Home and Hellard, Re (29 Ch. D. 736 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 919 ; 53 L. T.

562) - - - - 333
— v. Barton (2 Jur. N. S. 1032 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 225 ; 4 W. E. 821) 837
v. Wingfield (3 Sc. N. E. 340 ; 3 M. & G. 33 ; 10 L. J. C. P.

295) 141, 319

Homer, In re (5 De G. & S. 483 ; 16 Jur. 1063)- - 299, 761

v. Williams (1 J. & C. 274) - - 1204, 1353

Horniblow v. Shirley : see Forteblow v. Shirley.

Horrocks v. Eigby (9 Ch. D. 180 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 800 ; 38 L. T. 782 ; 26

W. E. 714) - - - - 1190

Horsey v. Graham (L. E. 5 C. P. 9 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 58 ; 21 L. T. 530 ;

18 W. E. 141) - 231

Horsfall, Ex parte (7 B. & C. 528 ; 1 M. & E. 306) - - 638

- v. Hey (2 Ex. 778 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 266 ; 11 L. T. 0. S. 271) 277, 597

Horsley v. Cox (4 Ch. 92) - - 546

Horton, Re (51 L. T. 420) - 595, 911

v. Hall (17 Eq. 437 ; 22 W. E. 391) - - 1316

v. Smith (4 K. & J. 624 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 773 ; 6 W. E. 783) - 1067

— v. Westminster Improvement Commissioners (7 Ex. 780 ; 21

L. J. Ex. 297) - - 911

Hoskins v. Phillips (3 Ex. 168 ; 5 Ey. Ca. 560 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 1 ; 12

Jur. 1030) - - - 508

Hough v. Manzanos (4 Ex. D. 104 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 398 ; 27 W. E.

536) - 213, 1075

Hougham v. Sandys (2 Sim. 95 ; 6 L. J. Ch. 67) - - 72

Houghton, Ex parte (17 V. 251) - 1055

Houghton v. Houghton (3 D. F. & J. 16 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 182 ; 7 Jur.

N. S. 57 ; 2 L. T. 606 ; 19 W. E. 215)- - 257

v. (11 Si. 491 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 310 ; 5 Jur.

528) 1049

v. Kcenig (18 C. B. 235) - - 366

v. Lees (1 Jur. N. S. 862 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 201 ; 3 W. E.

135) - 847

Houghton's Estate, Re (30 Ch. D. 102 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 37 ; 53 L. T.

196 ; 33 W. E. 869) - - - 1281

Household Fire Ins. Co. v. Grant (4 Ex. D. 216 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 577 ;

41 L. T. 298 ; 27 W. E. 858) 254, 268

Howard v. Bank of England (19 Eq. 295 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 31 L.

T. 871 ; 23 W. E. 303) - - 14

Cl TABLE OF CASES.

How — Hud. PAGE

Howard v. Braithwaite (1 V. & B. 202) - 270, 1260

- v. Chaffers (2 Dr. S. 236 ; 2 N. E, 381 ; 11 W. E. 1057) 678, 679

— v. Ducane (T. & E. 81) - - 37, 48, 1275

— v. Hopkins (2 Atk. 371) - 120, 1183
v. Maitland (11 Q. B. D. 695 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 42 ; 48 J. P.

164) 882

- v. Shaw (8 M. & W. 118) 504, 1085

v. Shrewsbury (Lord) (17 Eq. 378 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 495 ; 29

L. T. 862 ; 22 W. E. 290) - - 594

Howarth v. Howarth (11 P. D. 95 ; 55 L. J. P. 49; 55 L. T. 303;

34 W. E. 633 ; 50 J. P. 376) - 660, 663, 1253, 1348

v. Smith (6 Si. 161) - - 375, 1229, 1276

Howe (Earl of) v. Lichfield (Earl of) (2 Ch. 155; 36 L. J. Ch. 313;

16 L. T. 436; 15 W. E. 323) - - - 315

- v. Hall (4 Ir. E, Eq. 242) - - 1137

- v. Hunt (31 B. 420 ; 10 W. E. 813) - - 1171

- v. Smith (27 Ch. D. 89 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1055 ; 50 L. T. 573 ;

32 W. E. 802 ; 48 J. P. 773) - 185, 220, 222, 1089, 1152, 1215

- v. Stawell (Ale. & Nap. 348) - - 429
Howell v. George (1 Mad. 11) - 582, 1172, 1174, 1186, 1187

- v. Howell (2 M. & C. 478 ; 1 Jur. 492) 52, 1032, 1033

v. Kightley (21 B. 331 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 341 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 455;

1 D. M. & G. 739 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 61 ; 4 W. E.
477) - 193, 195, 1239

- v. - - (8 D. M. & G. 325 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 341 ; 2 Jur.

N. S. 455 ; 27 L. T. 61 ; 4 W. E. 477) 1329, 1337

v. Metrop. Dist. Ey. Co. (19 Ch. D. 508; 51 L. J. Ch. 158 ;

45 L. T. 107 ; 30 W. E. 100) - 712, 1087

- v. Eichards (11 Ea. 633) - - - 890
Howes v. Brushfield (3 Ea. 491) - 885
Howkins v. Jackson (2 M. & G. 372 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 451) - - 840
Howland v. Norris (1 Cox, 59) 709, 1205
Howley v. Cook (8 Ir. Eq. 570) - - - 845
Howton v. Frearson (8 T. E. 50) - 412
Hoy v. Smythies (22 B. 510; 2 Jur. N. S. 1011; 28 L. T. 0. S. 183) 175,

179, 180, 182, 198
Hubbard, In re (15 B. 251) - 816, 817

- v. Hubbard (2 H. & M. 38 ; 9 L. T. 606) - 2, 1306

- v. Lees (L. E. 1 Ex. 255 ; 35 L. J. Ex. 169 ; 14 L. T. 442 ;

4 H. & C. 418) - - 395

Hubert v. Treherne : see Hubert v. Turner.

- v. Turner (4 Sc. N. E. 486 ; 3 Man. & G. 743 ; Car. & M.

351 ; 6 Jur. 194) - - 271

Huddersfield (Mayor of ), Ex parte (46 L. T. 730) - - 510

- (Corporation of ) v. Jacomb (W. N. (1874), 80) - - 1311

Huddlestone v. Briscoe (11 V. 583) - 264, 276

Hudson v. Bartram (3 Mad. 440) - - 485

- v. Buck (7 Ch. D. 683 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 247 ; 38 L. T. 56 ; 26

W. E. 190) 266, 267

TABLE OF CASES. cli

Hud — Hum. PAGE
Hudson v. Cook (13 Eq. 417 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 306 ; 26 L. T. 180 ; 20 W.

E. 407) 304

• v. Leeds and Bradford Ey. Co. (16 Q. B. 796 ; 21 L. J. Q. B.

486 ; 15 Jur. 946) - 514

— v. McCrea (4 B. & S. 585 ; 33 L. J. M. C. 65 ; 12 W. E. 80) - 426

v. Temple (29 B. 536 ; 30 L. J. Ch. '251 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 248 ;

3 L. T. 495 ; 9 W. E. 243) 181, 484

Hue v. French (26 L. J. Ch. 317 ; 28 L. T. 365 ; 5 W. E. 386) - 965

Hughes' Trusts, In re (2 H. & M. 89; 4 N. E. 455; 12 W. E. 1025) 518, 944

- (19 W. E. 468 ;;24 L. T."415) - 1048

Hughes, Ex parts (6 Y. 617) - - 44, 51, 52, 53, 59

- (8 Y. 617) - 1325

v. Bennett (Cro. Car. 495) - - 890

— v. Biddulph (4 Euss. 190) - - 994

- v. Clark (15 Jur. 430 ; 17 L. T. 0. S. 64) - - 370
• v. Coles (27 Ch. D. 231 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1047 ; 51 L. T. 226 ;

33 W. E. 27) - 461
v. Humphreys (3 E. & B. 954 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 360 ; 1 Jur.

N. S. 42) - - - - - - 728

v. Jones (3 D. F. & J. 307 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 83 ; 8 Jur. N. S.

399 ; 5 L. T. 408 ; 10 W. E. 139) - 145, 158, 503, 519, 977,

1191, 1192, 1199

— v. Kearney (1 Sch. & L. 134) 727, 829

— v. Kelly (3 D. & War. 482) - - 460

— v. Lipscombe (6 Ha. 142) - - 1328
v. Lumley (4 E. & B. 274 ; 24 L. J. Q. B. 57 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

422) - - 528, 961

v. Morris (2 D. M. & Or. 356 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 761 ; 16 Jur. 603) 1138,

1163

— v. - - (9 Ha. 636) 743, 746

- v. Parker (8 M. & W. 244) - - 128

— v. Turner (3 M. & K. 666 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Ch. 141) - - 308

- v. Wells (1 Day. 603) - - 914, 1343

— v. (9 Ha. 749 ; 16 Jur. 927) - - 1067, 1121

- v. Williams (3 M. & G. 683 ; 16 Jur. 415) 944

- v. Wynne (8 Si. 85) - - 471
Huguenin v. Baseley (14 Y. 273 ; 2 Wh. & T. L. C.) - - - 24
Huish's Charity, Re (10 Eq. 5 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 499 ; 22 L. T. 565 ; 18 W.

E. 817) - - 1236

Hulkes v. Day (10 Si. 48 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 21) - - 526

Hull and Hornsea E. Co., In re (2 Eq. 262 ; 14 L. T. 855 ; 14 W. E.

758) 548

andSelbyE. Co., Ee(5N.. & W. 327) - - 380

v. Yaughan (6 Pr. 157) 291, 505

Hulme, Ex parte (3 C. L. E. 149, note (c) ) - - 650

v. Heygate (1 Mer. 285) - 307

Humble v. Humble (12 B. 43) - - - 1333

v. Hunter (12 Q. B. 310 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 350; 12 Jur. 121 ;

11 L. T. 0. S. 265) 212, 1072
v. Langston (7 M. & W. 517) - 1108

clii TABLE OF CASES.

Hum— Hur. PAGE

Hume v. Bentley (5 D. G. & S. 525; 21 L. J. Oh. 760; 16 Jur. 1109) - 164,

169, 175, 191, 1244, 1274, 1326

v. Pocock (1 Ch. 379 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 731 ; 12 Jur. 445 ; 14

L. T. 386; 14 W. E. 681) 164, 173

Humfrey v. Dale (7 E. & B. 266 ; E. B. & E. 1004 ; 26 L. J. Q. B.

137 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 213 ; 28 L. T. 284 ; 5 W. E, 466) - 1074

v. Gery (7 C. B. 567) 459, 460

Humphreys v. Green (10 Q. B. D. 148 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 140 ; 48 L. T.

60; 47 J. P. 244) 1137, 1138

- v. Harrison (1 J. & W. 581) - 289

v. Hollis (Jac, 76) - 1125, 1127

• v. Home (3 Ha. 277) - 909,1153

v. Jones (31 Ch. D. 30; 55 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 53 L. T. 482 ;

34 W.E.I) - 823,1311

v. Pensam (1 M. & C. 580) - 1021

Humphries v. Brogden (12 Q. B. 739) - - - 420

- v. Home (3 Ha. 276) - - 1333
Hungate v. Gascoigne (2 Ph. 25 ; 2 C. P. Coop. t. Cott. 414) - 390, 394
Hungerford, In re (1 K. & J. 413 ; 3 K & J. 455) - 759, 809
Hunt's Estate (W. N. 1884, p. 181) - - 755
Hunt, In re (18 L. T. 0. S. 82) - 817

- v. Bateman (10 Ir. Eq. E. 360) - - 437, 439

v. Bishop (8 Ex. 675 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 337 ; 1 Com. L. E. 97 ; 21

L. T. 0. S. 92) 282

• v. Coles (Com. E. 226) - - 526

- v. Danvers (T. Eaym. 370) - 882
v. Elmes (2 D. F. & J. 578 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 255 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 200 ;

3 L. T. 796 ; 9 W. E. 362) - 952, 987, 991

v. Hunt (4 D. F. & J. 221 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 85 ; 5 L. T. 778 ; 31

L. J. Ch. 161 ; 10 W. E. 215) - 1165

v. Peake (John. 705 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 785 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1071) - 420

v. Eemmant (9 Ex. 635 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 135 ; 18 Jur. 335 ; 22

L. T. O. S. 350; 2 W. E. 276) -282, 613, 916

v. Wimbledon L. B. (3 C. P. D. 208 ; 4 C. P. D. 48 ; 47 L. J.

C. P. 540 ; 48 L. J. C. P. 207 ; 39 L. T. 35 ; 26 W. E. 830 ; 27
W. E. 123) .... 218, 219, 273, 1139
Hunter, Ex parte (6 V. 98) - - 185, 1248

v. Daniel (4 Ha. 420 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 194 ; 9 Jur. 526 ; 4 L. T.

O. S. 473) - 279, 1216

v. Kennedy (1 Ir. Ch. E. 225) - 964

v. Nockolds (1 M. & G. 640 ; 2 Ph. 545 ; 1 H. & Tw. 644 ; 19

L. J. Ch. 177 ; 14 Jur. 256) - - 460, 461, 1257

v. Walters (7 Ch. 75 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 175 ; 25 L. T. 765 ; 20

W. E. 218) 930, 931, 951, 953, 985

v. Watson (May, 1874) - - 296, 302

Hunting v. Sheldrake (9 M. & W. 256) - 895

Huntley v. Eussell (13 Q. B. 572 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 239 ; 13 Jur. 837) - 607

v. Sanderson (1 C. & M. 467 ; 3 Tyr. 469) - 787

Hurd v: Fletcher (Doug. 43) - - 884

Hurle's S. E., Be (2 H. & M. 196 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 78 ; 19 L. T. 592 ;
13 W. E. 171 ; £ N. E. 167) - 79, 1280, 1283

TABLE OF CASES. cliii

Hur— Imp. PAGE

Hurley v. Baker (16 M. & W. 26 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 273) - - - 1075

Hurry v. Hurry (10 Eq. 346; 39 L. J. Ch. 824 ; 22 L. T. 577; 18

W. E. 829) ' - 1304

Hurst v. Hurst (16 B. 372; 22 L. J. Ch. 538; 1 W. E. 105) 87, 1269, 1320
Husband v. Davis (10 C. B. 645 ; 2 L. M. & P. 50 ; 20 L. J. C. P. 118) 685,

747

Hussey v. Home-Payne (8 Ch. D. 670; 4 Ap. Ca. 311 ; 47 L. J. Ch.

751 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 846 ; 38 L. T. 543 ; 41 L. T. 1 ; 26 W. E. 703 ;

27 W. E. 585) - 228, 261, 265, 267

Hutcheson v. Eaton (13 Q. B. D. 861 ; 51 L. T. 846) 213, 1075

Hutchings v. Humphreys (54 L. J. Ch. 650; 52 L. T. 690; 33 W. E.
563) - 1254, 1255

Hutchinson, In re (14 W. E. 473 ; 14 L. T. 129 ; 12 Jur. 244) - 1283

- v. Bowker (5 M. & W. 535) - - - 1091

- v. Cathcart (J. & C. 260) 708, 712, 1343
— v. Copestake (8 C. B. N. S. 102) - - - 406

v. East Lancashire E. Co. (3 E. C. 748) - 512

Vt Kay (23 B. 413 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 457 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 652 ;

29 L. T. O. S. 138 ; 5 W. E. 341) - 149, 607

v. Manchester E. Co. (15 M. & W. 314 ; 3 Ey. Ca. 748 ;

15 L. J. Ex. 293 ; 10 Jur. 361) - 512

v. Morritt (3 Y. & C. 554) - - - 1231

v. Tenant (8 Ch. D. 540 ; 39 L. T. 86 ; 26 W. E. 904 - 1273

Huthwaite, In re (2 Ir. Ch. E. 54) - - 554

Hutton v. Cooper (6 Ex. 159) - 529

- v. Mansell (2 B. 260) - - - 1338
v. Eosseter (7 D. M. & G. 9 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 106 ; 24 L. T. 0. S.

164 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 61 ; 3 Eq. E. 589 ; 3 W. E. 97, 387) - 898

Hutton v. Sealy (4 Jur. N. S. 450 ; 31 L. T. 173) - - 1317

v. Warren (1 M. & W. 466 ; 2 Gale, 7) - - - 1091

Hyam v. Terry (25 Sol. J. 371) - 1083

- v. (29 W. E. 32) - - - 1226

Hyde, Exparte (cited Seton, 1443) - - 809
v. Dallaway (4 B. 606 ; 6 Jur. 119)- - 123, 451, 1267

v. Manchester (Corporation of) (5 De G. & S. 249 ; 16 Jur. 189 ;

19 L. T. 0. S. 6) - - - 1039

v. Price (8 Si. 593) - 708

v. Warden (3 Ex. D. 72 ; 47 L. J. Ex. 121 ; 37 L. T. 567 ; 26

W. E. 201) ... 106, 132, 174, 191, 192, 984

v. Wrench (3 B. 334) - - 268

Hyett v. Mekin (25 Ch. D. 735 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 241 ; 50 L. T. 54 ; 32

W. E. 513) - ... 299, 1303

Hynes v. Eedington (10 Ir. Ch. E. 206) - - - - 702

Ibbotson v. Ehodes (2 Vern. 554 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 229, pi. 13) 109, 517, 947
Icely v. Grew (6 N. & M. 467) 185, 1085

Iggulden v. May (9 V. 325 ; 3 Sm. 269 ; 7 Ea. 237 ; 2 N. E. 449) - 1094
Imperial Gas Co. v. London Gas Co. (10 Ex. 39 ; 2 C. L. E. 1230 ;
23 L. J. Ex. 303 ; 18 Jur. 497) - - - - - 881

TABLE OF CASES.

Inc — Jac. PAGE

Inchbald v. Kobinson (4 Oh. 388 ; 20 L. T. 259 ; 17 W. E. 459) - 1045

Incorporated Society v. Bichards (1 D. & War. 288) - 441, 445, 464

Ind, Coope & Co. v. Emmerson (12 Ap. Ca. 300) 941, 1357

Inderwick, Re (25 Ch. D. 279 ; 50 L. T. 221 ; 32 W. R. 541) - 819, 822
Inge v. B. Wand. & S. Y. E. Co. (3 D. M. & G. 658 ; 2 Eq. E. 80 ; 22

L. T. 0. S. 109 ; 2 W. E. 22) - - - - 62

v. Birmingham, &c. E. Co. (3 D. M. & G. 658) - - 508, 1112

Ingle In re (21 B. 275; 25 L. J. Ch. 169; 1 Jur. N. S. 1059; 26

L. T. 65) - - 818

- v. Eichards (28 B. 361 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1178 ; 8 W. E. 696) 44, 49, 50
Ingleby & Norwich Insurance Co., Re (13 L. E. Ir. 326) 294, 683, 684
Ingram's Trusts, Re (11 W. E. 980 ; 8 L. T. 758) - - 99

Ingram v. Little (1 C. & E. 186) - 445, 458

Inland Eevenue (Commissioners of) v. Harrison (L. E. 7 II. L. 1 ;

43 L. J. Ex. 138 ; 30 L. T. 274 ; 22 W. E. 559) - 315, 317

Inman v. Inman (15 Eq. 260 ; 21 W. E. 433) 5

— v. Stamp (1 Stark. 12) - - - 236

Innes v. Jackson (16 Y. 367) - 1186

v. Sayer (3 M. & G. 614) - - - 1092

Irby v. Irby (4 Jur. N. S. 989 ; 6 W. E. 853) - 943

v. - - (22 B. 217) - - 1342

Ireland (Bank of) v. Brookfield Linen Co. (15 L. E. Ir. 37) - 106, 978
- v. Bircham (2 Sc. 207 ; 2 Bing. N. C. 90) 881, 884, 885

Ireson v. Pearman (5 Dowl. & E. 687 ; 3 B. & C. 799) - 522

Irish Land Commission v. Grant (10 Ap. Ca. 14; 52 L. T. 228 ; 33

W. E. 357 ; 13 L. E. Ir. 478) - 403, 434, 452

Irnham (Lord) v. Child (1 Br. C. C. 94 ; 2 Dick. 554) 1149, 1159, 1182
Irvine v. Kirkpatrick (7 Bell, Ap. Ca. 186) - - 1174

v. Watson (5 Q. B. D. 414 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 531 ; 42 L. T. 810) 1072

Isle of Wight Ferry Co., In re (11 Jur. N. S. 279 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 194;

12 L. T. 263) - 544

Ithel v. Potter (1 P. Wms. 771) - - - 272

Ithell v. Beane (1 Y. sen. 215; 1 Dick. 132) - 674

Ivemey, Ex parte (9 Jur. 371) - - 773

Iven v Elwes (3 Dr. 25 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 249 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 6 ; 24 L. T.

0. S. 187; 3Eq. E. 163; 3 W. E. 119) - - 636

Ives, Re (3 Ch. D. 690 ; 24 W. E. 1068) - - - - 1283

Jack v. Armstrong (1 Hud. & B. 727) 773, 964

Jackson, Re (34 Ch. D. 732) 1048, 1049

— v. Cater (5 Y. 688) - 1159

— v. Hobhouse (2 Mer. 488) - - 11

— v. Jackson (7 Y. 535 ; 9 Y. 597) - - 1047, 1051
v. (1 S. & G. 184 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 878 ; 17 Jur. 293 ;

21 L. T. O. S. 98 ; 1 W. E. 264) - - 258

- v. Lever (3 Br. C. C. 605) - 288, 1209
v. Lomas (23 W. E. 744) - - - - - 1309

TABLE OF CASES. civ

Jac-Jef.

Jackson v. Milfield (5 Ha. 538) - ... 1348

- v. Newcastle (Duke of) (3 D. J. & S. 275 ; 10 Jur. N. S.

688 ; 10 L. T. 635 ; 4 N. B. 448 ; 12 W. B. 1066) - 408
-- , Vt North Wales B. Co. (1 H. & Tw. 75 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 91 ;

13 Jur. 69 ; 12 L. T. O. S. 489) - 273

__ v. Ogg (John. 397 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 976 ; 7 W. B. 730) - - 459
. __ v. Oglander (2 H. & M. 465 ; 13 L. T. 16 ; 13 W. B. 926) - 249,

262, 264, 272, 1148

-- v. Petrie (10 Y. 164) - 1107, 1253

-- v. Bowe (2 S. & S. 472 ; 4 L. J. Ch. 118) 970, 973, 977

--- v. Talbot (21 Ch. D. 786) - 2

-- v. Whitehead (28 B. 154 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 133) - - - 175

-- v. Winnifrith (47 L. T. 243) 868, 873

- and Oakshott, Re (14 Ch. D. 851 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 523; 28

W. B. 794) 179, 181, 183

— and Woodburn, Re (W. N. 1887, p. 182) - - 1238

Jacob v. Kirk (2 Mo. & B. 221) - - 252, 261
Jacques v. Millar : see Jaques v. Millar.

Jacquet v. Jacquet (27 B. 332 ; 7 W. B. 543) - - - 439

Jakeinan's Trusts, Re (23 Ch. D. 344 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 363) - 12, 954

James, Ex parte (8 V. 349) -44, 49, 50, 52, 53

- , In re (5 Eq. 334) - 1291

- v. James (16 Eq. 153 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 386 ; 21 W. B. 522) 543, 548,

1321

- v. Lichfield (9Eq. 51 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 248) - 519, 976, 1196, 1204

- v. Plant (4 A. & E. 761) - 431, 611

- v. Bice (Kay, 231 ; 5 D. M. & G. 461 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 243, 819;

18 Jur. 373, 818 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. 218 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 57 ;

2 Eq. B. 203 ; 2 W. B. 183, 542, 658) - - 145

— v. Bumsey (11 Ch. D. 398 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 27 W. B. 617) 478

- v. Salter (2 Bing. N. C. 505 ; 4 Sc. 168 ; 3 Bing. N. C. 544) - 435,

446, 461

- v. Shore (1 Stark. 426) . 276
— v. Whitbread (11 C. B. 406 ; 20 L. J. C. P. 217 ; 15 Jur. 612) 1026

Jameson v. Stein (21 B. 5 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 41 ; 25 L. T. 300) - 576, 1067
Jamieson v. N. B. B. Co. (6 Scot. L. B. 188) - - - 130

Jaques v. Millar (6 Ch. D. 153 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 544 ; 37 L. T. 151 ; 25

W. B. 846) 256, 263, 1095

Jarmain v. Engelstone (5 C. & P. 172) - 472, 1077

Jarman, Ex parte (4 Ch. D. 835 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 485) - - 477

Jarrett v. Hunter (34 Ch. D. 182 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 141 ; 55 L. T. 727;

35 W. B. 132) - - - 252

Jayiies v. Hughes (10 Ex. 430; 24 L. J. Ex. 115) - - 445

Jeakes v. White (6 Ex. 873 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 265) - 232, 1076

Jeans v. Cooke (24 B. 513 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 202 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 57 ; 30

L. T. 253; 6 W. B. 175) - 1055, 1058, 1060, 1061

Jeffereys v. Small (1 Vern. 217 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 370, pi. 1) - _ 1049

Jefferson v. Tyrer (9 Jur. 1083 ; 6 L. T. 0. S. 343) - ^ - 67

TABLE OF CASES.

Jef— Jer. PAGE

Jeffrey v. Neale (L. E. 6 0. P. 240 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 191 ; 24 L. T.

362 ; 19 W. E. 700) - - - 192

v. Stephens (6 Jur. N. S. 947 ; 2 L. T. 716 ; 8 W. E. 427) - 1151

Jeffreys v. Fairs (4 Ch. D. 448 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 113 ; 36 L. T. 10; 25

W. E. 227) 105, 1211

v. Machu (29 B. 344) - 367

Jeffries v. Williams (5 Ex. 792 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 14) - - 420

Jendwine v. Slade (2 Esp. 573) - 113

Jenkin v. Eow (5 De G. & S. 107) - - 1316

Jenkins v. Betham (24 L. J. C. P. 94 ; 15 C. B. 168 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 237 ;

24 L. T. 0. S. 273 ; 3 Com. L. E. 373 ; 3 W. E. 283) - 260

v. Briant (6 Si. 603 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 169) - - 895

- v. Gething (2 J. & H. 520) - - 607

- v. Green (27 B. 437 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 817 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 304) - 255
v. Herries (4 Mad. 67) - 1273

v. Hiles (6 V. 653) - - 1243

v. Hutchinson (13 Q. B. 744; 13 Jur. 763; 18 L. J. Q. B.

274; 13 L. T. 0. S. 401) 213, 1074

v. Jones (6 Jur. N. S. 391 ; 2 Gif. 99 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 493 ; 2

L. T. 128 ; 8 W. E. 270) - - 73, 80, 81, 374

v. (9 Q. B. D. 128 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 438 ; 46 L. T. 795 ;

30 W. E. 668) - - 277, 278, 282

- v. Keymis (1 Lev. 237) - 1016, 1022

- v. Morris (14 Ch. D. 674 ; 42 L. T. 817 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 392) - 7

- v. Portman (1 Ke. 435 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 313) - - - 312

Jenkinson, In re (24 B. 64 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 241 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 279 ; 28

L. T. 0. S. 280 ; 5 W. E. 301) - - - 314

- v. Pepys (cited 6 V. 356 ; 15 V. 521) - 124, 1154

- v. Watts (Lofft. 609) - 307
Jenkyns v. Bushby (2 Eq. 547 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 820 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 558 ;

15 L. T. 310) - 995, 996

v. Vaughan (3 Dr. 419 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 338 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 109 ;

26 L. T. 268 ; 4 W. E. 214) - - 1028

Jenner v. Jenner (1 Eq. 361 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 138 ;

14 W. E. 305) - 594, 838

v. (2 D. F. & J. 359 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 201 ; 6 Jur. N. S.

1314 ; 3 L. T. 488 ; 9 W. E. 109) - 848

Jennings v. Blincorne (2 Vern. 609 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 122, pi. 4) - - 909

- v. Bond (2 J. & L. 720) - 942, 972

v. Broughton (5 D. M. & G. 126 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 999) 116, 154, 898

v. Hammond (9 Q. B. D. 225 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 493 ; 31 W. E.

40) - - 1163
v. Hopton (1 Mad. 212) - - 1227

- v. Johnson (L. E. 8 C. P. 425) - - 820

- v. Jordan (6 Ap. Ca. 698 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 129 ; 45 L. T. 593 ;

30 W. E. 369) - 574, 654, 784, 1037

v. Ward (2 Vern. 520) - - 282

Jermy v. Preston (13 Si. 356) - 298

Jerritt v. Weare (3 Pr. 575) - - 883

Jersey (Earl of) v. Briton Ferry Floating Dock Co. (7 Eq. 409) - 835

TABLE OF CASES. civil

Jer— Job.

Jervis v. Berridge (8 Oh. 360; 42 L. J. Oh. 518; 28 L. T. 481 ; 21

W. E. 395) - - - - - 228

- v. Tomkinson (1 H. & N. 206 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 41) - 1217
Jervoise v. Northumberland (Duke of) (1 J. & W. 570) - 362, 1229, 1230,

1232, 1275

Jeudwine v. Alcock (1 Mad. 597) - - 1240, 1241

Jewell v. Christie (L. K. 2 C. P. 296 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 168 ; 15 L. T.

580) - - - 707

Jillard v. Edgar (3 De G. & S. 507 ; 13 Jur. 1114) - 898, 1039

Joachim v. M'Douall (9 Si. 314, n.) - - 469

Job v. Banister (2 K. & J. 374 ; 5 W. E. 177 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 125 ; 3

Jur. N. S. 93 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 242) - 195, 1262

Jodrell v. Jodrell (7 Eq. 461 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 507 ; 20 L. T. 349 ; 17

W. E. 602) ..... 915

John v. Jones (34 L. T. 570) - - - 47

Johnasson v. Bonhote (2 Ch. D. 298 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 651 ; 34 L. T. 745 ;

24 W. E. 619) - 1148

Johns v. James (8 Ch. D. 744 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 853 ; 39 L. T. 54 ; 26

W. E. 821) - - - 1020

Johnson's Settled Estate, Re (W. N. (1869) 87) - 1294

- Settlements, Re (8 Eq. 348) - - - 753
Johnson, Re (29 Ch. D. 964 ; 52 L. T. 682 ; 33 W. E. 502) - - 455

- and Tustin, In re (30 Ch. D. 42 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 889 ; 53 L. T.

281 ; 33 W. E. 737) - - 159, 163, 470, 471

- v. Barnes (L. E. 8 C. P. 527 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 259 ; 29 L. T. 65) 425

- v. Fesemeyer (3 D. & J. 13) - - - 44

- v. Holdsworth (1 Si. N. S. 106; 20 L. J. Ch. 63) 528, 555, 959,

960

- v. Johnson (3 B. & P. 162) - - 666, 1078, 1084
-- v. - — (35 Ch. D. 345 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 326 ; 56 L. T. 163 ;

35 W. E. 329) - 645

-- v. Kennett (3 M. & K. 624) - - 673, 674, 675, 676, 699

— v. Kershaw (1 De G. & S. 260; 11 Jur. 553) - - - 1019

- v. Lawson (2 Bing. 86 ; 9 Moore, 183) - 393

- v. Legard (3 Mad. 283; T. & E. 281) - 1002, 1012, 1019, 1118,

1164, 1234, 1276

-v. Nott(l Vern. 271) - 909

— v. Pye (1 Sid. 258; 1 Lev. 169; 1 Keb. 905) - 5

- v. Eoberts (24 L. T. 0. S. 254) - - 207

- v. Smart (2 Gif. 151 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 815 ; 2 L. T. 307) - - 137

- v. Smiley (17 B. 233; 22 L. J. Ch. 826; 1 Eq. E. 397) 171, 186

- v. St. Peter's, Hereford (4 N. & M. 186; 4 A. & E. 520;

1 H. & W. 720) - - - 916
_ v. Webster (4 D. M. & G. 488 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 300 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

145 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 178 ; 3 Eq. E. 99 ; 3 W. E. 84) - 824

Johnston v. Todd (5 B. 597) - - 393
Johnstone's Settlements (14 Ch. D. 162 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 596 ; 28 W. E.

593) - - - 300

Johnstone v. Baber (8 B. 233 ; 4 L. T. 0. S. 392) - 70, 1324, 1351

clvill TABLE OF CASES.

Joh — Jon. PAGE

Johnstone v. Hall (2 K. & J. 420 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 462 ; 27 L. T. 0. S.

230 ; 4 W. E. 417) - - - 874,875

v. Milling (16 Q. B. D. 460 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 162 ; 54 L. T.

629 ; 34 W. E. 238 ; 50 J. P. 694) - - 1089

v. Spencer (Earl) (30 Ch. D. 581 ; 53 L. T. 502 ; 34 W. E.

10) 571

Joliffe v. Baker (11 Q. B. D. 255 ; 52 L. J. Q, B. 609 ; 48 L. T. 966 ;

32 W. E. 59 ; 47 J. P. 678) 900, 905

Jolland v. Stainbridge (3 V. 478) 959, 965, 967, 968
Jolly v. Arbuthnot (4 D. & J. 224 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 547 ; 33 L. T. 0. S.

263 ; 7 W. E. 532)- - - 912

v. Handcock (7 Ex. 820 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 38 ; 16 Jur. 550) - - 356

Jones' Settled Estate, Re (4 Jur. N. S. 584 ; 6 W. E. 614) - - 807

• Settled Estates, Ee (I Jur. N. S. 817; 25 L. T. 0. S. 223;

3 Eq. E. 735 ; 3 W. E. 564) - 760

Trust Estate, In re (39 L. J. Ch. 190 ; 18 W. E. 312) - - 811

Jones, Exparte( 18 Ch. D. 109; 50 L. J. Ch. 673; 44 L. T. 587; 29

W. E. 747) 5

— , Ex parte (10 Ch. 663 ; 33 L. T. 1 16 ; 23 W. E. 886) - - 17

, Ex parte (4 Y. & C. 466) - - 447

-, Ex parte (14 Ch. D. 624; 43 L. T. 84) - - - 811

, Tn re (2 Ch. D. 70 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 688 ; 34 L. T. 470 ; 24 W. E.

377) - ... 656
— , In re, Zincraft's Will Trusts : see Zincraft.

• , Re (2 D. F. & J. 554 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 112 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 115 ;

3L. T. 495; 9 W.E. 175)- - 656

— , Re (9 Eq. 63 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 83 ; 21 L. T. 482 ; 18 W. E. 159) 815

-, Re (8 B. 479) 816, 818

, Re (54 L. T. 648) - - 819

— , Re (3 W. E. 564) - - 1326

- v. Bailey (17 B. 582) - 543, 1320, 1321

v. Barkley (Dougl. 684) - 1086

v. Bone (9 Eq. 674 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 405 ; 23 L. T. 304 ; 18 W. E.

489) - - 138

v. Clifford (3 Ch. D. 779 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 809 ; 35 L. T. 937 ;

• 24 W. E. 979 - 164, 165, 169, 497, 498, 907

- v. Creswicke (9 Si. 304 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 113 ; 4 Jur. 216) - 469

v. Davies (8 Jur. N. S. 592 ; 7 H. & N. 507 ; 31 L. J. Ex.

116 ; 6 L. T. 442 ; 10 W. E. 464) - 311

— v. Downman (4<Q. B. 235, n. ; 7 Q. B. 103) 211, 1074

— v. Dyke (Sug. 82, 813) - 203

- v. Edney (3 Camp. 285) - - 133, 138

— v. Evans (17 L. J. Ch. 469 ; 12 Jur. 664) - 1189
— -v. Farrell (1 D. & J. 208) - - 1258

v. Flint (10 A. & E. 760 ; 2 P. & D. 594 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Q. B.

252) 234, 235

v. Giles (10 Ex. 119; 22 L. T. 103 ; 23 L. T. 255 ; 2 W. E.

623) - - 728
v. Higgins (2 Eq. 538 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 403 ; 14 L. T. 126 ; 14

W.E. 448) - - - 56

. v. Jones (4 K. & J. 361 ; 32 L. T. O. S. 49) - - 702

TABLE OF CASES. cllX

Jon— Kay. PAGE

Jones v. Jones (1 0. & M. 721) - 798

v. (8 Si. 633 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 164 ; 2 Jur. 589) 518, 942,

943

- v. Kearney (1 D. & War. 134 ; 4 Ir. Eq. E. 82) - - 13, 910

— v. King (4 M. & S. 188) - 891

v. Lewis (1 De G. & S. 245 ; 2 M. & G. 163 ; 11 Jur. 511 ; 9

L. T. 0. S. 168) - 572, 806, 814

v. Littledale (6 A. & E. 486 ; 1 N. & P. 677) - - 1073

v. Lock (1 Ch. 25 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 117 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 913 ; 13

L. T. 514 ; 14 W. E. 149) - 1018, 10c4

v. Mudd (4 Euss. 118 ; 6 L. J. Ch. 26) - - 709, 719

— v. Nanney (13 Pr. 99 ; M'Cleland, 25) 139, 204, 2C8

- v. Newman (1 W. Bl. 60) - - 1092
v. Orchard (16 C. B. 614 ; 3 C. L. E. 1275 ; 24 L. J. C. P.

229 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 936) - - 1096

- v. Powles (3 M. & K. 58 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 210) - 930
v. Price (11 Si. 557) 674, 1272

_ v, (3 Anst. 924) - 347

- v. Pugh (1 Ph. 96; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 323 ; 6 Jur. 613)- - 995

v. Eicketts (31 B. 130 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 753 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1198 ;

10 W. E. 576) - - - 850
v. Eimmer (14 Ch. D. 588 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 775 ; 43 L. T. Ill ;

29 W. E. 165) - 107, 112, 133, 134, 1201

• — v. Eoe(3T. E. 93) - - 911

— v. Eyde (5 Taunt. 488) - 666
v. Smith (1 Ph. 255 ; 4 Y. & C. 564, n. ; 1 Ha. 43) 766, 928, 970,

971, 975, 979, 984, 986, 987

v. Stanley (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 685, pi. 9) - 928

v. Thomas (2 Y. & C. 520) - - 46

v. Whittaker (Long & T. 141) - 1021

— v. Williams (24 B. 47 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1066 ; 5 W. E. 775) 972, 979
Jordan v. Jones (2 Ph. 170) - 1186, 1347, 1348

- v. Sawkins (1 V. 402) - - - 1150
Jorden v. Money (5 H. L. C. 185 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 865) - 948
Jortin v. S. E. E. Co. (6 D. M. & G. 275 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 343 ; 16 Jur.

443 ; 25 L. T. 16 ; 3 Eq. E. 281 ; 3 W. E. 190) - - 554

Jowett v. Board (12 Jur. 933 ; 16 Sim. 352; 18 L. J. Ch. 53) - 307

Joy v. Birch (4 C. & F. 57, 89 ; 10 Bli. N. S. 201) - - 926

Joyce, In re (2 Eq. 576 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 1015) - 655

- v. De Moleyns (2 J. & L. 374) - - 476, 940

v. Button (11 Ir. Ch. E. 123) - 1010

Joynes v. Statham (3 Atk. 388) - - - 1153

Judge v. Lowe (7 I. E. C. L. 291) - - 404

Jumpson v. Pitchers (1 Coll. 13 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 166 ; 13 Si. 327) 321, 448,

1239, 1348

Kay v. Johnson (2 H. & M. 118) - - - - 1108
v. Johnston (21 B. 536) ... 1050

TABLE OF CASES.

Kay— Ken. PAGE

Kay v. Oxley (L. E. 10 Q. B. 369 ; 44 L. J. Q. B. 210 ; 33 L. T. 164) 609,

611

Kearley and Clayton's Contract, Re (7 Ch. D. 615 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 474 ;
38 L. T. 92 ; 26 W. E. 324) . ... 17, 1275

Kearney v. Eyan (2 L. E. Ir. 61) - - - 908

Keates v. Cadogan (Earl) (10 C. B. 591; 20 L. J. C. P. 76; 15

Jur. 428; 16 L. T. O. S. 367) 102, 103, 104

v. Lyon (4 Ch. 218 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 357 ; 20 L. T. 255 ; 17 W. E.

338) - - - 783, 865, 867

Keatinge v. Keatinge (6 Ir. Eq. E. 43) - - - 1346

Keech v. Sandford (1 Wh. & T. L. C. ; Sel. Cas. in Ch. 61) - - 39

Keeler, Re (11 W. E. 62 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 101 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 95 ; 1 N. E.
44) - 664

Keeling v. Brown (5 V. 359) - 692, 693

Keenan v. Handley (2 D. J. & S. 283) - 855

Keer v. Brown (John. 138 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 477 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 457 ; 33
L. T. 0. S. 179 ; 7 W. E. 172) - 779

Kekewich v. Manning (1 D. M. & G. 176 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 577 ; 18

L. T. 0. S. 263) 1012, 1018, 1208

v. Marker (3 M. & G. 311 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 182 ; 15 Jur. 687;

17 L. T. O. S. 193) - - - 76

Kelk v. Pearson (6 Ch. 809 ; 24 L. T. 890 ; 19 W. E. 655) - - 408

Kell v. Nokes (11 W. E. 978 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 785 ; 8 L. T. 824) - - 1076
Kelland v. Fulford (6 Ch. D. 491 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 94 ; 25 W. E. 506) - 761
KeUy v. Jackson (13 Ir. Eq. E. 129) - 996

v. Webster (12 C. B. 283 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 163 ; 16 Jur. 838 ; 19

L. T. 0. S. 298) - - 231

Kelner v. Baxter (L. E. 2 C. P. 174 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 94 ; 12 Jur. N. S.

1016 ; 15 L. T. 313 ; 15 W. E. 278) - - 62, 216, 217, 219, 1125

Kelsey, In re (16 C. B. 197 ; 3 C. L. E. 37) - 650, 651

- v. Dodd (52 L. J. Ch. 34) - - 872

Kelson v. Kelson (10 Ha. 385 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 745 ; 17 Jur. 129 ; 1

W. E. 143) - 1018

Kemble v. Kean (6 Si. 333) - - 1167

Kemeys v. Proctor (1 J. & W. 350) - - 209

Kemp's Settled Estates, Re (24 Ch. D. 485 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 950 ; 49 L. T.

231 ; 31 W. E. 930) - - - 72

Kemp v. Sober (1 Si. N. S. 517) 874, 875

Kempson v. Ashbee (10 Ch. 15 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 195 ; 31 L. T. 525 ; 23

W. E. 38) - 848, 849

Kendall v. Beckett (2 E. & M. 90; 9 L. J. Ch. 24) 844, 845, 1104, 1130

v. Hill (6 Jur. N. S. 968 ; 2 L. T. 717) - - 192

v. Hulls (11 Jur. 864 ; 9 L. T. O. S. 410) - - 993

Kennedy v. Daly (1 Sch. & L. 379) - - 1023

v. Green (3 M. & K. 699) - 480, 970, 978, 991, 992

v. Lee (3 Mer. 441) - 239, 268, 277

v. Lyell (15 Q. B. D. 491 ; 53 L. T. 466) - - 277, 278, 282

Kenney v. Browne (3 Eidg. 518) - 948, 986, 1032

v. Wexham (6 Mad. 355) - 715, 1108, 1209

Kenrick v. Wood (9 Eq. 333 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 92 ; 19 W. E. 57) - - 11

TABLE OF CASES. clxi

Ken— Kin. PAGE

Kensington (Lord), lit (29 Ch. D. 527 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1085 ; 53 L. T.

19 ; 33 W. E. 689) - - 553
v. Bouverio (7 D. M. & G. 134 ; 24 L. J. Ch.

442 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 577 ; 25 L. T. O. S. 169 ; 3 W. R. 469) - - 1067
Kensit v. G. E. E. Co. (27 Ch. D. 122 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 19 ; 51 L. T.

862 ; 32 W. E. 885 ; 47 J. P. 534) - 415

Kent v. Eiley (14 Eq. 190; 41 L. J. Ch. 569; 27 L. T. 263 ; 20 W. E.
852) - - - 1029

Kenworthy v. Schofield (2 B. & C. 945 ; 4 D. & E. 556 ; 2 L. J. Q. B.

175) - - - - - - 209, 257, 270

Keogh v. Keogh (13 Ir. Eq. E. 284) - - - 1350

- v. M'Grath (5 L. E. Ir. 478) - 278, 279

Keon v. Magawly (1 D. & War. 401) - - - 675

Keppell v. Bailey (2 M. & K. 535) - 612, 865

Ker, In re (12 B. 390) - - - 816, 819

• v. Cloberry (Sug. 321) - - 1201

- v. Crowe (7 I. E. C. L. 181) - - 179

v. Dungannon (Lord) (1 D. & War. 509) - 985

Kerkin v. Kerkin (18 Jur. 813) - - - 362
Kerr v. Gillespie (7 B. 572 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 135) - 994
v. Pawson (25 B. 394 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 594 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 425 ; 31

L. T. O. S. 224 ; 6 W. E. 447) - 155, 189, 330, 1201, 1275

Kerrey Glazier, In re (cited Tilsley, 194) - - 790

Kerrison v. Dorrien (9 Bing. 76; 2 M. & Sc. 114) - - 1003

Kershaw v. Kalow (1 Jur. N. S. 974) 81, 95

- v. Kershaw (9 Eq. 56 ; 21 L. T. 651 ; 18 W. E. 477) - 717, 718
Ketley's or Ketsey's Case (Cro. Jac. 320 ; 1 Brownl. & Gold. 120) 29, 30

Kettlewell v. Watson (21 Ch. D. 714 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 281 ; 46 L. T.

83 ; 30 W. E. 402) - - 991

v. (26 Ch. D. 501 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 717 ; 51 L. T.

135 ; 32 W. E. 865) - -767, 768, 825, 833, 953, 973

Kevan v. Crawford (6 Ch. D. 29 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 729 ; 37 L. T. 322 ; 25

W. E. 49) - - - - - - - 1025

Keyse v. Haydon (9 Ha. App. Iviii.) - 1228

v. Heydon (20 L. T. 0. S. 244 ; 1 W. E. 112) - 169, 173, 319

„. Powell (2 E. & B. 132 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 305 ; 17 Jur. 1052 ;

21 L. T. 0. S. 126) - ... 129, 448

Kibble, Ex parte (10 Ch. 373 ; 44 L. J. Bkcy. 63 ; 32 L. T. 138 ; 23

W. E. 433) ... 6

Kidderminster (Mayor, &c. of) v. Hardwick (L. E. 9 Ex. 24 ; 43

L. J. Ex. 9 ; 29 L. T. 612 ; 22 W. E. 160) - 218, 219, 273

Kiddill v. Farnell (3 S. & G. 428 ; 5 W. E. 324) - - 1018

Kilderbee v. Ambrose (10 Ex. 454 ; 3 C. L. E. 181 ; 24 L. J. Ex. 49) 398
Killick v. Flexney (4 B. C. C. 161) - - 40

Kilmorey's (Earl of) Settled Estates, Ee (26 W. E. 54) - - - 1284

Kilpin v. Kilpin (1 M. & K. 520) - - 1057, 1059

Kimberley v. Jennings (6 Si. 340) 1167, 1172

Kinderley v. Jervis (22 B. 1 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 602 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 245 ;

4 W. E. 579) 549, 702

King, In re (3 D. & J. 63 ; 31 L. T. O. S. 242 ; 6 W. R. 640) - - 947
D. /

Clxii TABLE OF CASES.

Kin — Kni. PAGE

King v. Chamberlayne (W. N. (1887), 158) - 173, 489

v. Cotton (2 P. W. 674) - - - 1017

v. Hamlet (2 M. & K. 473 ; Sug. 1084, llth od.) 846, 847, 852

v. Heenan (3 D. M. & G. 890) - - 61

v. Jones (5 Taunt. 418) - 882, 888, 891, 893

v. King (1 M. & K. 442) - 505, 1214, 1227, 1270

v. Leach (2 Ha. 57) - - 1348

v. Malcott (9 Ha. 692) - - 1345

v. Moody (2 S. & S. 579 ; 4 L. J. Ch. 227) - - 326

v. Savery (1 S. & G. 271 ; 1 W. E. 141) - 45, 46, 846

v. Smith (2 Ha. 239 ; 7 Jur. 694) - 289

v. Wilson (6 B. 124) - 133, 488, 490, 735, 736

v. Wycombe E. Co. (28 B. 104 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 462 ; 6 Jur.

N. S. 239 ; 2 L. T. 107) - - 245

King's College, Ex parte (5 De G. & S. 621) - - - 807

, Aberdeen v. Hay (1 Macq. 526; 17 Dunl. H. L. 30)- 876,

877

King's Mortgage (5 De G. & S. 644) - - - 659

Kingdon v. Bridges (2 Vern. 67) - 1059

v. Nottle (4 M. & S. 53) - - 891

Kingsford v. Ball (2 Gift. App. 1) - 312, 1117

Kingsley v. Young (17 V. 468 ; 18 Y. 207) - 187, 1130, 1204

Kingsmill v. Millard (11 Ex. 313 ; 3 C. L. E. 1022) - - 188

Kinnaird (Lord) v. Christie (21 B. Ill, n.) 162, 1349

Kinsman v. Eouse (17 Ch. D. 104 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 486 ; 44 L. T. 597 ;

29 W. E. 627) - 434,451
Kintrea v. Preston (1 H. & N. 357 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 287) - - - 319
Kirby v. Hansaker (Cro. Jac. 315) - - 883
Kirk v. Clark (Ch. Prec. 275) - - - 1019
Kirkman v. Booth (11 B. 273 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 25 ; 13 Jur. 525 ; 13 L. T.

O. S. 482) - 96, 208

Kirksmeaton (Eector of), Ex parte (20 Ch. D. 203 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 581 ;

30 W. E. 539) - - - - - - --753

Kirkwood v. Lloyd (12 Ir. Eq. E. 585) - 462
v. Thompson (2 D. J. & S. 613 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 305 ; 12 L. T.

811; 6N. E. 367; 13 W. E. 1052) - - - 41

Kirtland v. Pounsett (2 Taun. 145) - 290, 504, 1085

Kirwan v. Daniel (5 Ha. 493; 16 L. J. Ch. 191 ; 11 Jur. 235) - - 1019
'Kitchen v. Palmer (46 L. J. Ch. 611) - 179, 182, 323, 324

Knapp v. St. Mary, Willesden (15 Jur. 473 ; 2 Eob. Ecc. Eep. 358 ;

17 L. T. 0. S. 191) - - 333

Knatchbull's Settled Estate, Re (29 Ch. D. 588; 54 L. J. Ch. 154,

1168 ; 51 L. T. 695 ; 53 L. T. 284 ; 33 W. E. 10, 269) - 751

Knatchbullv.Grueber(lMad. 170; 3Mer.l24) 498,503,1184,1201,1216
Knight's Will, Re (26 Ch. D. 82 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 223 ; 49 L. T. 774 ; 32

W. E. 336) - 813

Knight v. Barber (16 M. & W. 69 ; 2 C. & K. 333 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 18 ;

10 Jur. 929 ; 8 L. T. O. S. 121) - - 121
v. Boughton (12 B. 312 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 66) - - - 915

TABLE OF CASES. clxiii

Kni— Lai. PAGE

Knight r. Bowyor (2 D. & J. 421 ; 23 B. 635 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 769 ; 27 L. J.

Ch. 520; 3 Jur. N. S. 968; 4 Jur. N. S. 569; 30 L. T. O. S.

95 ; 31 L. T. 287 ; 6 W. E. 28, 565) - 437, 440, 453, 976

v. Browne (9 W. E. 515 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 649 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 894 ;

4 L. T. 206) - - 23

• v. Crockford (1 Esp. 190) - 251, 1086

v. Frampton (4 B. 10 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 247) - 312

v. Harden (Beames on Costs, 38) - - 1265

r. Majoribanks (2 M. & G. 10 ; 2 H. & Tw. 308) 41, 1258

v. Marjoribanks (11 B. 349 ; 13 Jur. 136) - 841, 855, 1209

v. Pocock (24 B. 436 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 297 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 197 ; 30

L. T. O. S. 126) - 834, 1346, 1352

v. Waterford (Marquis of) (2 Y. & C. 39) - - 993

Knollys v. Alcock (7 V. 558) 295, 300

-r. Shepherd (1 J. &W. 499) - - 302, 303

Knott, Ex parte (11 V. 619) - 933, 935

- v. Cottee (27 B. 33) - 1323, 1324, 1349
Knowle's Settled Estates, Re (27 Ch. D. 707) - 1281
Knowles v. Haughton (11 V. 168) - -1162

- r. Michel (13 Ea. 249) - 235

Knox v. Brown (2 Br. C. C. 186) - - 1264

v. Kelly (1 D. & Wai. 542) - 555

v. Sanson (25 W. E. 864) - - - 414

v. Turner (9 Eq. 155 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 207 ; 21 L. T. 701)- - 854

Krehl v. Burrell (7 Ch. D. 551 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 353 ; 38 L. T. 407) - 871

v. Park (31 L. T. 325 ; 22 W. E. 477) - 286, 507

v, (10 Ch. 334) - - 1267

Kronheim v. Johnson (7 Ch. D. 60 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 132 ; 37 L. T. 751 ;
26 W. E. 142) - - - 253, 261

Kyngeston's Charity, Ee (30 W. E, 78) - - - 759

Lacey, Ex parte (6 V. 625) - 36, 37, 38, 39, 50, 51, 56

, Re (25 Ch. D. 301 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 287 ; 49 L. T. 755 ; 32 W. E.

233) - 320, 822, 823
v. Hill (19 Eq. 346 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 215 ; 32 L. T. 49 ; 23 W. E.

285) - - 614, 702

Lachlan v. Eeynolds (Kay, 52 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 8 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. 211 ; 2

W. E. 49) 127, 1242, 1337

Lacon v. Allen (3 Dr. 579 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 18 ; 4 W. E. 693) - - 977

- v. Mertins (3 Atk. 1)- 506, 1136, 1138
Lacy v. Ingle (2 Ph. 413) 666, 828, 968
Ladyman v. Grave (6 Ch. 763 ; 25 L. T. 52 ; 19 W. E. 863) - 403, 404,

405, 431, 432, 950
Lafone v. Falkland Islands Co. (4 K. & J. 34 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 25 ; 30

L. T. O. S. 129 ; 6 W. E. 4) - 994

Laing's Trusts, Re (1 Eq. 416 ; 14 L. T. 56 ; 12 Jur. 119 ; 35 L. J.

Ch. 282 ; 14 W. E. 328) - - 1282

Laird v. Birkenhead Ey. Co. (Johns. 500 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 6 Jur.

N. S. 140 ; 1 L. T. 259 ; 8 W. E. 58) - - 1145

v. Briggs (19 Ch, D. 22 ; 45 L. T. 238) - - - 430

12

TABLE OF CASES.

Lai— Lan. PAGE

Laird v. Pirn (7 M. & W. 474 ; 8 D. P. C. 860) - - 1084, 1086

Lake and Taylor's Mortgage, Re (28 Ch. D. 402 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 567 ;

33 W. E. 597) - - 667

Lake v. Bell (34 Ch. D. 462 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 307 ; 55 L. T. 757 ; 35

W. E. 212) - - - 438
v. Brutton (8 D. M. & G. 440 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 839 ; 27 L. T. 0. S.

294) - - 114, 998

v. Cradock (3 P. W. 158) - 1049

v. Deaii (28 B. 607) - 145, 486

v. Eastern Counties Ey. Co. (19 L. T. 0. S. 323) - 804

v. Gibson (1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 291 ; 1 Wh. & T. L. C.) - 1048, 1050

Lamare v. Dixon (L. E. 6 H. L. 414 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 203 ; 22 W. E. 49) 1213
Lamas v. Bailey (2 Vern. 627) - - - 1053

Lamb v. Newbiggin (1 C. & K. 549) - 414

v. Walker (3 Q. B. D. 389 ; 45 L. J. Q. B. 451 ; 38 L. T. 643 ;

26 W. E. 775) - - 421

Lambe v. Orton (6 Jur. N. S. 61 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 286 ; 1 L. T. 290 ; 8
W. E. Ill) 388, 1240

Lambert's Estate, Re (13 L. E. Ir. 234) - - - 953

Lambert v. Brown (5 I. E. C. L. 218) - 434

— v. Eogers (2 Mer. 490) - 473, 476

Lambeth (Eector of), Ex parte (4 Ey. Ca. 231) - 756
Lamond v. Davall (9 Q. B. 1030 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 136 ; 11 Jur. 266) - 185

Lamotte, Re (4 Ch. D. 325 ; 36 L. T. 231 ; 25 W. E. 149) - - 655

Lamplugh v Lamplugh (1 P. W. Ill) - 1059, 1062

Lancashire & Carlisle Ev. Co. v. L. & N. W. Ey. Co. (2 K. & J. 293 ;
25 L. J. Ch. 223 ; 4 W. E, 220) - - 219

Lancashire & Yorkshire Ey. Co., Ex parte (55 L. T. 58) - - 510

, In re (2 W. E. 667 ; 23 L. J. Ch.

815 ; 23 L. T. O. S. 263) - 751
- v. Evans (14 B. 529) - - - 1263

Lancefield v. Iggulden (10 Ch. D. 136 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 203 ; 31 L. T.

813 ; 23 W. E. 223) - - 309, 702

Landell v. Baker (1 Eq. 268) - - - 1311

Lands' Trust, In re (4 K. & J. 81) - - - - 812

Lane v. Debenham (11 Ha. 188; 17 Jur. 1005; 22 L. T. 0. S. 143;

1 W. E. 465) - - 183, 686, 1272

v. Dighton (Amb. 409) - - 1065

v. Horlock (5 H. L. C. 580 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 253 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 289 ;

4 W. E. 408) - - ' - - - 145

• v. Jackson (20 B. 535) - - 525, 942, 981

Lanfranchi v. Mackenzie (4 Eq. 421 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 518 ; 16 L. T. 114 ;

15 W. E. 614)- ... - - 405

Lang v. Gale (1 M. & S. Ill) - 492

Langford v. Mahony (3 J. & S. 97) - - 569

v. Pitt (2 P. W. 629) 303, 304, 1227

0. Selmes (3 K. & J. 220 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 859) 129, 138, 291, 1199,

1276

Langham v. G. N. E. Co. (1 De G. 486, 503 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 437 ; 17
L. J. Ch. 436 ; 11 Jur. 839 ; 12 Jur. 574) - 508, 1268

TABLE OF CASES.

Lan — Law. PAGE

Langhorne v. Harland (2 Jur. N. S. 873 ; 4 W. E. 696)- - - 528

Langley v. Fisher (9 B. 90 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 73 ; 9 Jur. 1065) - 929, 1258

Langmead, In re (7 D. M. & G. 353 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 250 ; 3 W. E.

602) - - "> ' - - 673

Langridge v. Levy (2 M. & W. 519)- - 905

Langslow v. Cox (1 Chit, 98) f - 319

Langstaff v. Nicholson (25 B. 160) - - 257

Langstroth v. Toulmin (3 Stark. 145) - - - 1073

Langton v, Hughes (1 M. & S. 596)- - 1096

- v. Langton (18 Jur. 928 ; 7 D. M. & G. 30) - -461, 1315

- v. Tracy (2 Ch. B. 16) - 1004
Lansdown v. Elderton (14 V. 512) - - 1354

v. Lansdown (Mos. 364) - 907

Lantsbery v. Collier (2 K. & J. 709 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 672 ; 28 L. T. O. S.

35 ; 4 W. E. 826) - 67, 69

Lanyon v. Martin (13 L. E. Ir. 297) - 1137

v. Toogood (13 M. & W. 27; 13 L. J. Ex. 273; 3 L. T. 0.

S. 164) - - 234

Lapham v. Pike (Eolls, 1831) - 377

Lapierre v. M'Intosh (9 A. & E. 857 ; 1 P. & D. 629 ; 3 Jur. 123 ; 8

L. J. N. S. Q. B. 112) - ... 27

Lapsley v. Grierson (1 H. L. C. 498) - 383

Large's Case (2 Leon. 82 ; 3 Leon. 182) - - 22

Larios v. Bonany y Gurety (L. E. 5 P. C. 346) - 1112, 1164

Larkin v. Eosse (Lord) (10 Ir. Eq. E. 70) 1202, 1277

Lascelles v. Onslow (Lord) (2 Q. B. D. 433 ; 46 L. J. Q. B. 333 ; 36

L. T. 459 ; 25 W. E. 496) - - 358

Laslett v. Cliffe (2 S. & G. 278 ; 23 L. T. 0. S. 167 ; 2 W. E. 536) - 1317
Lassels v. Catterton (1 Mod. 67)- - - 888

Lassence v. Tierney (1 M. & G. 572 ; 14 Jur. 182) - 643, 1120, 1121, 1140
Latham, Ex part e (7 V. 35, n.) - - - 1209

Lathropp's Charity, In re (1 Eq. 467 ; 13 L. T. 784 ; 14 W. E. 326)- 759
Latimer v. Aylesbury E. Co. (9 Ch. D. 385 ; 39 L. T. 460 ; 27 W. E.

"141) - 836, 1220

- v. Batson (4 B. & C. 652 ; 7 D. & E. 106) - - 1026
La Touche v. Lucan (Earl of) (7 C. & F. 772 ; West, 477) - - 1004
Lavender v. Stanton (6 Mad. 46) - - 673
Laverick, In re (18 Jur. 304 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. 168 ; 2 W. E, 113) - 812
Law, In re (7 Jur. N. S. 511) - -77,1279

- v. Bagwell (4 D. & War. 398) - - 437
v. Indisputable Life Assurance Co. (1 K. & J. 223 ; 24 L. J. Ch.

196 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 178 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 208 ; 3 Eq. E. 338 ;

3 W. E. 154) - - - 1026

v. Law (9 Jur. 745 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 313) - - 326

v. Urlwin (16 Si. 377 ; 12 Jur. 1012) - 155, 1189, 1276

Lawe v. Stoney (W. N. (1876), 141)- - 1303, 1311

Lawes v. Bennet (1 Cox, 167) - - 296, 302

s v. Gibson (1 Eq. 135 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 148 ; 11 Jur. 873 ; 13 L.

T. 316; 14 W. E. 25)- ...... 137

TABLE OF CASES.

Law— Lee.

Lawrance v. Galsworthy (3 Jur. N. S. 1049) - - 46

Lawrence v. Clements (31 L. T. 670) - - - 937

- v. Knowles (7 Sc. 381 ; 5 Bing. N. C. 399) - 292

Lawrenson v. Butler (1 Sch. & L. 13) - - 1195

Lawrie v. Lawrie (2 Dow. 556) - 398

- - v. Lees (7 Ap. Ca. 19 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 209 ; 46 L. T. 210 ; 30

W. E. 285) --- - 194, 520

Lawton's Estate, In re (3 Eq. 469) - - 915

- v. Campion (18 B. 87 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 505 ; 23 L. T. O. S.

201 ; 2 W. E. 209) - - - 847

Layard v. Maud (4 Eq. 397; 36 L. J. Ch. 669; 16 L. T. 618; 15
W. E. 897) - - -945, 951, 953

Layfield, Ex parte (1 Y. & C. 79) - - 812

Laythoarp v. Bryant (1 Bing. N. C. 421 ; 2 Bing. N. C. 735 ; 3 Sc.

238; 5 L. J. N. S. C. P. 217) -261, 269, 353

Lea (Eector of), Ex parte (21 L. J. Ch. 776; 19 L. T. 0. S. 244) - 761
Lea's Trust, In re (6 W. E. 482) 658, 659, 664

Leach v. Leach (8 Jur. 211 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 128) - 392

-v. Mullett(3C. &P. 115) - - 155

Leather Cloth Co. v. Hieronimus (L. E. 10 Q. B. 146 ; 44 L. J. Q.

B. 54 ; 32 L. T. 307 ; 23 W. E. 593) - 1094, 1097

Leathes v. Leathes (5 Ch. D. 221 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 562 ; 36 L. T. 646 ;

25 W. E. 492)- - ..... 474

Lechmere and Lloyd, He (18 Ch. D. 524 ; 45 L. T. 551) - 1274

- v. Brasier (2 J. & W. 289) - 1177, 1242, 1335

- v. Brotheridge (32 B. 353 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 577 ; 9 Jur. N. S.

705 ; 8 L. T. 751 ; 2 N. E. 219 ; 11 W. E. 814) 12, 643, 644

— v. Carlisle (Earl of) (3 P. W. 215) - 64, 1068, 1070

- v. Clamp (30 B. 218 ; 31 B. 578 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 651 ; 32
L. J. Ch. 276 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 482 ; 7 L. T. 411 ; 1 N. E. 81 ; 9 W.
860 ; 11 W. E. 83) - - 656, 665, 1346

Leconfield (Lord), Ex parte (8 Ir. Eq. 559) - - 751

Lecoy v. Mogford (2 Jur. N. S. 1084; 4 W. E, 805) - - 138, 190

Lee and Hemingway, Re (24 Ch. D. 669; 49 L. T. 155 ; 32 W. E,

226) - 813

- v. Flood (17 Jur. 544) - - 1057

- v. Gaskell (1 Q. B. D. 700 ; 45 L. J. Q. B. 540 ; 34 L. T. 759 ;

24 W. E. 824) - 236

- - v. Heath (9 Si. 306, n.) - - 469

- v. Hemingway (15 Q. B. 305) - - 260

- v. Hewlett (2 K. & J. 531 ; 4 W. E. 406) - 109, 518, 944

- v. Lancashire & Yorkshire E. Co. (6 Ch. 527 ; 25 L. T. 77 ;

19 W. E. 729) - - - 825

- v. Mathews (6 L. E, Ir. 530) - 1007

- - v. Munn (Holt, 569) - - 1075

- v. Eisdon (7 Taun. 188 ; 2 Marsh. 495) - 236

- v. Young (2 Y. & C. C. C. 532 ; 12 L. J. Ch. 478 ; 7 Jur. 761) 96
Leech v. Leech (2 D. & War. 568) - - 691

- v. - (1 Ch. Ca. 249) ----- 1004

TABLE OF CASES. clxvii

Lee— Leo. PAGE

Leech v. Schweder (9 Ch. 465, n. ; 43 L. J. Ch. 487 ; 30 L. T. 586 ;
22 W. E. 633) - - - - 874

Leedham v. Chawner (4 K. & J. 458 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 22) - - 70

Leeds (Duke of) v. Amherst (Earl of) (2 Ph. 117 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 5 ;

10 Jur. 956) - 55, 57, 446

— v. Burrows (12 Ea. 1)- - » ' - 260

Lees v. Coulton (20 Eq. 20 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 556 ; 20 W. E. 554) - 1302,

1309

v. Nuttall (2 M. & K. 819) 211

Lefroy v. Lefroy (2 Euss. 606) - 1331

Legal v. Miller (2 V. sen. 299) - 1151, 1159

Legg v. Belfast, &c. E. Co. (13 Ir. C. L. E. 124, n.) - 1098

Legge's Estate, Re (8 W. E. 559) - t - 811

Legge's Settled Estates, In re (6 W. E, 20) - - 1286

Legge, In re (15 C. B. 364) - - 646

- v. Croker (1 B. & B. 506) - 900, 991, 902

- v. Edmonds (25 L. J. Ch. 125 ; 26 L. T. 117 ; 4 W. E. 71) - 382
Leggott v. Barrett (15 Ch. D. 306 ; 43 L. T. 641 ; 28 W. E. 962) - 603

- v. Metrop. E. Co. (5 Ch. 716; 18 W. E. 1060) - - 709, 716
Legh v. Warrington (Earl of) (1 Br. P. C. 511) - 692
Le Grand v. Whitehead (1 Eus. 309) - - - 1244

Leifchild's Case (1 Eq. 231; 11 Jur. N. S. 941; 13 L. T. 267; 14
W. E. 22) 1094

Leigh's Estate, In re (6 Ch. 887) - - - 752

Leigh (Lord) v. Ashburton (Lord) (11 B. 470) - 87

v. Burnett (29 Ch. D. 231 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 757; 52 L. T. 458;

33 W. E. 578) - - - 39

v. Edwards (21 W. E. 835) - - 1306

v. Jack (5 Ex. D. 264 ; 49 L. J. Ex. 220 ; 42 L. T. 463 ; 28

W. E. 452 ; 44 J. P. 488) - 379, 411, 435, 602

v. Lloyd (2 D. J. & S. 330; 34 L. J. Ch. 646; 12 L. T. 813;

13 W. E. 1054) - - - - - -.89

Leland v. Griffith (2 Mol. 150) - 1337

Lemaitre v. Davis (19 Ch. D. 291 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 173 ; 46 L. T. 407 ;
30 W. E. 360 ; 46 J. P. 324) - - . -: - - - 420

Leman v. Whitley (4 Euss. 423 ; 6 L. J. Ch. 152) - - 1056, 1057

Le Marchant v. Commissioners of Inland Eevenue (1 Ex. D. 185 ;

45 L. J. Ex. 247 ; 34 L. T. 152 ; 24 W. E. 858) - - 317

Lempriere v. Lange (12 Ch. D. 675 ; 41 L. T. 378 ; 27 W. E. 879) - 5
Lempter (Lord) v. Pomfret (Earl) (1 Dick. 238) - - 474

Lench v. Lench (10 V. 511) 1056, 1057, 1066

Lenehan v. M'Cabe (2 Ir. Eq. E. 342) - - 960, 988

Le Neve v. Le Neve (2 Wh. & T. L. C. ; 3 Atk. 646; Amb. 436;

1 Ves. 64) - - 959, 960, 967, 990

Leng v. Hodges (Jac. 585) - - - 391

Lennard v. Eobinson (5 E. & B. 125; 24 L. J. Q. B. 275; 1 Jur.

N. S. 853) - - 1074

Lennon v. Napper (2 Sch. & L. 682) 483, 486

Leominster C. Co. v. Shrewsbury E. Co. (3 K & J. 672 ; 26 L. J.

Ch. 764 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 930 ; 29 L. T. 342 ; 5 W. B. 868) - - 248

TABLE OF CASES.

Leo—Lew. PAGE

Leonard v. Leonard (2 B. & B. 171) - - 907
Leonino v. Leonino (10 Oh. D. 460; 48 L. J. Ch. 217; 40 L. T.

359; 27 W. E. 388) - 921
Leroux v. Brown (12 C. B. 801 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 1 ; 16 Jur. 1021 ;

1 W. E. 22 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 68) - - 227

Leslie's Settlement, Re (2 Ch. D. 185 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 668 ; 34 L. T.
239 ; 24 W. E. 546) - 752

Leslie v. French (23 Ch. D. 552; 52 L. J. Ch. 762; 48 L. T. 564;

31 W. E. 561) - - - - - - 854

v. Tompson (9 Ha. 273 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 561 ; 15 Jur. 717 ; 17

L. T. 0. S. 277) 151, 729, 736

Lester v. Foxcroft (1 Wh. & T. L. C.; Coles P. C. 108) - 232, 1137

L'Estrange v. L'Estrange (13 B. 281; 20 L. J. Ch. 39; 15 Jur.
114; 16 L. T. 0. S. 481) - - 214

Lesturgeon v. Martin (3 M. & K. 255) 495, 1227

Lethbridge v. Kirkman (2 Jur. N. S. 372; 25 L. J. Q. B. 89; 26
L. T. O. S. 122 ; 4 W. E. 90) 158, 163, 168, 730

Lett v. Eandall (49 L. T. 71) 736, 1197

Letts v. Hutchins (13 Eq. 176) - - - 654

Leuty v. Hillas (2 D. & J. 110; 27 L. J. Ch. 534; 4 Jur. N. S.

1166; 30 L. T. 0. S. 299; 6 W. E. 217) - - 134, 904, 909, 1131

Levi v. Ayres (3 Ap. Ca. 852; 47 L. J. P. C. 83; 38 L. T. 725; 27

W. E. 79) ' - - - - - - - 630

Levy v. Creighton (22 W. E. 605 ; 31 L. T. 1) - 1019, 1094

- v. Lindo (3 Mer. 84) - - 484

v. Pendergrass (2 B. 415) - 91

Lewes' Trusts (6 Ch. 356 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 602 ; 24 L. T. 533 ; 19 W.

E. 617) - - .,388,389

Lewin v. Guest (1 Euss. 325) - - 322, 1203, 1264

v. Wilson (11 Ap. Ca. 639 ; 55 L. J. P. C. 75 ; 55 L. T. 410) 456,

457

Lewis' Settled Estates, Re (24 W. E. 103) - - 1285

Lewis, Exparte (1 Gl. & J. 69) - - 91, 201

- (3 M. D. & D. 173) - - 201

, Re (1 M. & G. 23 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 13 Jur. 548) - - 656

, Re (I Q. B. D. 824 ; 24 W. E. 1017) - 820

Lewis v. Bond (18 B. 85) - 105, 132, 1217

v. Branthwaite (2 B. & Ad. 437 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 263) - - 129

v. Campbell (8 Taunt. 715 ; 3 J. B. Moore, 35) 879, 894

v. Duncombe (7 Jur. N. S. 695 ; 3 L. T. 867 ; 9 W. E. 446) - 454,

537, 1347
• v. (20 B. 398) 537, 1347

v. Hill (1 V. sen. 274) - - 1070

v. Hillman (3 H. L. C. 607 ; 19 L. T. 0. S. 329) - 50

v. James (32 Ch. D. 326 ; 54 L. T. 260 ; 34 W. E. 619 ; 50 J.

P. 423) 1218, 1219

v: Lane (2 M. & K 449) - 1055

v. Lewis (13 Eq. 218 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 195 ; 25 L. T. 555 ; 20 W.

141) - - 923, 934

v. Loxham (3 Mer. 429) - - - - - 1263

TABLE OF CASES.

Lew— Lis. PAOB

Lewis v. Haddocks (8 V. 150 ; 17 V. 48) - - - - 1066

v. Marshall (8 So. N. R. 477 ; 1 M. & G. 729 ; 13 L. J. 0. P.

193 ; 8 Jur. 848) - - 1091

v. Nicholson (16 Jur. 1041 ; 18 Q. B. 503 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 311 ;

19 L. T. O. S. 122) . . . 213, 1074, 1094

v. Peako (7 Taunt. 153) - 894

v. Rees (3 K & J. 132 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 101 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 12 ; 28

L. T. 229 ; 5 W. R. 96) - - - 1021

v. S. W. Ry. Co. (10 Ha. 113 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 209 ; 16 Jur. 1149 ;

21 L. T. O. S. 3 ; 1 W. R. 45) - - 143

v. Thomas (3 Ha. 26) - 440, 445

v. Tucker (5 Jur. 1105) - 712

Leyland v. Illingworth (2 D. F. & J. 248 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 611 ; 6 Jur.

N. a 811; 2 L. T. 587 ; 8 W. R. 695) - - 157, 739, 1266

Lichfield (Lord), Re (1 Atk. 87 ; West, t. Hardw. 201) - 85

Lickbarrow v. Mason (1 Sm. L. C. ; 2 T. R. 63; 1 II. Bl. 357 ; 6
Ea. 21) - __._.. 825

Liddell v. Liddell (52 L. J. Ch. 207 ; 31 W. R. 238) - 4

Liddiard v. Gale (4 Ex. 816 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 160) - 275

Life Assn. of Scotland v. Siddal (3 D. F. & J. 58 ; 3 D. F. & J. 271 ;

7 Jur. 785 ; 4 L. T. 311 ; 9 W. R. 541) - 54, 55, 57, 440

Lightfoot v. Heron (3 Y. & C. 586) 1115, 1155, 1161

Lilford (Lord) v. Powys-Keck (1 Eq. 347 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 302 ; 14 W.

R. 240) 829, 921

Lill v. Robinson (Beat. 85) - - 1267

Lillie v. Legh (3 D. & J. 204) - 1217

Lillingston v. Pares (12 Ch. D. 333 ; 41 L. T. 574 ; 28 W. R. 193) - 8

Limmer Paving Co. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (L. R. 7
Ex. 211; 41 L.J. Ex. 106; 26 L. T. 633; 20 W. R. 610) - 789

Lincoln (Earl of) v. Arcedeckne (1 Col. 98) - 1229, 1235, 1274

v. Wright (4 D. & J. 16 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 35 ; 7 W. R. 350) - 1133,

1136, 1175

Linden, Ex parte (1 M. D. & D. 428 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 22 ; 5 Jur.
57) 825

Lindo v. Lindo (1 B. 496 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 284) - - 840

Lindsay v. London & Portsmouth R. Co. (1 Pract. R. 529) - 717, 1088
- v. Lynch (2 Sch. & L. 1) - 1139, 1148, 1151

Line v. Stephenson (5 Bing. N. C. 183) - - 636

Lineham v. Cotter (7 Ir. Eq. R. 176) - 1199

Lippincott v. Smyth (29 L. J. Ch. 520 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 311 ; 2 L. T.

79 ; 8 W. R. 336) - - 93

Lisburne (Earl of) v. Davies (L. R. 1 C. P. 259 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 193 ;

1 Har. & Ruth. 172 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 340 ; 13 L. T. 795 ; 14 W. R.

333) 188, 379

Lister's Hospital, In re (6 D. M. & G. 184 ; 26 L. T. 0. S. 192; 4 W.

R. 156) - - 759

Lister v. Leather (1 D. & J. 361 ; 29 L. T. 0. S. 255 ; 5 W. R. 666) 1263

- v. Pickford (34 B. 576 ; 12 L. T. 587 ; 13 W. R. 827) - - 440

v. Tidd (4 Eq. 462) - - - - - - 110

clxx TABLE OF CASES.

Lis— LOG. PAGE

Lister v. Turner (5 Ha. 281 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 336; 10 Jur. 751) - 1008

Litchfield v. Brown (23 L. J. Ch. 176) - - - 712

Little Stepping (Eector of), Ex parte (5 Ey. Ca. 207) 750, 753

Liverpool, &c. Association v. Fairhurst (9 Ex. 422; 23 L. J. Ex. 163;
18 Jur. 191 ; 2 C. L. E. 512 ; 22 L. T. O. S. 318 ; 2 W. E. 233) - 5, 13

Liverpool (Corporation of), Ex parte (1 Ch. 596 ; 14 L. T. 785 ; 14 W.

E. 906) - - . - - - - 753

- Dock Acts, In re (I Si. N. S. 202) 754, 760

- Guarantee Co., Re (30 W. E. 378 ; 46 L. T. 54) - - 1032
Improvement Act, In re (5 Eq. 282 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 376 ; 16

W. E, 667) - - 799, 803, 805

Marine Credit Co. v. Wilson (7 Ch. 507 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 798 ;

26 L. T. 717 ; 20 W. E. 665) - - - - 1037

— Ey. Co., In re (17 B. 392) - 805, 808

Livesey v. Harding (23 B. 141) - - - 110

v. — -(IB. 343) 477, 1349

Livingston v. Ealli (5 E. & B. 132 ; 24 L. J. Q. B. 269 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

594 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 143; 3 W. E. 488) - - 158

Llewellyn v. Jersey (Earl of) (11 M. & W. 183; 12 L. J. Ex. 243) 601, 603

- v. Mackworth (Barn. C. 445) - 440

- v. Eous (2 Eq. 27 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 580) - - 915

Lloyd's Banking Co. v. Jones (29 Ch. D. 230 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 931 ; 52
L. T. 469 ; 33 W. E, 781) - 935, 952, 972

Lloyd, Ex parte (1 M. & A. 494; 3 Dea. & Ch. 765; 3 L. J. N. S.

Bkcy. 108) - 149

- v. Attwood (3 D. & J. 614; 33 L. T. 0. S. 209) - - 826, 950

v. Baldwin (1 V. sen. 173) - - 674

v. Banks (3 Ch. 488 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 881 ; 16 W. E. 988 ; 4 Eq.

222) 109, 955, 956, 968, 969

v. Collett (4 Br. C. C. 469) - - 486

v. Griffith (1 Dick. 103) - 1250

v. Lloyd (2 Con. & L. 592 ; 4 Dr. & W. 354) 312, 586, 911, 913

v. (2 M. & C. 192 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ch. 135 ; 1 Jur. 69) 1088,

1158

v. L. C. & D. E. Co. (2 D. J. & S. 578 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 401 ; 11

Jur. N. S. 380 ; 12 L. T. 363 ; 13 W. E. 698) - 873, 875

v. Mansell (2 P. W. 73) - - - 469

v. Pughe (8 Ch. 88 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 282 ; 28 L. T. 250 ; 21 W. E.

346) - - 1058

v. Spillett (2 Atk. 148; 3 P. W. 344; Barnard. Ch. 384) - 1065

v. Tomkies (1 T. E. 671) - 883

v. Wait (1 Ph. 61 ; 6 Jur. 45) - - 394, 395

. v. Whittey (17 Jur. 754) - 1320

v. Wilkes (2 Eq. E, 1081 ; 2 W. E, 501) - - - 1215

Load v. Green (15 M. & W. 219 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 113 ; 10 Jur. 163) - 855

Loaring, Ex parte (2 Eo. 79) - - 829

Lobb v. Stanley (5 Q. B. 574 ; D. & M. 635 ; 13 L. J. Q. B. 117 ; 8
Jur. 462 ; 2 L. T. O. S. 366) - 270

Lock v. De Burgh (4 De G. & S. 470 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 384 ; 15 Jur. 961) 915

TABLE OF CASES. clxxi

— Lon. PAGE

Lock v. Farzo (L. R. 1 C. P. 441 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 47 ; 15 L. T. 161 ;

14 W. R. 403 ; 1 H. & R. 379) 893, 1083

v. Lomas (5 Do G. & S. 329 ; 15 Jur. 162 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 503) - 676,

1269
Locke ti. Matthews (13 C. B. N. S. 753; 9 Jur. N. S. 874; 7 L. T.

824; 11 W. R. 343) - - - 442

Lockhart v. Hardy (9 B. 354 ; 10 Jur. 728 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 347) 81, 1042
Locking v. Parker (8 Ch. 30; 42 L. J. Ch. 257; 27 L. T. 635; 21
W. R. 113) - . - 35, 41, 439

Lockington v. Shipley (1 Bing. N. C. 355 ; 1 Sc. 263) - 957

Lockwood, Ex parte (14 B. 158) ^ - - 751

v. Wilson (43 L. J. C. P. 179 ; 30 L. T. 761 ; 22 W. R.

919) - - 192

Lodge v. Lyseley (4 Si. 70) 530, 1275

Loffus v. Maw (3 Giff. 592 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 607 ; 6 L. T. 346 ; 10 W. R.
513) .... H40

Loft, Re (8 Jur. 206 ; 2 L. T. 0. S. 397) - - 73

Logan v. Le Mesurier (6 Mo. P. C. 132 ; 11 Jur. 1091) - 257

v. Wrenhall (1 C. & F. 611) - - 1183

Lomax, In re (34 B. 294) - - 806

Londesborough (Lord) v. Somerville (19 B. 295; 23 L. J. Ch. 646;
23 L. T. 0. S. 291) - - - - 99

London (Aldermen of) v. Hastings (2 Sid. 8) - 428

(Bank of) v. Tyrrell (10 II. L. C. 26; 31 L. J. Ch. 369; 6

L. T. 1 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 849) - 46

(Bishop of), Ex parte (2 D. F. & J. 14 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 640 ; 2

L. T. 365 ; 8 W. R. 465) - - 751, 760, 810, 811

(Corporation of), Ex parte (5 Eq. 418) - - - 811

(Corporation of) v. Riggs (13 Ch. D. 798 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 297 ;

42 L. T. 580 ; 28 W. R. 610 ; 44 J. P. 345) - - 413, 612

(Mayor of), Ex parte (34 Ch. D. 452 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 308; 56

L. T. 6 ; 35 W. R. 210) - 320, 822

(Mayor of, &c.) v. Pewterers' Co. (2 Mo. & R. 409) - - 431

(Port of) Assurance Case (5 D. M. & G. 465 ; 2 Eq. R. 260 ;

2 W. It. 541) 500

London & Birmingham R. Co. v. Winter (Cr. & Ph. 57) 216, 1176, 1245
London & Brighton R. Co. v. Fairclough (2 Ry. Ca. 544 ; 2 Man. &

G. 674 ; 3 Sc. N. R. 68) - - 798

v. London & S. W. R. Co. (4 D. & J. 389 ;

33 L. T. 0. S. 246 ; 7 W. R. 591) - - 1162

London & County Banking Co. v. Dover (11 Ch. D. 204 ; 48 L. J. Ch.

336 ; 27 W. R. 749) - 1314, 1316

v. Ratcliffe (6 Ap. Ca. 722 ; 51 L. J. Ch.

28 ; 45 L. T. 322 ; 30 W. R. 109) - - 936

London & Greenwich R. Co., In re (3 Ha. 22 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 513 ;

1 L. T. 0. S. 227, 252) - - 320

, He (2 A. & E. 678 ; 4 N. & M. 458 ; 1

H. &W. 81) - - - - 707

Vt Goodchild (8 Jur. 455 ; 13 L. J. Ch.

224 ; 3 Ry. Ca. 507) - - 862

London &N.W. R. Co., /fc (26 L. T. 687) - - - - 510

clxxii TABLE OF CASES.

Lou. — Lou. PAGE

London & N. W. E. Co. v. Garnett (9 Eq. 26; 39 L. J. Oh. 25; 21

L. T. 352; 18 W. E. 246) - - 138

v. Lancaster (Corporation of) (15 B. 22) - 750

London & Provincial Bank v. Bogle (7 Ch. D. 773 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 307 ;

37 L. T. 780 ; 26 W. E. 593) - - - 57
London & S. W. E. Co.'s Act, Ee (3 D. J. & S. 341 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 102 ;

7 L. T. 452; 11 W. E. 54) - - - - - - 808

London & S. W. E. Co., In re (2 Ph. 772 ; 13 Jur. 2) - 803

v. Blackmore (L. E. 4 H. L. 610 ; 39 L. J. Ch.

713 ; 23 L. T. 504 ; 19 W. E. 305) 859, 861

v. Bridger (12 W. E. 948 ; 4 N. E. 261 ; 10

L. T. 689 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 650) - 799, 1262, 1263
v. Gomm (20 Ch. D. 562 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 530 ;

46 L. T. 449; 30 W. E. 620) - 241, 612, 858, 863, 865, 868, 875, 876
London & Suburban Co. v. Field (16 Ch. D. 645 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 549 ;

44 L. T. 444) - - - - 138

London Bridge Acts, In re (13 Si. 176) 619, 804

London, Brighton & S. Coast E. Co., In re (18 B. 608) - - 751, 807

London, Chatham & Dover E. Co. v. Bull (47 L. T. 413) - - 874

Long's Estate, In re (12 W. E. 460 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 417 ; 10 L. T. 21) 810
Long v. Bowring (33 B. 585; 10 Jur. N. S. 668; 10 L. T. 683; 12

W. E. 972) - - - 1128

v. Collier (4 Euss. 267) - - 175, 1265, 1276

v. Fletcher (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 5) - - 1200

v. Millar (4 C. P. D. 450; 48 L. J. Q. B. 596; 41 L. T. 306;

27 W. E. 720) 213, 263, 270

v. Storie (3 De G. & S. 308 ; 13 Jur. 227) - 541

Longbottom v. Berry (L. E. 5 Q. B. 123 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 37 ; 22 L. T.

385; 10 B. & S. 852) - 607

Longchamps v. Fawcett (Pea. Ca. 101) - - 1092

Longinotto v. Morss (26 L. T. 828) - - 1263

Longworth's Estates, In re (1 K & J. 1 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 104; 22 L. T.

197 ; 2 W. E. 124) - 809

Lonsdale (Lord), Ex parte (32 B. 397 ; 1 N. E. 506, 545 ; 11 W. E.

410, 507) - - - 811

- v. Gaskarth (cited 12 V. 108) - 257

Loosemore v. Tiverton, &c. E. Co. (22 Ch. D. 25 ; 9 Ap. Ca. 480 ; 52

L. J. Ch. 260; 53 L. J. Ch. 812; 48 L. T. 162; 50 L. T. 637; 31

W. E. 130 ; 32 W. E. 929 ; 48 J. P. 372)- - 238, 509, 512

Lord, Ex parte (3 C. L. E. 37) - - - 650

, In re (1 K. & J. 90 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 129 ; 3

Eq. Eep. 197 ; 3 W. E. 86) - 260

v. Lord (1 Si. 503) - 227, 1330

v. Stephens (1 Y. & C. 222) - 179, 733, 1216

v. Wightwick (4 D. M. & G. 808 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 235 ; 18 Jur.

253; 22 L. T. O. S. 249 ; 2 Eq. Eep. 349) - - - 71

Loring v. Davies (32 Ch. D. 625; 55 L. J. Ch. 725; 54 L. T. 899;

34 W. E. 701) 333, 1106

Lougher v. Williams (2 Lev. 92) - - 878

Loughton (Eector of), Ex parte (14 Jur. 102) - 806, 812

TABLE OF CASES. clxxlii

LOV— Luf. PAGE

Lovat Peerage (Min. of Ev. 77) - - - 394

Love v. Bell (10 Q. B. D. 568 ; 9 Ap. Ca. 286 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 290 ;
53 L. J. Q. B. 257 ; 48 L. T. 592 ; 51 L. T. 1 ; 32 W. E. 725) 187, 422

Lovegrove v. Cooper (9 Ha. 279) - - 1331

_ v. _ _ (2 S. & G. 271) - 1340

Lovelace, In re (4 D. & J. 340 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 489 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 694 ;
33 L. T. 0. S. 230 ; 7 W. K. 575) 314, 315, 317

Lovell v. Hicks (2 Y. & C. 46 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq. 101) - 116, 898,

1156, 1174

— v. Smith (3 C. B. N. S. 120) • - - 413

Lovelock v. Franklyn (8 Q. B. 371 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 182; 11 Jur. 1035) - 1086
Lovett v. Lovett (3 K. & J. 1; 2 Jur. N. S. 1130; 28 L. T. 0. S. 98;

5 W. E. 5) - - - - - - - 1131

Low v. Nash (20 L. T. 0. S. 123 ; 1 W. E. 63) - 454

Low Moor Co. v. Stanley Coal Co. (34 L. T. 186) - - 448

Lowe's Estate, In re (2 Ph. 690; 17 L. J. Ch. 430; 12 Jur. 638) 293, 1251
Lowe, Exparte(WIj. T. 310) - - - 99

v. Carpenter (6 Ex. 825 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 374 ; 15 Jur. 883) 430, 432

v. L. & N. W. E. Co. (18 Q. B. 632 ; 7 Ey. Ca. 524 ; 21 L. J.

Q. B. 361 ; 17 Jur. 375 ; 19 L. T. 0. S. 200) - 219, 273, 274

v. Swift (2 B. & B. 529) - 1114

Lowes v. Lush (14 V. 547) 1233, 1277

Lowestoft (Manor of), Re (24 Ch. D. 253 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 912 ; 49 L. T.

523) 653, 750

Lowndes' Trusts, In re (20 L. J. Ch. 422) - - 761

Lowndes, Re (18 Q. B. D. 677 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 425 ; 56 L. T. 575 ;

35 W. E. 549) - - 431

v. Lane (2 Cox, 363) - - 127, 898

Lowry's Will, In re (15 Eq. 78 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 509 ; 21 W. E. 428) - 663
Lowry v. Dufferin (Lord) (1 Ir. Eq. E. 281) - - - - 1145

Lowther v. Carlton (2 Atk. 242) - - 988, 1023

- v. Lowther (13 V. 103) - - 1207

Loyd v. Griffith (3 Atk. 268) - 616, 624

v. Eead (1 P. W. 607) 1057, 1058

Loyes v. Eutherford (Sug. 331) - - - - 152

Lucas' Charity, In re (V.-C. W. March 8, 1856) - - - 761

Lucas v. James (7 Ha. 410; 18 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 13 Jur. 912 ; 14 L. T.

O. S. 308) 103, 267, 270, 1184, 1243

v. Jones (4 Eq. 73 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 602 ; 15 W. E. 738) - - 303

Luckcraft v. Pridham (6 Ch. D. 205 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 744 ; 26 W. E. 33 ;

36 L. T. 501) 25,777

Lucy, Exparte( 17 Jur. 1143) - - -1007

v. Levington (2 Lev. 26) - 891

Luddy's Trustee v. Peard (33 Ch. D. 500 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 884 ; 55 L. T.

137 ; 35 W. E. 44) - - 44

Ludgater v. Love (44 L. T. N. S. 694) 103, 902, 1095

Ludlow (Corporation of) v. Charlton (6 M. & W. 815 ; 8 C. & P. 242 ;

4 Jur. 657 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ex. 75) - - - 273

Luff v. Lord (34 B. 220 ; 11 L. T. 656 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1248) - 38

Lufkin v. Nunn (11 V. 170) - 997, 1000

clxxiv

TABLE OF CASES.

Luk— Mac. PAGE

Luker v. Dennis (7 Ch. D. 227 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 174 ; 37 L. T. 827 ; 26
W. E. 167) - - 864, 1169

Lukey v. Higgs (1 Jur. N. S. 200 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 7 ; 3 Eq. E. 510 ;

3 W. E. 306) - 498, 632

v. O'Donnel (2 Sch. & L. 471) - 1207

Lulham, Ite (32 W. E. 1013 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 928 ; 51 L. T. 564) - - 1006
Lumley v. Nicholson (34 W. E. 716) - - 215

v. Wagner (1 D. M. & G. 604; 21 L. J. Ch. 898; 16 Jur. 871) 1167,

1168

Lumsden v. Eraser (12 Si. 263 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 362) - - 293

Lush's Trust, In re (4 Ch. 591 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 650; 21 L. T. 376; 17

W. E. 974) - - 13,517,947,948,1120

Lushington v. Boldero (15 B. 2 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 49 ; 16 Jur. 140) - 392
Lutwyche v, Winford (2 Br. C. C. 248) - 1274, 1351

Lycett v. Stafford & Uttoxeter E. Co. (13 Eq. 261 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 474;

25 L. T. 870) 515, 1220, 1221

Lyddall v. Weston (2 Atk. 19) - 391, 1231, 1235, 1236

Lyddon v. Moss (4 D. & J. 104 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 637 ; 33 L. T. 0. S.

170 ; 7 W. E, 433) - - 855

Lyell v. Kennedy (9 Ap. Ca. 81 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 449 ; 50 L. T. 277 ; 32

W. E. 497) - - - 994
v. (18 Q. B. D. 796 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 303; 56 L. T.

647 ; 35 W. E. 725) 444, 452

Lyford's Trust, Re (17 Jur. 570) - 386, 387

Lyford v. Coward (1 Vern. 195 ; 2 Ca. in Ch. 150) - - 367

Lyle v. Eichards (L. E. 1 H. L. 222; 35 L. J. Q. B. 214; 15 L. T. 1) 346,

601, 1092

v. Yarborough (Earl of) (John. 70) 325, 329, 1266

Lynch v. Joyce (3 D. & War. 349) - - 1314

v. Lynch (4 L. E. Ir. 210) - - 1005

Lyon v. Colvill (6 Jur. 680) - - 1327

. v. Dillimore (14 W. E. 511 ; 14 L. T. 183) - 408

. v, Fishmongers' Co. (1 Ap. Ca. 662 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 68 ; 35 L. T.

569 ; 25 W. E, 165) - - - 412

. v. Eeed (13 M. & W. 285 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 377 ; 8 Jur. 762) - 437

v. Eeid (13 M. & W. 285) - 365

Lys v. Lys (7 Eq. 126 ; 19 L. T. 409 ; 17 W. E. 394) - 1298, 1300

Lysaght v. Edwards (2 Ch. D. 499 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 554 ; 34 L. T. 787 ;

24 W. E. 778) - - 18, 284, 302, 1274

Lysney v. Selby (Eaym. 1118) - - - 113

Lyster v. Dolland (1 Y. 431) 526, 1049

Lytton's Settled Estates, He (W. N. 1884, p. 193) - 752, 806

Lytton v. Gt. Northern E. Co. (2 K. & J. 394 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 436 ; 27

L. T. 42 ; 4 W. E, 441) - 1110, 1113

Maber v. Maber (L. E. 2 Ex. 153 ; 16 L. T. 26 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 70) - 457
Maberley v. Eobins (5 Taun. 625 ; 1 Marsh. 258) - - 207

Macbryde v. Weekes (22 B. 533 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 918 ; 28 L. T. 0. S.
135) 331, 484, 488, 1215

TABLE OF CASES. clxXV

M'B— McM. PAGE

M'Burnie, Ex parte (I D. M. & G. 441 ; 16 Jur. 807) - 1008, 1024

M'Calmont v. Eankin (8 Ha. 15 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 215 ; 14 Jur. 475) - 1251

— Vt (2 D. M. & G. 403) - -1163

McCarogher v. Whieldon (34 B. 107) 743, 1165

M'Carthy v. Daunt (11 Ir. Eq. E. 29) - - - 456

Macaulay, Ex parte (23 L. J. Ch. 815) - 760

Mod-eight v. Foster (5 Ch. 604 ; 23 L. T. 224 ; 18 W. E. 905) - 285

McCulloch v. Gregory (1 K. & J. 294 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 246 ; 3 Eq. E.
495 ; 24 L. T. O. S. 307 ; 3 W. E. 231) - 183, 320, 350, 364, 374, 480,

1131, 1336

M'Donagh's Estate, Re (3 L. E. Ir. 408) - 960, 1021

Macdonald v. Foster (6 Ch. D. 193 ; 37 L. T. 296 ; 25 W. E. 687) - 1314,

1325

- v. Walker (14 B. 556) - - 1276

M'Donald v. Hanson (12 V. 277) - - 94

M'Donnell v. M'Kinty (10 Ir. L. E. 514) - 448, 455

Macdonnell v. Harding (7 Si. 178 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Ch. 10) - - 718

McEwan v. Smith (2 H. L. C. 309 ; 13 Jur. 265) - - 825

Macfarlan v. Eolt (14 Eq. 580 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 649 ; 27 L. T. 305 ; 20
W. E. 945) - - - - - - - 375

M'Gregor, Ex parte (4 De G. & S. 603) 42, 1322

v. Dover, &c. E. Co. (17 Jur. 21 ; 7 Ey. Ca. 227 ; 18 Q. B.

618 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 69) - - - 1096

Mackay v. Commercial Bank of New Brunswick (L. E. 5 P. Ca.

394 ; 43 L. J. P. C. 31 ; 30 L. T. 180 ; 22 W. E. 473) - 1095
v. Douglas (14 Eq. 106 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 539 ; 26 L. T. 721 ; 20

W. E. 652) - 1025, 1028

Mackenzie's Trusts, Re (23 Ch. D. 750 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 726 ; 48 L. T.

936 ; 31 W. E. 948) 98

Mackenzie v. Bankes (3 Ap. Ca. 1324) - 414

McKenzie v. Hesketh (7 Ch. D. 675 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 231 ; 38 L. T. 171 ;
26W.E. 189) 151,735,1190

Mackey v. Scottish Widows' Society (11 I. E. Eq. 541) - - - 408

Mackie v. Herbertson (9 Ap. Ca. 303) - 1011, 1015

Mackinnon v. Stewart (1 Si. N. S. 76 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 49) 1004, 1019

Mackrell v. Hunt (2 Mad. 34) 364, 1271

Mackreth v. Symmons (15 Y. 345 ; 1 Wh. & T. L. C.) 506, 825, 829, 830,

831, 832

Mackrill, In re (11 B. 42) - - 815

Maclean v. Dunn (4 Bing. 722 ; 1 M. & P. 761 ; 6 L. J. C. P. 184)- 216
Macleay, Re (20 Eq. 186; 44 L. J. Ch. 441-; 32 L. T. 682 ; 23 W.

E. 718) - - 22

Macleod v. Annesley (16 B. 600; 22 L. J. Ch. 633; 17 Jur. 608; 1

W. E. 250; 21 L. T. 40) - - - 96
v. Jones (24 Ch. D. 289 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 49 L. T. 321 ;

32 W. E. 43) - - - - - - 82

Maclurcan v. Lane (5 Jur. N. S. 56; 32 L. T. 0. S. 172; 7 W. E.

135) - 594

McMahon v. Burchell (2 Ph. 127) - - 1051

McManus v. Cooke (35 Ch. D. 681 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 662 ; 56 L. T. 900;
35W.E, 754) r. 230,1136

TABLE OF CASES.

McM— Mai. PAGE

McMurray v. Spicer (5 Eq. 527; 37 L. J. Ch. 505; 18 L. T. 116;
16 W. E. 332) - - - 254, 488, 1228

Macnamara's Estate, Ee (13 L. E. Ir. 158) - 936, 988

M'Namara v. Williams (6 V. 143) - - 1127

M'Naughten v. Hasker (12 Jur. 956; 12 L. T. 0. S. 4) - 1268

McNeil's Case (10 Eq. 503 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 822 ; 23 L. T. 297 ; 18 W. E.
1126) - - - 118

McNeillie v. Acton (4 D. M. & G. 744; 23 L. J. Ch. 11 ; 17 Jur.

1041 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. Ill ; 2 Eq. E. 21) - - 678

M'Nicoll v. Kay (4 W. E. 801) - - - 1265

McPherson v. Watt (3 Ap. Ca. 254 ; 5 Eet. 9) 40, 46, 50

M'Queen v. Farquhar (11 V. 467) - 373, 986, 1206, 1236, 1259, 1260,

1276

Macrae v. Ellerton (4 Jur. N. S. 967) - 1317

Maddison v. Alderson (8 Ap. Ca. 467 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 737 ; 49 L. T.

303 ; 31 W. E. 820) - 232, 948, 1134, 1137, 1138, 1140

- v. Andrew (1 V. 57) - 1058, 1065

- v. Chapman (1 J. & H. 470) - - 506, 1033, 1067
Maddy v. Hale (3 Ch. D. 327 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 791 ; 35 L. T. 134 ; 24

W. E. 1005) - - - 755

Madeley v. Booth (2 De G. & S. 718) 134, 155, 164, 1199, 1255
Maden v. Taylor (45 L. J. Ch. 569) - - 391
Magawley's Trust, Re (5 De G. & S. 1) - 1028
Magdalen College Case (11 Co. 68b) 468, 1003
(President of) v. Attorney-General (6 H. L. C.

189; 26 L. J. Ch. 620; 3 Jur. N. S. 675) ' - - 441

Magdalen Hospital v. Knotts (4 Ap. Ca. 324 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 579 ; 40

L. T. 466 ; 27 W. E. 682) - - 433, 441

Magee, Ex parte (15 Q. B. D. 332 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 394 ; 33 W. E.

655) - - - 361

v. Atkinson (2 M. & W. 440; H. & H. 115) - - 212

Magennis v. Fallon (2 Moll. 587) - 110, 286, 490, 494, 507, 1200, 1239,

1242

Magor v. Chadwick (11 A. & E. 571 ; 3 P. & D. 367 ; 4 Jur. 482) - 417
Maguire v. Armstrong (2 B. & B. 538) 998, 999

Mahony v. East Holyford Co. (L. E. 7 H. L. 869 ; 33 L. T. 383) - 218,

274, 370
MaidstoneE. Co., Ex parte (25 Ch. D. 168; 53 L. J. Ch. 127; 49

L. T. 777 ; 32 W. E. 181) - - 510

Mainprice v. Westley (6 B. & S. 420; 11 Jur. N. S. 975; 34 L. J.

Q. B. 229 ; 13 L. T. 560 ; 14 W. E. 9) - 204, 224

Maitland v. Mackinnon (1 H. & C. 607 ; 32 L. J. Ex. 49; 9 Jur. N. S.

255 ; 7 L. T. 427 ; 11 W. E. 237) - 606

Major v. Ward (5 Ha. 598 ; 12 Jur. 473) - 82, 326, 378, 584, 1276

Malachy v. Soper (3 Bing. N. C. 371; 3 Sc. 723; 6 L. J. N. S.

C.P. 32) - - 120

Malcolm v. Charlesworth (1 Ke. 63) - - 770

— v. Scott (3 M. & G. 29 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 17 ; 15 Jur. 21) - 1091
Malcolmson v. O'Dea (10 H. L. C. 593; 9 Jur. N. S. 1135 ; 9 L. T.

93 ; 12 W. E. 178) .... -419,426,427

TABLE OF CASES.

Mai— Mar.

Maiden v. Fyson (9 B. 347) - - 1263

— v. (11 Q. B. 292; 17 L. J. Q. B. 85; 12 Jur. 228) - 1077

— v. Menil (2 Atk. 8) - - 837
Maling v. Hill (1 Cox, 186) 1258, 1276
Malms v. Freeman (2 Ke. 25 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ch. 133) 209, 225, 1160, 1174
Mallin, Re (3 Giff. 126; 30 L. J. Ch. 929; 7 Jur. N. S. 511; 4 L. T.

435 ; 9 W. E. 588) 77,1279

Malpas v. Acland (3 Euss. 273) - - - 974

Maltby v. Christie (1 Esp. 340) - 207

v. Eussell (2 S. & S. 227 ; 3 L. J. Ch. 85) - - 65

Man v. Eicketts (7 B. 93; 13 L. J. Ch. 194 ; 8 Jur. 159 ; 5 De G. &

S. 116) - - 353, 364, 1339, 1353

Manby v. Bewicke (8 D. M. & G. 476 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 20 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

671, 672; 4 W. E. 757) - - - 996

- v. - - (2 K. & J. 346 ; 29 L. T. 0. S. 276) - 440

— v. Cremonini (6 Ex. 808) - - 1088
Manchester (Mayor of) v. Lyons (22 Ch. D. 287) - - 357

- & Milford E. Co. (14 Ch. D. 645 ; 42 L. T. 714) - 541

&c., E. Co., In re (19 B. 365) - 299, 800

In re (2 Jur. N. S. 31 ; 26 L. T. 0. S. 146 ;

4 W. E. 70) - 760

— v. Gt. Northern E. Co. (9 Ha. 284) - 62

Mandeno v. Mandeno (Kay, App. ii.) - 1314, 1315

Mander v. Harris (27 Ch. D. 166 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 143 ; 51 L. T. 380 ;

32 W. E. 941 ; 48 J. P. 23) - 1047

Mangles v. Dixon (3 H. L. C. 702) 828, 943, 948

Mann v. Nunn (43 L. J. C. P. 241 ; 30 L. T. 526) - 232, 236

v. Stephens (15 Si. 377) - - 864, 868

Manners (Lord) v. Johnson (1 Ch. D. 673 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 404 ; 24 W. E.

481) -864,873, 875

v. Mew (29 Ch. D. 725 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 909 ; 53 L. T. 84) - 116,

479, 826, 940, 952, 1106

Manning, Ex parte (2 P. W. 410) - 711, 712

- v. Bailey (2 Ex. 45 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 77) - 149
v. Gill ( 13 Eq. 485; 41 L. J. Ch. 736; 26L.T. 14; 20W.E.

357; 12 Cox, C. C. 274) - - 1063

- v. Phelps (10 Ex. 59 ; 24 L. J. Ex. 62) - - 461

Manningford v. Toleman (1 Coll. 670 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 160 ; 9 Jur. 438) 942,

1066, 1068

Mansell v. Clements (L. E. 9 C. P. 139) - 214

Manser v. Back (6 Ha. 443) - 123, 125, 209, 210, 216, 1154

v. Dix (3 Jur. N. S. 252 ; 8 D. M. & G. 703) - - - 80

„. (1 K & J. 451 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 466 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 113;

3 Eq. Eep. 650 ; 3 W. E. 313) - - 996

Mansfield (Lord) v. Ogle (7 D. M. & G. 181 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 419) 443, 535
Manson v. Thacker (7 Ch. D. 620; 47 L. J. Ch. 312; 38 L. T. 209;

26 W. E. 604)- - - 905

Mant v. Leith (15 B. 524 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 719 ; 16 Jur. 302) - - 688

Marine Investment Co. v. Haviside (L. E. 7 H. L. 624 ; 42 L. J. Ch.

173) 370, 786

D. m

i TABLE OF CASES.

Mar. PAGE
Marjoribanks v. Hovenden (Dru. 11) - 960, 965
Mark's Trust Deed, In re (1 Ch. 429 ; 15 L. T. 139 ; 14 W. E. 824) - 475
Marker v. Kekewich (8 Ha. 299 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 492 ; 14 Jur. 544) - 76
v. Marker (9 Ha. 16 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 246 ; 15 Jur. 663 ; 17 L. T.

O. S. 176) - 56, 507

Markey v. Coote (10 I. E. C. L. 149) - - 504, 1085, 1086

Markwick v. Hardingham (15 Ch. D. 339; 43 L. T. 647; 29 W. E.

361) - - 451

Marlborough's (Duke of) Estates, In re (13 Jur. 738) - - - 750

Maryborough (Duke of), Re (32 Ch. D. 1 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 339 ; 54 L. T.

914; 34 W. E. 377) - - 1281

v. Sartoris (32 Ch. D. 616 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 339 ;

54 L. T. 914 ; 35 W. E. 55) - 73, 1275

Marlow v. Orgill (8 Jur. N. S. 789 ; 6 L. T. 854) 1024, 1028

— v. Smith (2 P. W. 201) 1229, 1232, 1335

Marriott v. Anchor Eevy. Co. (3 D. F. & J. 177 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 571 ;

7 Jur. N. S. 713 ; 4 L. T. 590 ; 9 W. E. 726) - - 83

v. Kirkham (3 Giff. 536 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 312 ; 8 Jur. N. S.

379 ; 6 L. T. 17 ; 10 W. E. 340) - -1319

Marsden, Re (26 Ch. D. 783 ; 51 L. T. 417 ; 33 W. E. 28) - - 456
v. Kent (5 Ch. D. 598; 46 L. J. Ch. 497; 37 L. T. 48; 25

W. E. 522) - - 62

Marsh and Granville (Earl), Re (24 Ch. D. 11; 48 L. T. 947; 31

W. E. 845 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 81) - 106, 122, 163, 173, 174, 338, 339, 340

Marsh, Re (15 Q. B. D. 340 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 557 ; 53 L. T. 418 ; 34

W. E. 620) - - 819

v. Lee (2 Yent. 337 ;' 1 Wh. & T. L. C.) - - - 933

Marshal v. Crutwell (20 Eq. 328 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 504)'- - 1058, 1059
Marshall, Ex parte (1 Ph. 560) - - 807, 812
v. Berridge (19 Ch. D. 233 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 45 L. T. 599 ;

30 W. E. 94) - 256, 263, 1095
v. Collett (1 Y. & C. 232) - 837, 1155

- v. Gingell (21 Ch. D. 790 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 818 ; 47 L. T. 159 ;

31 W. E. 63) - 693
v. Green (1 C. P. D. 35 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 153 ; 33 L. T. 404 ;

24 W. E. 175) - - 234

v. Lynn (6 M. & W. 109) - - 1090, 1096

v. Powell (9 Q. B. 779 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 5 ; 11 Jur. 16) - 482

v. Sladden (4 De G. & S. 468 ; 7 Ha. 428) 67, 95, 1258

- v. Ulleswater Co. (3 B. & S. 732; 32 L. J. Q. B. 139; 9 Jur.

N. S. 988 ; 8 L. T. 416 ; 11 W. E. 489) - - 428

Marshfield, Re (34 Ch. D. 721 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 599; 56 L. T. 694; 35

W. E. 491) - 461

Marson v. Cox (14 Ch. D. 150; 49 L. J. Ch. 245; 42 L. T. 615; 28

W. E. 572) - - 936, 938, 939
v. L. C. & D. E. Co. (6 Eq. 101 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 483 ; 18 L. T.

317) - - 247

Marston v. Eoe (8 A. & E. 14 ; 2 N. & P. 504 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ex. 293) 211,

270, 307
Martin's Case (2 M. & P. 240 ; 5 Bing. 160) - - - 764

TABLE OF CASES. clxxix

Mar— Mat. PAGE

Martin v. Baxter : see Martin's Case.

v. Cotter (3 J. & L. 507 ; 9 Ir. Eq. E. 351) - 107, 127, 1194, 1201,

1204, 1234, 1277

- v. Goble (1 Camp. 320) - 408

• v. Headon (2 Eq. 430 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 602 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 387 ;

14 L. T. 585 ; 14 W. R. 723) 408, 870
v. L. C. & D. E. Co. (1 Ch. 501 ; 14 L. T. 814; 14 W. E.

880) 511, 512

v. Martin (2 E. & M. 507) - - 1003

v. Mitchell (2 J. & W. 428) - 267, 269, 1120, 1121, 1176, 1207

v. Pycroft (2 D. M. & G. 785 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 94 ; 16 Jur. 1125 ;

20 L. T. 0. S. 135; 1 W. E. 27, 58) - - 1148, 1157, 1177

- v. Eoe (7 E. & B. 237 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 129 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 465) 607
v. Smith (L. E. 9 Ex. 50 ; 43 L. J. Ex. 42 ; 30 L. T. 268 ; 22

W. E. 336) - - 229

- v. Spicer (34 Ch. D. 1 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 393 ; 55 L. T. 831) - 870
Martinez v. Cooper (2 Euss. 198) 767, 942, 950, 952
Martinson v. Clowes (21 Ch. D. 857 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 594 ; 46 L. T. 882;

30 W. E. 795) 35, 40

Martyn v. Macnamara (4 D. & War. 411 ; 2 Con. & L. 541) 279, 891

Martyr v. Lawrence (2 D. J. & S. 261 ; 10 L. T. 677 ; 4 N. E. 312 ;

12 W. E. 1043) 519, 602, 977, 983

Maryon v. Carter (4 C. & P. 295) - - 482

Maryport E. Co., Re (32 B. 397 ; 1 N. E. 506, 545; 11 W. E. 410,

507) - - ... 812

Mason v. Armitage (13 V. 38) - 120, 209, 216, 225

v. Broadbent (33 B. 296 ; 9 L. T. 565 ; 3 N. E. 101 ; 12

W. E. 118) - - 460, 461

• v. Cole (4 Ex. 375) - - 136

- v. Corder (2 Marsh. 332) - - - 1202

v. Franklin (1 Y. & C. C. C. 239) - - 1129

v. Hill (2 B. & Ad. 1 ; 2 N. & M. 547) - - - 415

— v. Mason (7 Ch. D. 707 ; 26 W. E. 565) 7

v. Shrewsbury & Hereford E. Co. (L. E. 6 Q. B. 578 ; 40 L. J.

Q. B. 293 ; 25 L. T. 239 ; 20 W. E. 14) - 20, 418

v. Stokes Bay Co. (11 W.E. 80; 32 L. J. Ch. 110; 1N.E.84) 1112

Massey, Re (8 B. 458) 816, 818

Massy v. Batwell (4 D. & War. 58) - - 1350

• v. Nanney (3 Bing. N. C. 478 ; 4 Sc. 258) - 790

Masten v. Cookson (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 414) - - - 385

Master v. Hansard (4 Ch. D. 718 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 505 ; 36 L. T. 535 ;

25 W. E. 570) - 867

Mather v. Eraser (2 K. & J. 536 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 361 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 900;

27 L. T. 0. S. 41 ; 4 W. E. 387) 149, 606, 607

v. Norton (21 L. J. Ch. 15 ; 16 Jur. 309) - 679, 1273

Mathews v. Feaver (1 Cox, 278) - - 1025

Mathias v. Mathias (3 S. & G. 552) - 1066, 1070

— v. Yetts (46 L. T. 497) - - 205

Mathison v. Clark (4 W. E. 30 ; 3 Dr. 3 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 29 ; 26 L. T.

O. S. 68 ; 4 W. E. 30) 95, 96, 208

TABLE OF CASES.

Mat— Mel.

Matson v. Dennis (4 D. J. & S. 345 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 461 ; 10 L. T. 391 ;

12 W. E. 926) - - 748

— v. Swift (5 Jur. 645) - 719, 1346

Matthew v. Bowler (6 Ha. 110 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 11 Jur. 297) - 830

- v. Osborne (13 0. B. 938 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 241 ; 17 Jur. 696)- 784,

785

Matthews v. Baxter (L. E. 8 Ex. 132 ; 42 L. J. Ex. 731 ; 28 L. T.

669; 21 W. E. 389) 7, 252, 263, 1095

- v. Dana (3 Mad. 470) - - - 1223

- v. Goodday (8 Jur. N. S. 90; 31 L. J. Ch. 282 ; 5 L. T. 572) 1320
Matthie v. Edwards (2 Coll. 465 ; 10 Jur. 347 ; 7 L. T. O. S. 57) - 81
Mattock v. Kinglake (10 A. & E. 50 ; 2 P. & D. 343 ; 3 Jur. 699) - 1088
Maundrell v. Maundrell (7 V. 567 ; 10 V. 246) - 583
Maunsell v. White (1 J. & L. 567 ; 7 Ir. Eq. E. 413) - r - 250

- v. - - (4 H. L. C. 1055) - 1142
Maurice v. Wainwright (Coop. t. Cott. 378) - - 1343
Maw v. Topham (19 B. 576) - 1118, 1165, 1193
Mawson v. Fletcher (6 Ch. 91 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 131 ; 23 L. T. 545 ; 19

W. E. 141) - 178, 180, 182, 1191

Maxfield v. Burton (17 Eq. 15 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 46 ; 29 L. T. 571 ; 22
W. E. 148) - 935, 952

Maxwell's Case (24 B. 321) - - 1057

- Trusts, Re (1 H. & M. 610 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 333 ; 9 Jur. N. S.

351 ; 1 N. E. 549 ; 11 W. E. 480) - - 915

Maxwell v. Deare (1 C. L. E. 776) - - 747

- v. Maxwell (L. E. 4 H. L. 506; 39 L. J. Ch. 698 ; 23 L. T.

325 ; 19 W. E. 15) - 922

May v. G. W. E. Co. (L. E. 7 H. L. 283 ; 43 L. J. Q. B. 233 ; 31

L. T. 137 ; 23 W. E. 141) - - 859

- v. May (33 B. 81) - 1063, 1163

- v. Eoper (4 Si. 360) - - 648
— v. Thomson (20 Ch. D. 716; 51 L. J. Ch. 912; 47 L. T. 295) 239, 265

Mayfield v. Wadsley (3 B. & C. 357 ; 5 D. & E. 224 ; 3 L. J. K. B.

31) 235, 236

Maynard's Case (Freem. 1) - 905

Meadows v. Tanner (5 Mad. 34) 126, 224

Mears v. Best (10 Ha. App. H.) - - - 1316

Mechelen v. Wallace (7 A. & E. 49 ; 2 N. & P. 224 ; 6 L. J. N. S.

K. B. 217) - 236

Medley v. Horton (14 Si. 226 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 442) - - 576

Meek v. Chamberlain (8 Q. B. D. 31 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 99; 46 L. T.

344 ; 30 W. E. 228) - 584

Melbourne Banking Co. v. Brougham (7 Ap. Ca. 307 ; 51 L. J. C. P.

65 ; 46 L. T. 603 ; 30 W. E. 925) - 41, 841

Melhado v. Porto Allegre, &c. E. Co. (L. E. 9 C. P. 503 ; 44 L. J.

C. P. 253 ; 31 L. T. 57 ; 23 W. E. 57) - 62, 219

Mellersh v. Keen (27 B. 236 ; 7 W. E. 629) - - - 82

Melling v. Bird (22 L. J. Ch. 599 ; 17 Jur. 155 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 303 ;

1 W. E. 219) . ...... 805, 810

TABLE OF CASES. clxXXl

Mel — Meu. PAOB

Melling v. Leak (16 0. B. 652 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 187 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 759) 443
Hellish v. Brooks (3 B. 22 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 362 ; 4 Jur. 739) - 455

— v. Motteux (Pea. N. P. 156) - - 102
Mellor v. Porter (25 Ch. D. 158 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 178 ; 50 L. T. 49 ; 32

W. E. 271) - - 1347

v. Watkins (L. E. 9 Q. B. 400 ; 23 W. E. 55) - - 230, 1044

Melward, Ex parte (27 B. 571 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 245; 6 Jur. N. S. 478) 752, 806
Menzies v. Lightfoot (11 Eq. 459 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 561 ; 24 L. T. 695 ;

19 W. E. 578) 936

— v. Macdonald (2 Jur. N. S. 575 ; 4 W. E. 625) - - - 312
Mercers' Co., Exparte (10 Ch. D. 481 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 384; 27 W. E. 424) 813
Mercer, Exparte (17 Q. B. D. 290; 55 L. J. Q. B. 558; 54 L. T. 720) 1028
Mercer and Moore, Re (14 Ch. D. 287 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 201 ; 42 L. T.

311; 28 W. E. 485) ----- 292,1276

Merchant Banking Co. v. London & Hanseatic Bank (55 L. J. Ch. 479) 1319
Merchant Taylors' Co., In re (30 Ch. D. 28 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 867 ; 52

L. T. 775 ; 33 W. E. 693) - 204, 822

- (10 B. 485) - - 806

Merchants' Trading Co. v. Banner (12 Eq. 18 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 515 ; 24

L. T. 861; 19 W. E. 707) - 1173

Meredith v. Meigh (2 E. & B. 364 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 401 ; 1 C. L. E.

648 ; 17 Jur. 649 ; 21 L. T. 0. S. 137 ; 1 W. E. 368) - - - 233

Merry's Estate, In re (15 W. E. 307 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 168 ; 15 L. T. 529) 1283
Mersey Steel Co. v. Naylor (9 Ap. Ca. 434 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 497 ; 32

W. E. 989) - 1089

Merton College, In re (33 B. 257 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 87 ; 9 L. T. 633 ;

12 W. E. 237) - - 811

Messer v. Boyle (21 B. 559) - - 543

Metcalfe's Trust, Re (2 D. J. & S. 122 ; 10 L. T. 78 ; 10 Jur. N. S.

287 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 308 ; 3 N. E. 657 ; 12 W. E. 538) - - - 23

Metcalfe v. Clough (2 Man. & E. 178 ; 6 L. J. K. B. 281) - - 214

- v. Pulvertoft (1 V. & B. 180) - - - 1117

Metherell, Exparte (20 L. J. Ch. 629) - 760

Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron (5 Ex. D. 319 ; 43 L. T. 676 ; 29 W. E.

370) - - - 440

Board of Works v. Metropolitan E. Co. (L. E. 3 C. P.

612; L. E. 4 C. P. 192; 37 L. J. C. P. 281; 38 L. J.
C.P. 172; 19 L.T. 10,744; 16W.E. 1117; 17W.E.
416) - 424, 604

District E. Co. v. Cosh (13 Ch. D. 607 ; 49 L. J. Ch.

277 ; 42 L. T. 73 ; 28 W. E. 685) - - 242, 244, 860

: E. Co. v. Defries (2 Q. B. D. 189, 387 ; 36 L. T. 150;

25 W. E. 271) 145, 291, 709, 716

Mette's Estate, In re (7 Eq. 72 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 445) - - 755

Metters v. Brown (9 Jur. N. S. 958 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 97 ; 8 L. T. 567 ;

2 N. E. 227 ; 11 W. E. 744) - - - 83

Meux v. Bell (1 Ha. 88 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 77 ; 6 Jur. 123) - 967

v. Maltby (2 Sw. 277) - - 976

v. Smith (11 Si. 410 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 209 ; 7 Jur. 821) 748, 749

Clxxxii TABLE OF CASES,

Mey— Mil. PAGE

Meynell v. Surtees (3 S. & G. 101 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 737 ; 25 L. J. Ch.
257 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 120; 25 L. T. O. S. 227 ; 3 W. E. 36, 535) - 267,

268, 1143, 1145
Meyrick, In re (9 Ha. 116 ; 20 L. J. Oh. 336 ; 15 Jur. 505) - - 659

- v. Laws (34 B. 58) - - 99
Micholls v. Corbett (3 D. J. & S. 18) 169, 1181
Micklethwait v. Newlay Bridge Co. (33 Ch. D. 133 ; 55 L. T. 336) 379,

412, 602

— v. Nightingale (12 Jur. 638) - - 1156

Micklethwaite, In re (11 Ex. 452 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 19) - 318

Middleton(Lord) v. Eliot (15 Si. 531) - - - 477

- (Lord) v. Wilson (Sug. 135) - 256

v. Magnay (2 H. & M. 233 ; 10 L. T. 408 ; 12 W. E. 706) 223,

506

- v. Pollock (2 Ch. D. 104 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 293) - - - 1027

v. (4 Ch. D. 49 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 39 ; 35 L. T. 608 ; 25

"W. E. 94) - - - - - 1065

— v. Sherburne (4 Y. & C. 358 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq. 75) - 24
Midgley v. Coppock (4 Ex. D. 309; 48 L. J. Ex. 674 ; 40 L. T. 870;

28 W. E. 161) 137, 147, 192

Midland Counties E. Co., In re (34 B. 525 ; 12 L. T. 659 ; 13 W. E.

851) 309

• v. Oswin(lColl.74; 3Ey.C.497; 13L.J.

Ch. 209 ; 8 Jur. 138) - 8, 297, 298, 303

v. Westcomb (11 Si. 57 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch.

324) - - - - - - - -.800

Midland E. Co., Re (11 Jur. 1095) - - 758

v. Checkley (4 Eq. 19 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 380 ; 16 L. T.

260; 15 W. E. 671) - - - - 130
v. Haunchwood Brick and Tile Co. (20 Ch. D. 552 ;

51 L. J. Ch. 778 ; 46 L. T. 301 ; 30 W. E. 628) 77,

130

v. Miles (30 Ch. D. 634 ; 33 Ch. D. 632 ; 55 L. J. Ch.

251, 745 ; 53 L. T. 381 ; 55 L. T. 428 ; 34 W. E. 136 ; 35 W. E.

76) 424, 604

Mildmay v. Hungerford (2 Vern. 243) - 1155, 1175

- v. Quicke (6 Ch. D. 553 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 667 ; 25 W. E. 788) 1303

- v. — - (20 Eq. 537) - 1304, 1309, 1310
Mildred v. Austin (8 Eq. 220 ; 20 L. T. 939 ; 17 W. E. 638) 549, 581

— v. Maspons (8 Ap. Ca. 874; 32 W. E. 125) - 969, 1072
Mileham, Re (15 B. 507) - - 386
Miles's Will, Re (27 B. 579 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 47 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1236 ; 1

L. T. 122; 8 W. E. 54) - - 97
Miles v. Durnford (2 D. M. & G. 641 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 667 ; 19 L. T.

O. S. 369) - 678

v. Jarvis (50 L. T. 48) 1307, 1315

v. Knight (12 Jur. 666; 17 L. J. Ch. 458) - 391

v. Langley (1 E. & M. 39 ; 2 E. & M. 626) 520, 976, 983

v. Miles (1 Eq. 462 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 315 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 116 ; 13

L. T. 697 ; 14 W. E. 272)- 309, 310

Milfield, In re (2 Ph. 254) - - - - - - 1348

TABLE OF CASES.

Mil— Min. PAOZ
Milford Docks Co., Re (23 Ch. D. 292 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 774 ; 48 L. T.

560; 31 W. E. 715) - 712
Mill's Estate, Re (34 Ch. D. 24 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 60 ; 55 L. T. 465 ; 35

W. E. 65) - - 813
Mill v. Hill (3 H. L. C. 828) 928, 959, 1032
v. New Forest Commissioners (18 C. B. 60 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 212 ;

2 Jur. N. S. 520) •-- - 425
Millar v. Small (1 Macq. 345 ; 1 W. E. 538) 876, 877
Millard v. Harvey (34 B. 237 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1167 ; 11 L. T. 360 ; 13

W. E. 125) - 1122, 1140

Miller, Ex parte (1 M. D. & D. 44) - - 59

- v. Beal (27 W. E. 403) - - - 208

v. Cook (10 Eq. 641 ; 22 L. T. 740 ; 18 W. E. 1061) 146, 851, 853,

854

v. Little (4 L. E. Ir. 302) - - 380

- v. Marriott (7 Eq. 1 ; 19 L. T. 304 ; 17 W. E. 41) - - 1311

- v. Pridden (3 Jur. N. S. 78 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 183 ; 28 L. T. 0. S.

244 ; 5 W. E. 171) 666, 1339
v. Priddon (18 L. J. Ch. 226 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 421 ; 1 D. M. & G.

335 ; 12 L. T. 0. S. 530; 18 L. T. O. S. 323) - - 682

— v. Smith (6 Ha. 609) - 1334

Millican v. Vanderplank (11 Ha. 136 ; 17 Jur. 986) - - - 1331

Milligan v. Cooke (16 V. 11) - 1189, 1194

Millington v. Thompson (3 Ir. Ch. E. 236) - - 458

MiUs v. Capel (20 Eq. 692 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 674) - 450

v. Dugmore (30 B. 104) - - - 70

v. Haywood (6 Ch. D. 196) - - 241, 485, 1214, 1215

v. Jennings (13 Ch. D. 639;- 49 L. J. Ch. 209 ; 42 L. T. 169 ;

28 W. E. 549) - - - 574

v. Oddy (6 C. & P. 728 ; 1 Gale, 92 ; 3D. P. C. 722 ; 2 C. M.

& E. 103) 151, 152, 221

v. Osborne (7 Si. 30) - - 691

Millward v. Thanet (Earl of) (5 V. 720, n.) - - 1213

Milne v. Marwood (15 C. B. 781 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 36) - - - 114

Milner's Estate, Re (14 Eq. 245; 42 L. J. Ch. 44; 26 L. T. 825;

20 W. E. 823) - - - - - - 391

Milnes v. Gery (14 V. 400) 256, 257, 704

Milward's Devisees, Ex parte : see Melward, Ex parte.

- Estate, Re (6 Eq. 248 j 16 W. E. 1078) - 77, 1279

Minchin's Estate, In re (2 W. E. 179) - - - 658

Minchin v. Nance (4 B. 332) 708, 733

v. Vance (2 S. Atk. Conv. 386 b) - - 345

Miner v. Gilmour (12 Mo. P. C. 131 ; 33 L. T. 0. S. 98 ; 7 W. E.

328) - - 415

Minet v. Leman (7 D. M. & G. 340 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 545 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

692; 3 W. E. 580) - - 71, 98, 171, 328, 1275

v. Morgan (8 Ch. 361; 42 L. J. Ch. 627; 28 L. T. 573; 21

W. E. 467) - 996

Minor, Ex parte (11 V. 559) - ... 1329

TABLE OF CASES.

Min — Moo. PAGE

Minton v. Kirwood (3 Ch. 614; 18 L. T. 781 ; 16 W. E. 991) 582, 1185,

1249, 1346

Mirehouse v. Scaife (2 M. & C. 695 ; 7 L. J. N. S. 22) - 692

Mirfin, In re (4 Man. & G. 635 ; 2 D. N. S. 110 ; 5 Sc. N. E. 166 ;

12 L. J. 0. P. 92) - - - - - - 651

Mitchell v. Hayne (2 S. & S. 63) - - 205

v. Homfray (8 Q. B. D. 587 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 460 ; 45 L. T.

694 ; 29 W. E. 558) - 24, 855

— v. Neale (2 V. sen. 679) - ' - 641

— v. Newall (3 Ey. Ca. 515) - - 812
v. Steward (1 Eq. 543; 35 L. J. Ch. 393; 14 L. T. 134;

14 W. E. 453) - 874

Mittelholzer v. Fullarton (6 Q. B. 989 ; 9 Jur. 334) - - 799

Mocatta v. Murgatroyd (1 P. W. 393) - 1040

Modlen v. Snowball (29 B. 641 ; 4 D. P. & J. 143 ; 5 L. T. 299 ;

7 Jur. N. S. 1260; 31 L. J. Ch. 34; 10 W. E. 24) - - - 138

Moeser v. Wisker (L. E. 6 C. P. 120; 40 L. J. C. P. 94; 24 L. T.
134; 19 W. E. 351) 178, 265, 1354

Moggridge v. Jones (14 Ea. 486; 3 Camp. 38) - 1086, 1089

Mole v. Smith (Jac. 490) 583, 1244, 1275

Mollett v. Wackerbath (5 C. B. 181) - - 274

Molloy v. French (13 Ir. Eq. E. 261) - 943

- v. Sterne (1 D. & Wai. 585) - - 169

Molony v. Kernan (2 D. & War. 31) - 43

Molton v. Camroux (2 Ex. 487 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 68 ; 12 Jur. 800) - 6, 1095

Molyneux and White, Re (15 L. E. Ir. 382 ; 17 L. E. Ir. 42) 66, 679, 695

-, Exparte (2 Coll. 273; 9 Jur. 786) - 812

Monck v. Huskisson (1 Si. 285 ; 5 L. J. Ch. 163) - - 365

Monckton and Gilzean, Re (27 Ch. D. 555 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 257 ; 51
L. T. 320; 32 W. E. 973) - 576, 717, 724

Money v. Jorden (2 D. M. & G. 318 ; 5 H. L. C. 185 ; 21 L. J. Ch.
893 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 865) - - - 898

Monk : see Bishop Monk.

v. Huskisson (4 Euss. 121) - 709, 719, 1276

Monkton v. Attorney-General (2 E. & M. 163) - 394, 395, 396, 397

Monro v. Taylor (8 Ha. 51 ; 3 M. & G. 713 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 525) - 175, 255,

262, 286, 490, 712, 1094, 1146, 1156, 1174, 1265

Monsell v. Armstrong (14 Eq. 423 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 715 ; 20 W. E. 921) - 682,

686

Montague v. Cardigan (Earl of) (Sug. Pow. 918) - 47

- v. Flockton (16 Eq. 189; 42 L. J. Ch. 677; 28 L. T. 580;

21 W. E. 668) - - 1167

Montgomery, Exparte (1 Gl. & J. 338) - 95

Monypenny v. Bristow (2 E. & M. 117) - - 308

- v. Monypenny (9 H. L. C. 114; 3 D. & J. 572; 28

L. J. Ch. 303; 5 Jur. N. S. 253; 33 L. T. 0. S. 33) - 594, 635, 636
Moodie v. Bannister (5 Jur. N. S. 402 ; 4 Drew. 432 ; 32 L. T. 376 ;

7 W. E. 278) - - 445, 458

Moody and Yates, Re (30 Ch. D. 344 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 886 ; 53 L. T.

845; 33 W. E. 785) .... 159, i63> 193j

TABLE OF CASES. clxXXV

Moo — Mor. PAGE

Moody v. Corbett (L. E. 1 Q. B. 510 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 161 ; 14 W. E. ,

737) - . „ - - 858, 861

— v. Walters (16 V. 283) - - - 1236

Moor v. Eaisbeck (12 Si. 123) - 303

v. Eoberts (3 C. B. N. S. 671 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 246; 3 Jur.N. S.

1221) - - - - 1084

Moore v. Campbell (10 Ex. 323 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 310) - - 1096

- v. Creed (1 D. & Wai. 521) - - 278
v. Culverhouse (27 B. 639 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 419 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 115) 768

- v. Edwards (4 V. 23) - - 1148
v. Greg (2 Ph. 717 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 15 ; 12 Jur. 952 ; 12 L. T.

O. S. 169) 311, 631
v. Hall (3 Q. B. D. 178 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 334 ; 38 L. T. 419 ;

26 W. E. 401) - - 408

v. Marrable (1 Ch. 217 ; 13 L. T. 725) - 1214

v. Moore (1 D. J. & S. 602 ; 8 L. T. N. S. 562 ; 2 N. E. 347 ;

11W. E. 790) - - - 923

v. Perry (1 Jur. N. S. 126) - - 1320

v. Eawson (5 D. & E. 234 ; 3 B. & C. 337) - - 406

Moorecock v. Dickins (Amb. 678) - 959, 981

Mordaunt v. Benwell (19 Ch. D. 302 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 247 ; 45 L. T. 585 ;

30 W. E. 227)- 299,1303
Mordy and Cowman, Re (51 L. T. 721) 628, 635
Morgan's Settled Estate, In re (49 L. J. Ch. 577) - - 1282
Morgan, Ex parte (12 V. 6) - - 51
, Re (24 Ch. D. 114 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 85 ; 48 L. T. 964 ; 31 W. E.

948) - 4
v. Brisco (31 Ch. D. 216 ; 32 Ch. D. 192 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 194 ;

53 L. T. 852 ; 54 L. T. 230 ; 34 W. E. 193, 360) - - 1251

v. Curtis (3 Man. & E. 389 ; 7 L. J. K. B. 95) - - - 334

v. Great Eastern Ey. Co. (1 H. & M. 78 ; 8 L. T. 270 ; 2 N. E.

60; 11 W. E. 662) - 1268
v. Griffith (L. E. 6 Ex. 70 ; 40 L. J. Ex. 46 ; 23 L. T. 783 ; 19

W. E. 957) - 232, 1094
v. Holford (1 S. & G. 101 ; 17 Jur. 225 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 177 ;

1 W. E. 101) - 263, 268, 306

v. Hunt (2 Ventr. 213) - - 882, 883

v. Metropolitan Ey. Co. (L. E. 4 C. P. 97 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 87) 1099

v. Milman (3 D. M. & G. 24 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 897 ; 17 Jur. 193 ;

20 L. T. 0. S. 285) - - 244, 256, 257, 299, 1145
v. Morgan (10 Eq. 99 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 493 ; 22 L. T. 595 ; 18

W. E. 744) 450, 653, 1033

v. Pike (14 C. B. 473 ; 2 C. L. E. 696 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 64) 792, 897

v. Euts (16 Sim. 234 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 419 ; 12 Jur. 813 ; 11

L. T. O. S. 238) - - 87

v. Shaw (2 Mer. 138) - 1219

v. The Swansea Urban Authority (9 Ch. D. 582 ; 27 W. E.

283) - ... 18,588

Morison v. Tumour (18 Y. 175) - 270

Morland v. Cook (6 Eq. 252 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 825 ; 18 L. T. 497 ; 16
W. E. 777) - 200, 520, 521, 869, 975, 980

clxXXVl TABLE OF CASES.

Mor. PAGE

Morland v. Isaac (20 B. 389 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 137 ; 3 W. E. 397) - 854

Morley v. Attenborough (3 Ex. 500 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 148 ; 13 Jur. 282 ;

12 L. T. 0. S. 532) - - - - - 163

— v. Clavering (29 B. 84 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 904) - 106, 629, 1217

• v. Cook (2 Ha. Ill ; 12 L. J. Ch. 136 ; 7 Jur. 79) 142, 183, 184,

321

• v. Morley (5 D. M. & G. 618 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

1097 ; 26 L. T. O. S. 99 ; 4 W. E. 75) - - - 1067

Mornington, Ex parte (4 D. M. & G. 537 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 966 ; 1 W. E.

248) - - - - - - - 663

— v. Keane (2 D. & J. 292) - - - 1069

Morphett v. Jones (1 Sw. 181) 1135, 1136, 1145

Morrell v. Frith (3 M. & W. 402 ; 1 H. & H. 100 ; 2 Jur. 619) - - 445

- v. Wootten (16 B. 197) - 828

Morris, Ex parte (12 Eq. 418; 40 L. J. Ch. 543; 25 L. T. 20; 19

W. E. 943) - - - - - - 805

Aylesford (Earl of) v. (8 Ch. 484 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 546 ; 28 L. T.

541 ; 21 W. E. 424) - 842, 846, 847, 851, 852, 1208

v. Barrett (3 Y. & J. 384) - - 1049, 1051

v. BuU (1 De G. & S. 691) - - 1338

— v. Clarkson (3 Sw. 558) - 1340

• v. Davies (5 C. & F. 163 ; 1 Jur. 911) - - 381, 382

v. Debenham (2 Ch. D. 540 ; 34 L. T. 205 ; 24 W. E. 636) - 76,

1275.

— v. Edgington (3 Taunt. 24) - - 882

- v. Ellis (7 Jur. 413) - - 434

- v. Kearsley (2 Y. & C. 139) - 163, 173, 319, 320, 326

- v. Livie (1 Y. & C. C. C. 380 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 172) - - 943
v. M'Neil (2 Euss. 604) - 1253

- v. Morris (4 Jur. N. S. 802 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 14 ; 6 W. E. 493) 70

— v. Preston (7 Y. 557) - - 1195

- v. Timmins (1 B. 411) - 1212

- v. Wilson (5 Jur. K S. 168 ; 33 L. T. 0. S. 56) - 1092, 1244

- v. Wood (15 Nov. 1850, MS.) 713, 720
Morrison v. Arnold (19 Y. 673) - - - 1130

- v. Barrow (1 D. F. & J. 633) - 1229
Morse v. Faulkner (1 Anst. 11) - - - 909

• v. Merest (6 Mad. 26) - - 1133

v. Eoyal (12 Y. 372) 39, 54, 117

v. Tucker (5 Ha. 79 ; 15 L. J. N. S. Ch. 162 ; 10 Jur. 173) - 896

Morshead v. Frederick (Sugd. 120) - - 1355

Mortimer v. Bell (1 Ch. 10 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 25 ; 11 Jur. 897 ; 13 L. T.

348 ; 14 W. E. 68) - 126, 224," 225
v. Capper (1 Br. C. C. 156) 288, 1209

- v. Orchard (2 Y. 243) - - - 1264

- v. Shortall (2 D. & War. 363) - 838

Mortlock v. Buller (10 Y. 309) - 67, 90, 739, 1117, 1118, 1165, 1172,

1174, 1179, 1187, 1188, 1200

Morton and Hallett, He (15 Ch. D. 143 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 559 ; 42 L. T.
602 ; 28 W. E. 895) - - - - -683, 1273

TABLE OF CASES. clxxxvii

Mor — Mun. PAGE

Morton v. Tibbett (15 Q. B. 428 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 382 ; 14 Jur. 669) - 234

v. Woods (L. E. 4 Q. B. 293 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 81 ; 18 W. E.

414) - 291, 595, 912, 1001

Moseley v. Virgin (3 V. 184) - - - 1110

Moses v. M'Farlane (2 Burr. 1011) - - 1072

Mosley v. Hide (17 Q. B. 91 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 539; 15 Jur. 899; 17

L. T. 0. S. 106) - - - - - - - 165

Moss, In re (17 B. 340) - 818

, Re (31 Oh. D. 90 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 87 ; 34 W. E. 59)- - - 654

v. Barton (1 Eq. 474 ; 35 B. 197 ; 13 L. T. 623) - 242

v. Gallimore (1 Doug. 279)- - - 914

v. Matthews (3 V. 279) - - 222

Mostj-n v. West Mostyn Coal Co. (1 C. P. D. 145 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 401 ;

34 L. T. 325 ; 24 W. E. 401) - - - - - - 636

Moth v. Atwood (5 V. 845) - 849, 855

Moule v. Garrett (L. E. 5 Ex. 132 ; L. E. 7 Ex. 101 ; 39 L. J. Ex.

69 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 62 ; 22 L. T. 343 ; 26 L. T. 367 ; 18 W. E. 696 ;

20 W. E. 416) - - 311, 631, 913, 1046

Moulton v. Edmonds (1 D. F. & J. 246 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 181 ; 6 Jur.

N. S. 305 ; 1 L. T. 391 ; 8 W. E. 153) - 159, 334, 398, 462, 1243
Mouseley's Trusts, In re (4 K. & J. 86) - - - 812

Moxey v. Bigwood (8 Jur. N. S. 803 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 597 ; 6 L. T.

N. S. 450 ; 10 L. T. 466 ; 12 W. E. 811) - - 1154

Moxhay v. Inderwick (1 De G. & S. 708; 11 Jur. 837) - 631, 632, 1132,

1214, 1250

Moyse v. Gyles (2 Vern. 385 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 293, pi. 2 ;. Pre. Ch. 124) 1047
Muir v. Jolly (26 B. 143) - - 833

Mules v. Jennings (8 Ex. 830 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 358 ; 1 Com. L. E. 660) 314
Mulhallen v. Marum (3 D. & War. 317) - 24, 43

Mulholland v. Killen (9 Ir. E. Eq. 471) - 366

Mullaly v. Walsh (6 I. E. C. L. 314) - - 386, 390

Mullens v. Miller (22 Ch. D. 194 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 380 ; 48 L. T. 103 ;

31 W. E. 559) - 74, 103, 104, 203, 1156, 1174

Mulliner v. Midland E. Co. (11 Ch. D. 611 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 258 ; 40 L.

T. 121 ; 27 W. E. 330)- - 20, 860

Mullings v. Trinder (10 Eq. 449 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 833 ; 23 L. T. 580 ; 18

W. E. 1186) - 94, 1233, 1234, 1260, 1273

Mullins v. Guilfoyle (2 L. E. Ir. 95) - - - 1007

- v. Hussey (1 Eq. 488 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 348) - - 1337

Mullock v. Jenkins (14 B. 628 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 65 ; 18 L. T. 0. S. 203) 24,

1163
Mumford v. Stohwasser (18 Eq. 556 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 694 ; 30 L. T. 859;

22 W. E. 833)- 928, 934, 935, 976

Mumma v. Mumma (2 Vern. 19) - 1057, 1059, 1062

Mummery v. Paul (1 C. B. 316)- - - 905

Munch v. Cockerell (5 M. & C. 218 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 153 ; 4 Jur.

140) - 57

Munday v. Asprey (13 Ch. D. 855 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 216 ; 28 W. E. 347) 264

- v. Jolliffe (5 M. & C. 167 ; 9 Sc. 413) - 1137, 1143, 1145, 1146

Mundel, In re (8 W. E. 683 ; 2 L. T. 653) - - - - 637

clxxxviii TABLE OF CASES.

Mun— Nas. PAGE

Munns v. Isle of Wight E. Co. (5 Ch. 414 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 522 ; 23 L. T.

96; 18 W. E. 78) 515, 836, 1220, 1221

Murchie v. Black (19 C. B. N. S. 190 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 608) - 421, 609

Murdin v. Patey (1 N. E. 566) 799, 1262

Murless v. Franklyn (1 Sw. 13) - 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061

Hurley v. M'Dermotfc (3 N. & P. 356) - 1045

Murphy, In re (5 Sc. N. E. 166) - - 650

- v. O'Shea (2 J. & L. 422 ; 8 Ir. Eq. E. 329) 43, 49, 54

- v. Eyan (2 I. E. C. L. 143) - - 419, 426
Murray, In re (1 Euss. 519) - - 820

- v. Currie (7 C. & P. 584) - - 214

- v. Mann (2 Ex. 538 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 256 ; 12 Jur. 634) - 206

- v. Palmer (2 Sch. & L. 486) - 56, 841, 853, 854, 903

. - v. Parker (19 B. 305) - - - 1092

Murrell v. Fysh (1 C. & E. 80) - 631

- v. Goodyear (1 D. F. & J. 432 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 356) 1178, 1179, 1266
Murtagh v. Costello (7 L. E. Ir. 428) - - - 1050

Musadee v. Meerza (8 Mo. P. C. 90) - 1033

Muschamp v. Bluet (Bridg. 132) - - 22

Musgrave v. McCullagh (14 Ir. Ch. E. 496)- - 164

v. Sandeman (48 L. T. 215) - - - 11

Muskerry v. Chinnery (L. & G. temp. Sugd. 185 ; 7 01. & F. 1 ; 1

H. L. C. 576) - 999

Mussett v. Burch (35 L. T. 486)- - - 426

Muston v. Bradshaw (15 Si. 192 ; 10 Jur. 402) 476, 1127

Mutlow's Estate (10 Ch. D. 131 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 198 ; 27 W. E. 245) - 510
Mutlow v. Bigg (18 Eq. 246 ; 1 Ch. D. 385 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 282 ; 34

L. T. 273 ; 24 W. E. 409) - 439, 455

Muttyloll Seal v. Annundo-chunder Sandle (5 Mo. Ind. App. 72) - 1057
Mutual Society v. Langley (32 Ch. D. 460 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 996 ; 54 L.

T. 326 ; 32 W. E. 792) - 959, 966

Myddleton v. Kenyon (Lord) (2 Y. 391, 410) - - - 1007

Myers v. Hodgson (1 C. P. D. 609 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 603 ; 34 L. T. 881 ;

24 W. E. 827) - - 189, 330, 1201

v. "Watson (1 Sim. V. S. 523) - 1156

Mynn v. Jolliffe (1 Mo. & E. 326) - - - - - 213

Nagle's Trusts, Re (6 Ch. D. 104) - - 1298

Nagle v. Baylor (3 D. & War. 60) - 846, 1160

Nairn v. Prowse (6 V. 752) -825, 1008

Nanfan v. Perkins (9 Si. 308, n.) - - 469

Nanney v. Williams (22 B. 452) - - 1022, 1032, 1034

Nantes v. Corrock (9 V. 189) - 1121

Napper v. Allington (Lord) (1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 166) - - 888

Nash, In re (25 L. J. Ch. 20 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1082 ; 4 W. E. 28) - 759

• v. Armstrong (10 C. B. N. S. 259 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 286 ; 7 Jur.

N. S. 1060 ; 9 W. E. 782) - 1090, 1096

TABLE OF CASES. clxxxix

Nas— Nei. PAGE

Nash v. Aston (Sir T. Jones, 195) - 881, 887

v. Browne (9 Jur. N. S. 431 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 148 ; 7 L. T. 667) - 163

v. Eads (25 Sol. J. 95) - 36, 81

v. Hodgson (6 D. M. & G. 474) - 457

v. Palmer (5 M. & S. 374) - - 883, 887

v. Turner (1 Esp. 217) - - 353

— v. Wooderson (33 W. E. 301 ; 52 L. T. 49) - - 156

- v. Worcester Commissioners (1 Jur. N. S. 973) 1112, 1255, 1320
Natal Investment Co., In re (3 Ch. 355 ; 37 J. L. Ch. 362 ; 18 L. T.

171 ; 16 W. E. 637) - - 943

National Bolivian Co. v. Wilson (5 Ap. Ca. 176 ; 43 L. T. 60) - - 210

Coffee Palace Co., Re (24 Ch. D. 367 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 57 ; 50

L. T. 38 ; 32 W. E. 236) - - - - 1074

- Exchange Company of Glasgow v. Drew (2 Macq. 108 ; 2

Dunl. (H. L.) 6 ; 25 L. T. O. S. 223) - 103, 902, 1095

Mercantile Bank, Ex parte (16 Ch. D. 104 ; 50 L. J. Ch.

221 ; 44 L. T. 265 ; 29 W. E. 227) - - - 234

Provincial Bank, Ex parte (4 Ch. D. 241 ; 46 L. J. Bkcy.

11; 35 L. T. 673; 25 W. E. 100) - 254

v. Jackson (33 Ch. D. 1 ; 55 L. T. 458 ;

34 W. E. 597) 946, 951

— Insurance Co. v. Prudential Insurance Co. (6
Ch. D. 757 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 871 ; 37 L. T. 91 ; 26 W. E. 26) - 406, 407
Naylor v. Goodall (47 L. J. Ch. 53 ; 37 L. T. 422 ; 26 W. E. 162) - 254,

1118, 1165, 1193

- v. Winch (1 S. & S. 567 ; 2 L. J. Ch. 132) - - 48
Neachell, In re (25 L. T. 0. S. 280) - - 812
Neal's Trusts (4 Jur. N. S. 6) - 594
Neal v. Morris (Beat. 597) - - 926

Neale v. Day (4 Jur. N. S. 1225 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 45 ; 32 L. T. O. S.

143 ; 7 W. E. 45) - - - 1024, 1025

- v. Mackenzie (1 Ke. 473) - - 1216

- v. Neale (1 Ke. 672) - - 847

- v. Parkin (1 Esp. 229) - - - 736

- v. Eatcliffe (15 Q. B. 916 ; 15 Jur. 166 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 130) 1088
Neame v. Moorsom (3 Eq. 91 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 274 ; 15 W. E. 51) - 398
Neap v. Abbott (C. P. Coop. 333) - - 1154
Neate, In re (10 B. 181) - 816

v. Marlborough (Duke of) (3 M. & C. 407 ; 2 Jur. 76) - 528, 542

Neath & Brecon E. Co., Re (2 Ch. D. 201 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 196) - 508
(9 Ch. 263 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 277 ; 30 L. T.

3; 22 W. E. 242)- - 511

Neddy Hall's Estate, In re (17 Jur. 29 ; 2 D. M. & G. 748 ; 22 L. J.

Ch. 177 ; 20 L. T. O. S. 187 ; 1 W. E. 2) - 362, 392

Neeldv. Beaufort (Duke of) (5 Jur. 1123) - - 210

Neesom v. Clarkson (2 Ha. 176 ; 4 Ha. 97 ; 6 Jur. 1055 ; 9 Jur. 82) 53,

448, 504, 903, 973, 974, 1033

Neeves v. Burrage (14 Q. B. 504) - 65

Neild's Case (cited 1 Moll. 453) - - - 998

Neill v. Devonshire (Duke of) (8 Ap. Ca. 135 ; 31 W. E. 622) 357, 396, 426

CXC TABLE OF CASES.

Nel— New.

Nelson v. Bridges (2 B. 239) - 286, 1104, 1248

- v. Bridport (Earl of) (10 B. 305) - 1257, 1258

- v. Callow (15 Si. 353) - 1275
— v. Nelson (Nels. 7) - - 908

v. Page (7 Eq. 25 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 138 ; 19 L. T. 447 ; 17 W. E.

271) - - 922

v. Stocker (4 D. & J. 458 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 760 ; 5 Jur. N. S.

751 ; 33 L. T. 0. S. 277 ; 7 W. R. 603) - 5, 947

Nelthorpe v. Holgate (1 Coll. 203; 8 Jur. 551) 107, 180, 212, 1114, 1129,

1132, 1182, 1188, 1191, 1195

— v. Pennyman (14 Y. 517) - - 1355

Nene Valley Commissioners v. Dunkley (4 Ch. D. 1) - 135, 255, 261
Nepean v. Doe (2 M. & W. 894 ; M. & H. 291 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ex.
335) ------- 388, 433

Nervin v. Munns (3 Lev. 46) - - 890

Nesbett v. Myer (1 Sw. 223) - 1215

Nesbitt v. Berridge (32 B. 282 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 53) - 844, 853

Nesham v. Selby (7 Ch. 406 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 551 ; 26 L. T. 568) - 263
Nether Stowey Yicarage, In re (17 Eq. 156 ; 29 L. T. 604 ; 22 W. R.

108) - - - 752

Netherville Peerage (2 Dow. & C. 342) - - 362

Neve v. Flood (33 B. 666 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 607 ; 10 L. T. 520 ; 4 N. R.

207 ; 12 W. R. 897) - 528, 550, 555, 961

v. Pennell (2 H. & M. 170 ; 2 N. R. 508 ; 1 1 W. R. 986) 768, 769,

961

Nevill v. Snelling (15 Ch. D. 679; 49 L. J. Ch. 777 ; 43 L. T. 244) 845,

852

Neville v. Wilkinson (1 Br. C. C. 546) - 114

Newall v. Smith (1 J. & W. 263) 493, 1260

Newbold v. Roadknight (1 R. & M. 677 ; Tarn. 492) - 295

Newbould v. Smith (29 Ch. D. 882 ; 33 Ch. D. 127 ; 53 L. T. 137 ;

55 L. T. 194 ; 33 W. R. 690 ; 34 W. R. 690 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 788) 453, 456
New Brunswick, &c., R. Co. v. Muggeridge (1 Dr. & S. 363 ; 30 L. J.

Ch. 242; 7 Jur. N. S. 132 ; 3 L. T. 651 ; 9 W. R. 193) 115, 116, 898
New Brunswick, &c., R. Co. v. Muggeridge (4 Dr. 486) - - 1167

Newby v. Paynter (17 Jur. 483) - - 729

Newcastle (Duke of), In re (8 Eq. 700 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 68 ; 21 L. T.

343; 18 W. R. 8) - 542, 546

- Settled Estates of, Re (24 Ch. D. 129 ; 52 L. J.

Ch. 645 ; 48 L. T. 779 ; 31 W. R. 782) - 4, 86

Newcomen v. Coulson (5 Ch. D. 133 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 459 ; 36 L. T.

385 ; 25 W. R. 469) - 414

Newell v. Radford (L. R. 3 C. P. 52 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 1 ; 17 L. T. 118;

16 W. R. 79) - - 252, 1091, 1092

Newenham v. Pemberton (1 De G. & S. 644) - 1122

Newham v. May (13 Pr. 749) - - - 904

Newland v. Anon. (1 P. W. 92) - 529

Newlands v. Holmes (3 Q. B. 679) - - 464

Newlands v. National Employers' Association (54 L. J. C. P. 428 ; 53

L. T. 242 ; 49 J. P. 628) - - 104

TABLE OF CASES. CXCl

New— Nic.

Newman's Settled Estates, Ee (9 Ch. 681 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 702 ; 31 L. T.

265) ..... 97, 752

Newman v. Kent (3 De G. & S. 510 ; 1 Mer. 241) - - 1039

- v. Newman (28 Ch. D. 674 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 598 ; 52 L. T.

422 ; 33 W. R. 505) - 929, 966

- v. Rogers (4 Br. C. C. 391) - - - 484

- v. Selfe (33 B. 522 ; 10 L. T. 152 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 251 ; 12

W. R. 564) 1317, 1319

- v. Warner (1 Si. N. S. 457) 686, 687

- v. Wilson (31 B. 33) - - - 922
Newmarch, Ee (9 Ch. D. 12 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 28 ; 39 L. T. 146 ; 27 W. R.

104) - 920

Newson v. Fender (27 Ch. D. 43 ; 52 L. T. 9 ; 33 W. R. 243) - - 406
Newstead v. Searles (1 Atk. 265) - 1013, 1014, 1017

Newton's Charity, In re (12 Jur. 1011) - - - 1351

Newton, Ex parte (4 Y. & C. 518) - - 807

-v. Beck (3 H. & N. 220 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 272 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 340) 477

- v. Grand Junction R. Co. (16 M. & W. 143; 16 L. J. Ex.

276) - - - - - - 531

-v. Hunt (5 Si. 521) - 849, 850, 854

- v. Newton (4 Ch. 143; 38 L. J. Ch. 145; 19 L. T. 588; 17

W. R. 238) - - - 476

-v. Preston (Ch. Free. 103) - - 1056

New Zealand Land Co. v. Watson (7 Q. B. D. 374 ; 50 L. J. Q. B.

433 ; 44 L. T. 675 ; 29 W. R. 694) - 1065

Nicholas and Davis, .Re (17 L. T. 0. S. 64) - - 957

Nicholl v. Jones (3 Eq. 696 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 554 ; 15 L. T. 383 ; 15

W. R. 393) ..._.- 13, 1120

Nicholls v. Elford (5 Jur. N. S. 264 ; 32 L. T. 221) - - 1268

Nichols to Nixey (29 Ch. D. 1005 ; 52 L. T. 803 ; 33 W. R. 840) - 1276

— v. Gayford (9 Ex. 702) - - - 421

— v. Hawkes (10 Ha. 342) - 1273

Nicholson, Ee (34 Ch. D. 663 ; 56 L. T. 770 : 35 W. R. 569) - - 656

- v. Hooper (4 M. & C. 179) - 947

- v. Knapp (9 Si. 326) - - 1223

-v. Rose (4 D. & J. 10) - - 136

- v. Smith (22 Ch. D. 640 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 191 ; 47 L. T. 650 ;

31 W. R. 471) - - - 242

- v. Tutin (2 K. & J. 18 ; 3 K. & J. 159 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1201 ;

3 Jur. N. S. 235) - - 1019

- v. Wordsworth (2 Sw. 365) - 503, 685, 1263, 1264, 1276
-v. Wright (26 L. J. Ch. 312 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 313; 29 L. T.

52; 5W. R. 431) - - 1274

Nickalls v. Merry (L. R. 7 H. L. 530; 45 L. J. Ch. 575; 32 L. T.

623; 23 W. R. 663) - - - 1106

Nicklin v. Williams (10 Ex. 259 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 335) - 421

Nicoll v. Chambers (11 C. B. 996 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 54; 18 L. T. 0. S.

243) - - 158, 367

-v. Fenning (19 Ch. D. 258; 51 L. J. Ch. 166; 45 L. T. 738;
30 W. R. 95) ...... 138, 868

CXC11 TABLE OF CASES.

•

Nie— Nor. PAGE

Niell v. Morley (9 V. 478) 7

Nind v. Marshall (1 Br. & B. 319) - - 890

Nives v. Nives (15 Ch. D. 649 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 674 ; 42 L. T. 832) - 836

Nixon, In re (2 Jur. N. S. 970) - 383

- v. Hamilton (2 D. & Wai. 364) - - 855, 960, 965, 967, 988
Noble v. Brett (24 B. 499 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 516 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 623 ; 31

L. T. 0. S. 228 ; 6 W. E. 219) - - 110
v. Cass (2 Si. 343) - 880, 897

v. Edwardes (5 Ch. D. 378 ; 37 L. T. 7) - 143, 185, 482, 1077,

1150, 1179

- v. Meymott (14 B. 471) - - - 681
-v. Stow (30 B. 272) - - 1342

v. Ward (L. E. 2 Ex. 35; 36 L. J. Ex. 91 ; 15 W. E. 520) - 1090,

1096, 1097

Nock v. Newman (6th July, 1837) - 322, 1179, 1242

Noel v. Bewley (3 Si. 103) 366, 909, 910

- v. Hoy (cited Sugd. 217) - 1177

v. Jevon (Freem. 43) - - 586

v. Ward (1 Mad. 322) - - 474

v. Weston (6 Mad. 50) - - 641

Noke v. Awder (Cro. Eliz. 436) - 879

Nokes v. Gibbon (3 Dr. 681) - - 312, 997

- v. Kilmorey (Lord) (1 De G. & S. 444) 485, 489, 1261
Norcop's Will, In re (31 L. T. 85) - - 759
Norfolk (Duke of) v. Arbuthnot (5 C. P. D. 390 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 782 ;

43 L. T. 302) - - - 334

- v. Worthy (1 Camp. 337) - - 152, 738, 1072, 1075

Norfolk Clergy Charity (W. N. (1882) 53) - - 759

Norman, Re (16 Q. B. D. 673; 55 L. J. Q. B. 202; 54 L. T. 143; 34

W. E. 313) - - - - - - 817

- v. Stiby (9 B. 560) - 896

Normanton Gas Co. v. Pope (52 L. J. Q. B. 629 ; 32 W. E. 134) - 424
Norris v. Irish Land Co. (8 E. & B. 512 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 115 ; 4 Jur.

N. S. 235) - - 1101
v. Jackson (1 J. & H. 319; 7 Jur. N. S. 540; 4 L. T. 503) - 1109

- v. Le Neve (3 Atk. 37) - 993
North v. Great Northern E. Co. (2 Gif. 64 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 301 ; 11 Jur.

N. S. 244; 1 L. T. 510) - - 1268

North Staff. E. Co., In re (2 Ex. 235 ; 6 Ey. Ca. 25) - 707

Northampton Gaslight Co. v. Parnell (15 C. B. 630; 3 C. L. E. 409 ;

24 L. J. C. P. 60 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 211) - - - 897

Northcliffe v. Warburton (10 W. E. 635) - - 535

Northern Insurance Co. v. Whipp (26 Ch. D. 482 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 629 ;

32 W. E. 626) 826, 950, 952, 971

Northumberland (Duke of) v. Bowman (56 L. T. 773) - 873

• v. Houghton (L. E. 5 Ex. 127 ; 39 L. J.

Ex. 66 ; 22 L. T. 491 ; 18 W. E. 495) - - - 426

Northwick (Lord), Ex parte (1 Y. & C. 166) 751, 808

Norton v. L. & N. W. E. Co. (13 Ch. D. 268 ; 41 L. T. 429 ; 28 W. E.
173) - - 20, 859

TABLE OF CASES. CXC111

Not— O'H. PAGE

Nott v. Riccard (22 B. 307 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 618 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 1038 ; 26

L. T. 0. S. 267 ; 4 W. R. 269) - - - - 167, 488, 489

Nottingham Bank, Ex parte (15 Q. B. D. 441 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 601) - 955
Nottingham Brick Co. v. Butler (15 Q. B. D. 261 ; 16 Q. B. D. 778 ;

54 L. J. Q. B. 544 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 280 ; 54 L. T. 444 ; 34 W. R.

405; 1 C. & E. 565) - 131, 156, 163, 173, 177, 867, 868, 1202, 1276
Nottingham Guardians v. Tomkinson (4 C. P. D. 343 ; 49 L. J. M. C.

171; 28 W. R. 151) - .... 383

Nouaille v. Flight (7 B. 521 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 414 ; 8 Jur. 838) - 122, 1194,

1202, 1274, 1276

v. Greenwood (T. & R. 26) - 339

Nugent's Trusts, Re (19 L. R. Ir. 140) - - - 433

Nugent v. Nugent (15 L. R. Ir. 321) - 437

Nunes v. Carter (L. R. 1 P. C. 349; 4 M. P. C. C. N. S. 22 ; 36 L. J.

P. C. 12 ; 15 W. R. 239) - 568, 954

Nunn v. Fabian (1 Ch. 35 ; 13 L. T. 343 ; 11 Jur. 868 ; 35 L. J. Ch.

140) - 1137, 1138, 1142, 1143, 1263
v. Hancock (6 Ch. 850 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 700 ; 25 L. T. 469 ; 19

W. R. 1041) .... 2, 1326, 1350

v. Truscott (3 De G. & S. 304) - - 1215, 1217

Nurse v. Seymour (Lord) (13 B. 269) - - 136, 1115, 1150

Nutbrown v. Thornton (10 V. 159) - - 1105

Nuttall v. Bracewell (L. R. 2 Ex. 1 ; 4 H. & C. 714 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 1 ;
12 Jur. N. S. 989 ; 15 L. T. 313) ... 415, 417, 612

Oakden v. Clifden (2 Russ. 309) - - 1274
v. Pike (34 L. J. Ch. 620 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 666 ; 13 W. R. 673 ;

12 L. T. N. S. 527) - 142, 184, 321, 490

O'Brien v. Sheil (7 I. R. Eq. 255) - - 1060

O'Byrne's Estate, Re (15 L. R. Ir. 373) - 768

Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Sutherberry (16 Ch. D. 236; 50

L. J. Ch. 308 ; 43 L. T. 743 ; 29 W. R. 113) - - 90, 1189

Ochiltree's (Lord) Case (Hub. on Ev. 249) - - 383

Ockenden v. Henley (1 E. B. & E. 485 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 999 ; 27 L. J.

Q. B. 361 ; 31 L. T. 0. S. 179) - - 185

O'Connor v. Spaight (1 Sch. & L. 306) - 236

Often v. Harman (1 D. F. & J. 253 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 307 ; 6 Jur. N. S.

487 ; 1 L. T. 315 ; 8 W. R. 129)- - - '86

Ogden v. Battams (1 Jur. N. S. 791) - 926

-v. Fossick (32 L. J. Ch. 73) - - 1164

v. Laurie (25 L. J. Ch. 198) - - 699

Ogilvie v. Foljambe (3 Mer. 53) - 124, 129, 163, 239, 254, 264, 266, 270,

495, 625

v. Jeaffreson (2 Giff. 353 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 970)- - 991

Ogle v. Vane (Earl) (L. R, 3 Q. B. 272 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 77 ; 16 W. R.

463 ; 9 B. & S. 182) - - - - 1097

O'Gorman v. Comyn (2 Sch. & L. 147) - - 1008

O'Hara's Tontine, Re (6 W. R. 45 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1145 ; 30 L. T. 128) - 454

O'Herlihy v. Hedges (1 Sch. & L. 123) - 1182

D. n

CXCiv TABLE OF CASES.

Ohr— Osb.

Ohrly v. Jenkins (1 De G. & S. 543) - - 1269

O'Kelly v. Culverhouse (W. N. (1887) 36) - - 1319

Okill v. Whittaker (2 Ph. 338 ; 1 De G. & S. 83) - 837, 840

Oldfield v. Preston (8 Jur. N. S. 107 ; 3 D. F. & J. 398 ; 31 L. J. Ch.

266 ; 5 L. T. 650 ; 10 W. E. 257) - 318

v. Bound (5 V. 508) - 102, 131, 225, 520, 1204

Oldham v. Stringer (W. M. (1884) 235 ; 33 W. R. 251 ; 51 L. T. 895) 543,

1318, 1321

Oldin v. Samborn (2 Atk. 15) - 43

Olding v Smith (16 Jur. 497 ; 19 L. T. 0. S. 140) - - 211

Oliver v. Court (8 Pr. 127 ; Dan. 301) - 40, 55, 85

Olley v. Fisher (34 Ch. D. 367 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 208 ; 55 L. T. 807) 1149, 1152
Olliver v. King (1 Jur. N. S. 1066 ; 8 D. M. & G. 110) - - - 1030

Omerod v. Hardman (5 V. 722) - 1158

Ommaney v. Stilwell (23 B. 328 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 1058 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 94) 387,

390
Onions v. Cohen (2 H. & M. 354 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 338 ; 12 L. T. 15 ; 11

Jur. N. S. 199; 13 W. R. 426) - - 117

Onley v. Gardiner (4 M. & W. 500 ; 1 H. & H. 381)- 430, 431

Onslow v. Londesborough (Lord) (10 Ha. 74) - 146, 622, 633

Orange to Wright (54 L. J. Ch. 590 ; 52 L. T. 606) - 151, 729

Ord v. Johnston (4 W. R. 37 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1063 ; 26 L. T. 68) - - 1208

v. Noel (5 Mad. 438) - 78, 90, 92, 1165, 1209

O'Reilly v. Thompson (2 Cox, 271) - - 1139

Oriental Bank Corporation, Re (56 L. T. 868) - 1332

Oriental Inland Steam Co. v. Briggs (2 J. & H. 625 ; 4 L. T. N. S.

578; 9W.R. 778) - - 1107

Original Hartlepool Colliery Co. v. Gibb (5 Ch. D. 713 ; 46 L. J. Ch.

311; 36 L. T. 433) - 414

— v. Moon (30 L. T. 585) - - - 994

Orlebar v. Fletcher (1 P. W. 737 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 108, pi. 2) 291, 529, 1115
Orme v. Broughton (10 Bing. 533 ; 4 M. & Sc. 417j - - 1084, 1217

v. Wright (3 Jur. 19) - 40, 1043

Ormerod, In re (3 D. & J. 249 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 55 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1289 ;

32 L. T. 153; 7 W. R. 71) - 656
v. Todmorden Mill Co. (11 Q. B. D. 155 ; 52 L. J. Q. B.

445 ; 31 W. R. 759) - - - 415
Ormond (Lord) v. Anderson (2 B. & B. 371) 269, 1147
O'Rorke v. Bolingbroke (2 Ap. Ca. 814 ; 26 W. R. 239) - - 847, 852
Orr-Ewing v. Colquhoun (2 Ap. Ca. 839 ; 4 Ret. (H. L.) 116) 414, 415, 419
Ortigosa v. Brown (47 L. J. Ch. 168 ; 38 L. T. 145) - - 933
Osbaldeston v. Askew (1 Russ. 160) - - 1233
Osbaldiston, Ex parte (8 Ha. 31) - - 807
Osborn's Trusts, Re (12 Eq. 392 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 706 ; 25 L. T. 151) - 664
Osborn v. Lea (9 Mod. 96) - 517, 948
- v. Osborn (6 Eq. 338) - - - 1311
Osborne v. Eales (12 W. R. 654) - 626
v. Foreman (8 D. M. & G. 122; 2 Jur. N. S. 361) 1313, 1331

TABLE OF CASES. CXCY

Osb — Pag-. PAGE

Osborne v. Harvey (7 Jur. 229 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 6G ; 1 Y. & 0. C. 0.
116) - 161, 163, 502, 1218

Osborne to Hewlett (13 Ch. D. 774; 49 L. J. Ch. 310 ; 42 L. T. 650 ;

28 W. R. 365) - - 682, 1235, 1236, 1258, 1259, 1260, 1273

Osgood v. Strode (2 P. W. 245) - 1012, 1016

O'Toole v. Browne (3 E. & B. 572 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 282 ; 2 Com. L. E.

1701; 23 L. T. O. S. Ill; 2 W. R. 430) - - 308

Otter v. Vaux (Lord) (6 D. M. & G. 638 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 129 ; 3 Jur.

N. S. 169 ; 5 W. R. 188) - 888, 909, 1042

Ousley v. Anstruther (10 B. 461 ; 11 B. 399) 1059, 1063, 1338

Outram v. Maude (17 Ch. D. 391 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 783 ; 29 W. R. 818)- 431
Overfull, In re (17 Jur. 342 ; 1 S. & G. 362 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 485 ; 20

L. T. 0. S. 290 ; 1 W. R. 208) - - - - - 391

Overton v. Banister (3 Ha. 503 ; 8 Jur. 906) 4, 947

Owen, Re (10 Ch. D. 166 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 248 ; 27 W. R. 305) - - 387

v. Body (5 A. & E. 28 ; 2 H. & W. 31 ; 6 N. & M. 448) - - 1026

v. Davies (1 V. 82) - 291, 712

- v. De Beauvoir (16 M. & W. 547) - 435, 466
v. Foulkes (6 V. 630, n.) - 39

- v. Homan (17 Jur. 861) - - - 971
v. Routh (14 C. B. 327 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 105 ; 18 Jur. 356) - 1079

— v. Thomas (3 M. & K. 353 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 205) 239, 254, 269
Owens v. Wynne (4 E. & B. 579) - - 1036

Oxenden v. Falmouth (Lord) (Sug. 637) - 719, 1265

Oxenham v. Esdaile (2 Y. & J. 493 ; 3 Y. & J. 262) - 506, 638

— (Lord) v. Rodney (14 V. 417) - 919

Oxford, C. C. C. v. Rogers (49 L. J. C. L. 4 ; 44 J. P. 216) - 437, 446

. v. Provand (L. R. 2 P. C. 141 ; 5 Mo. P. C. N. S. 150) 102, 1111,

1146

Oxwick v. Brockett (1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 355)- - - 908
v. Plumer (Bac. Abr. Mortg. (E.), s. 3; Gilb. Rep. 13) 927, 984

Packer v. Wellstead (2 Sid. Ill)- - - 413

Packman and Moss, Re (1 Ch. D. 214; 45 L. J. Ch. 54; 34 L. T.

110; 24 W. R. 170) - 1274

Padbury v. Clark (2 M. & G. 298 ; 2 H. & Tw. 341 ; 19 L. J. Ch.

533) ----- ..-296

Paddock v. Forrester (3 Man. & G. 903 ; 3 Sc. N. R. 715 ; 1 D. N. S.

527; 11L. J. C. P. 107) - - 428

Padstow Association, Re (20 Ch. D. 137; 51 L. J. Ch. 344; 45 L. T.

774; 30 W. R. 326) - - - 1163

Padwick, Kx parte (8 Eq. 700 ; 18 W. R. 8 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 68 ; 21

L. T. 0. S. 343) 526

v. Hanslip (14 L. T. 0. S. 543) - - 1173

v. Platt (11 B. 503) - 1132

Page, In re (32 B. 487 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1116 ; 11 W. R. 584 ; 8 L. T.

N. S. 231) - - - - - - - 207

, Re (1 D. & Wai. 31) - - 727

n 2

CXCVi TABLE OF CASES.

Pag— Par. PAGE

Page v. Adam (4 B. 269 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 407 ; 5 Jur. 793) - 181,

182, 184, 321, 324, 673, 675, 676

v. Bennett (2 Gif. 117; 6 Jur. N. S. 419)- - - 195

v. Broom (3 B. 36) - - 622

v. Cooper (16 B. 396; 20 L. T. 0. S. 287 ; 1 W. E. 136)

Paget (Lord) v. Milles (3 Doug. 43) - - 428

v. Ede (18 Eq. 118 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 571 ; 30 L. T. 228 ; 22 W. E.

625) - ' - - H07

v. Foley (2 Bing. N. C. 679 ; 3 Sc. 120 ; 2 Hodges, 32) - 461

v. Marshall (28 Ch. D. 255 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 575 ; 51 L. T. 351 ;

33 W. E. 608 ; 49 J. P. 85) -

v. Paget (11 L. E. Ir. 26) - 2

Paice v. Walker (L. E. 5 Ex. 173 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 109 ; 22 L. T. 547 ;

18 W. E. 789) 1073, 1074, 1075

Pain v. Coombs (3 S. & G. 449 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 308 ; 29 L. T. 0. S. 100;
5 W. E. 340 ; 1 D. & J. 34 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 847 ; 30 L. T.
0. S. 47) - - - 250, 1138, 1143, 1148, 1217

v. Smith (2 M. & K. 417) - - - 1320

Paine v.Jones (18 Eq. 320; 43 L. J. Ch. 787; 30 L. T. 779; 22

W. E. 837) - - - 466

v. Meller (6 V. 349) 285, 286, 287

Painter v. Newby (11 Ha. 26 ; 1 Eq. E. 173 ; 1 W. E. 284) 182, 729, 1189
Palairet v. Carew (32 B. 568 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 508 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 426 ; 8

L. T. 139 ; 11 W. E. 449) - 91, 653

Palk v. Shinner (18 Q. B. 568; 22 L. J. Q. B. 27 ; 17 Jur. 372 ; 19

L. T. 0. S. 228) - - - 430

Palliser v. Gurney (35 W. E. 760 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 546) - 1124

Palmer's Will, Re (13 Eq. 408 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 11) - - 1298

Palmer v. Fletcher (1 Lev. 122; 1 Sid. 167; Sir T. Eaym. 87; 1

Keb. 553) - - - 409

v. Goren (25 L. J. Ch. 841 ; 4 W. E. 688) 287, 1329, 1332, 1336

v. Hendrie (28 B. 341) - - - 81

v. Johnson (12 Q. B. D. 32 ; 13 Q. B. D. 351) 604, 905, 1352

v. Locke (18 Ch. D. 381 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 124; 45 L. T. 229; 30

W. E. 419)- - 342, 956, 1229, 1235, 1237, 1238, 1276

v. Temple (9 A. & E. 508 ; 1 P. & D. 379 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Q. B.

179) - 185, 220, 490, 1089

Palmerston (Lord), Ex parte (4 Ey. Ca. 57, n.) - - 807
v. Turner (33 B. 524 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 457 ; 10 Jur.

N. S. 577 ; 4 N. E. 46 ; 10 L. T. 364 ; 12 W. E. 816) 144, 722

Panama Telegraph Co. v. Indiarubber Co. (32 L. T. 238 ; 10 Ch.

515 ; 23 W. E. 583) - 117

Paramore v. Greenslade (1 S. & G. 541 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 34; 17 Jur.
1064; 22 L. T. 0. S. 182) 176, 799, 801, 1329, 1334

Pares, Re (12 Ch. D. 333 ; 41 L. T. 574 ; 28 W. E. 193) - 1308

Parfitt v. Jepson (46 L. J. C. P. 529 ; 36 L. T. 251) - 127, 140, 226

Paris Chocolate Co. v. Crystal Palace Co. (3 S. &G. 119 ; 1 Jur. N. S.
720 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 7 ; 3 W. E. 267) - 1105, 1164

Parish v. Sleeman (1 D. F. & J. 326 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 96 ; 6 Jur. N. S.

385 ; 1 L. T. 506; 8 W. E. 166) - - 192
Parker, Ex parte (3 C. L. E. 148) 651

TABLE OF CASES. CXCV11

Par. PAGE

Parker, Re (29 Ch. D. 199 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 959 ; 52 L. T. 686 ; 33 W. R.

541) - - 346
and Beech, Re (55 L. J. Ch. 815; 54 L. T. 750) 744, 1165, 1275

v. Carter (4 Ha. 410) 935, 1004, 1021

v. Clarke (30 B. 54 ; 9 W. R. 877) - - 930

v. Farebrother (1 C. L. R. 323; 21 L. T. 0. S. 127 ; 1 W. R.

370) - - 208

v. First Avenue Hotel Co. (24 Ch. D. 282 ; 49 L. T. 318 ; 32

W. R. 105) 408

v. Frith (1 S. & S. 199) - 484

v. Gossage (2 C. M. &R. 617 ; 1 Tyr. & G. 105 ; 1 Gale, 288) 1091

v. Leach (L. R. 1 P. C. 312 ; 36 L. J. P. C. 26 ; 15 L. T. 370;

15 W. R. 204) - - - 334

v. McKenna (10 Ch. 96 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 425 ; 31 L. T. 739 ; 23

W. R. 271) - 40

v. Mitchell (11 A. & E. 788 ; 3 P. & D. 655 ; 9 L. J. N. S.

Q. B. 194; 4 Jur. 915)- - 430

— v. Morrell (2 Ph. 469; 17 L. J. Ch. 226 ; 12 Jur. 253) - - 1253
- v. Patrick (5 T. R. 175) - 855

— v. Rolls (14 C. B. 691) - - - 522
v. Smith (1 Coll. 608) - 272, 1115, 1137, 1138, 1148

v. Sowerby (4 D. M. & G. 321 ; 18 Jur. 523 ; 2 Eq. 664 ; 2

W. R. 547) - - 614

v. Staniland (11 Ea. 362) - 235

v. Taswell (2 D. & J. 559 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 812 ; 4 Jur. N. S.

1006; 31 L. T. O. S. 226; 6 W. R. 608) - 228, 255, 1147, 1174
v. Whitby (T. & R. 366) - - 1212

- v. Whyte (1 H. & M. 167) - - 520, 865, 869, 981
Parkes' Charity, Re (12 Si. 329) - - - 1351
Parkes, Exparte (1 Gl. & J. 228) - - 832

- v. White (11 Y. 209, 226) - 35, 48
Parkhurst v. Lowten (2 Sw. 194) - - 993
Parkin v. Thorold (16 B. 59 ; 2 Si. N. S. 1) - 483, 484, 488, 490, 1215
Parkinson v. Francis (15 Si. 160) - - 392

v. Hanbury (2 D. J. & S. 450 ; 1 Dr. & S. 143 ; L. R. 2 H. L. 1 ;

8 W. R. 575 ; 13 W. R. 331 ; 15 W. R. 642 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 292 ; 11
L. T. 755; 16 L. T. 243) 41, 73, 506, 1033

Parnther v. Gaitskell (13 Ea. 432) - - 746

Parr v. Applebee (7 D. M. & G. 585 ; 3 W. R. 645) - - 1163

v. Eliason (1 Ea. 92) - - 1019

v. Jewell (1 K. & J. 673 ; 3 W. R. 567) - - - 901

v. Lovegrove (4 Dr. 170 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 600 ; 31 L. T. 0. S. 364 ;

6 W. R. 201) 105, 184, 321, 325, 338, 709, 724, 1228

Parrott v. Sweetland (3 M. & K. 655) - - - 832

Parry's Will, In re (34 B. 462) - 1286

Parry v. Frame (2 B. & P. 451) - - - 1085

v. Warrington (6 Mad. 155) - 63, 98

Parsons v. Freeman (3 Atk. 741 ; 1 Amb. 116; 1 Wils. 308) - 306, 919
Partridge v. Forster (34 B. 1 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 471 ; 4 N. R, 473) 542, 547

CXCV111 TABLE OF CASES.

Par— Pea.

Partridge v. Scott (3 M. & W. 220 ; 1 H. & H. 31 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ex.

101) - - 430
v. Strange (Plow. 77) - 277

v. Usborne (5 Buss. 195 ; 7 L. J. Ch. 49) - - 112

Pasley v. Freeman (2 Sm. L. C. ; 3 T. E, 51) 103, 114, 1095

Pasmore, Ex parte (1 Y. & C. 75) - - 812

Patch v. Ward (1 Eq. 436 ; 13 L. T. 496 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 2 ; 14 W. E.

166) - 475

Patchett v. Holgate (15 Jur. 308 ; 16 L. T. O. S. 297) - - - 382

Patching v. Bull (30 W. E. 244 ; 46 L. T. 227) - 1316, 1333

- v. Dubbins (Kay, 1) - - - 864

Pater v. Baker (3 C. B. 831 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 124; 11 Jur. 370; 8 L. T.
O. S. 449) - - ... 120

Paterson v. Long (5 B. 186) - - 1128

v. (6 B. 590 ; 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 1 ; 7 Jur. 1049 ; 2

L. T. O. S. 116) - 132, 1194

Patman v. Harland (17 Ch. D. 353 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 642 ; 44 L. T. 728 ;

29 W. E. 707) - - 107, 191, 200, 868, 869, 970, 973, 978, 981

Paton v. Brebner (1 Bli. 69) 918, 1194

- v. Eogers (6 Mad. 257 ; 1 V. & B. 353) 709, 720, 1188, 1239, 1242

Patrick v. Milner (2 C. P. D. 342; 46 L. J. C. P. 537; 36 L. T. 738;
25 W. E, 790) - - 485, 486

Patten and Edmonton Guardians, Re (52 L. J. Ch. 787 ; 48 L. T.
870 ; 31 W. E. 785) - - - - 689

Pattenden v. Hobson (22 L. J. Ch. 697 ; 17 Jur. 406 ; 21 L. T. 0. S.
84 ; 1 W. E. 282 ; 1 Eq. E. 28) - - 62

Pattinson v. Luckley (L. E. 10 Ex. 330 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 180 ; 33 L. T.

360) - - - 274

Pattison's Estate, Re (4 Ch. D. 207) - - 810

Pattison v. Graham (2 S. & G. 211) - - 1257

Pawle v. Gunn (4 Bing. N. C. 445 ; 6 Sc. 286 ; 1 Arn. 200 ; 7 L. J.

N. S. C. P. 206) - - 232

Pawsey v. Barnes (20 L. J. Ch. 393 ; 15 Jur. 943; 17 L. T. 0. S. 302) 454,

455
Payne, Ex parte (11 Ch. D. 539 ; 40 L. T. 563) - 234

- v. Cave (3 T. E. 148j - - 139

- v. Leconfield (Lord) (51 L. J. Q. B. 642 ; 30 W. E. 814) - 203

- v. Mortimer (4 D. & J. 447; 33 L. T. O. S. 293; 7 W. E. 646) 1019
Paynter v. Carew (Kay, xxxvi. ; 18 Jur. 417 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 596 ; 23

L. T. 0. S. 21 ; 2 Eq. E. 496 ; 2 W. E. 345) - 81

Peacock v. Burt (4 L. J. Ch. 33) - 469, 943, 1023

- v. Evans (16 V. 512) - 849

- v. Pensoii (11 B. 355 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 57 ; 12 Jur. 954 ; 12 L. T.

O. S. 329) 136, 1128, 1164, 1170, 1195

Peake, Ex parte (1 Mad. 346) - 829

Pearce v. Gardner (10 Ha. 287 ; 1 W. E. 98) - - - - 63

— v. Morris (5 Ch. 227 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 342 ; 21 L. T. 190) - 655

- v. Pearce (7 Si. 138) 1330, 1334

- v. — - (22 B. 248 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 893 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 843 ; 28

L. T. 0. S. 34) 95

TABLP: OF CASES. cxcix

Pea— Pen. PAGE

Pearce v. Scotcher (9 Q. B. D. 162 ; 46 L. T. 342) - - - 426

Pears v. Laing (12 Eq. 41 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 225 ; 24 L. T. 19 ; 19 W. R.
653) 456, 467

Pearse v. Pearse (1 Do G. & S. 12 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 11 Jur. 52 ; 8
L. T. 0. S. 361) - - 374, 375, 996

Pearson v. Beck (21 L. T. 0. S. 21 ; 8 Ex. 452 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 213) - 402

v. Benson (28 B. 598) - - - 45

v. Morgan (2 Br. C. C. 388) - 109, 114, 948

v. Scott (9 Ch. D. 198 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 705 ; 38 L. T. 747 ; 26

W. R. 796) 746

v. Spencer (3 B. & S. 761) - 608, 609

— v. - - (1 B. & S. 584; 7 Jur. N. S. 1195; 4 L. T. 769) 413, 520
Peart v. Bushell (2 Si. 38) - - 501

Pease v. Coats (2 Eq. 688; 12 Jur. N. S. 684; 14 L. T. 886; 14 W. R.

1021) - - 138, 872

v. Jackson (3 Ch. 576 ; 17 W. R. 1) - 933, 936, 937, 938, 951

Peck v. Cardwell (2 B. 137) - - 1052

Pedder v. Hunt (18 Q. B. D. 565; 56 L. J. Q. B. 212; 56 L. T.

687; 35 W. R. 371) - - - - 447

Peechy's (Sir J.) Case (Sugd. 702) - - 1056

Peek v. Gurney (L. R. 6 H. L. 390 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 19 ; 22 W. R. 29) - 115,

118

v. Matthews (3 Eq. 515 ; 16 L. T. 199 ; 15 W. R. 689) - 872, 874

Peers v. Ceeley (15 B. 209) - - 84, 94, 1258, 1271

v. Lambert (7 B. 546) - - 1201

v. Sneyd (17 B. 151) - - 1265, 1273

Pegg v. Wisden (16 B. 239; 16 Jur. 1105; 20 L. T. 0. S. 174;
1 W. R. 43) 472, 487, 490, 497, 926

Pegler v. White (33 B. 403 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 569 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 330 ;
3 N. R. 557 ; 10 L. T. 84 ; 12 W. R. 455) - - 194, 1233

Peirce v. Corf (L. R. 9 Q. B. 210 ; 43 L. J. Q. B. 52 ; 29 L. T. 919 ;

22 W. R. 299) 257, 261, 263

Peles v. Jervies (Dy. 340, n.) - 891

Pell v. De Winton (2 D. & J. 13 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 230 ; 4 Jur. N. S.

225 ; 30 L. T. 252 ; 6 W. R. 179) - 690, 743

• v. Northampton, &c. R. Co. (2 Ch. 100; 15 L. T. 169; 36

L. J. Ch. 319 ; 15 W. R. 27) - - 515, 836, 1220

Pelly v. Bascombe (4 Giff. 390; 9 Jur. N. S. 1120; 11 Jur. N. S.
52; 33 L. J. Ch. 100; 34 L. J. Ch. 233; 9 L. T. 317;
11 L. T. 722; 11 W. R. 766; 13 W. R. 306; 2 N. R.
263; 5N. R. 231) - 444

v. Sidney (5 Jur. N. S. 793 ; 5 C. B. N. S. 679; 28 L. J. C. P.

182) - - - 215

v. Wathen (1 D. M. & G. 16 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 105; 16 Jur. 47;

18 L. T. 0. S. 129) - - - 476

Pember v. Mathers (1 Br. C. C. 52 ; 2 Dick. 550) 124, 629, 913, 1149

Pemberton v. Parnes (13 Eq. 349 ; 6 Ch. 685 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 675 ; 41
L. J. Ch. 209 ; 25 L. T. 577 ; 26 L. T. 389 ; 19 W. R. 988 ) 1299, 1300,

1313

Pembrooke v. Friend (1 J. & H. 132 ; 2 L. T. 742) 920, 921, 923

Pender, In re (2 Ph. 73 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 25 ; 10 Jur. 891) - - 815

: CC TABLE OF CASES.

Pen — Per. PAQB

PendreU v. Pendrell (2 Str. 925) - - 382

Penhall v. Elwin (1 S. & G. 258 ; 1 W. E. 273) - 1024

Penn v. Baltimore (Lord) (1 Y. sen. 445 ; 2 Wh. & T. L. C.) - - 1107

— v. Glover (Cro. Eliz. 421) - 883

Pennefather v. Pennefather (6 I. E. Eq. 171) - - - 388

Pennell v. Millar (23 B. 172 ; 29 L. T. 0. S. 35 ; 5 W. E. 215) - 853

• v. Stephens (7 D. & L. 133 ; 7 0. B. 987 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 291 ;

13 Jur. 766) - - - 981

Penney v. Todd (26 W. E. 502) - 434

Penniall v. Harborne (11 Q. B. 368; 17 L. J. Q. B. 94; 12 Jur.
159; 10 L. T. O. S. 305) - - - 194

Pennington v. Dalbiac (18 W. E. 684) - 1302, 1310

v. Prinsep Hall Coal Co. (5 Ch. D. 769 ; 46 L. J. Ch.

773 ; 37 L. T. 149 ; 25 W. E. 874) - 415

Penny v. Allen (7 D. M. & G. 409; 3 Jur. N. S. 273; 29 L. T.

0. S. 41 ; 5 W. E. 303) - - 371, 450, 1032, 1034

v. Pretor (9 Si. 135) - - 1347

v. Watts (1 M. & G. 150 ; 2 De G. & S. 501) - 519, 976, 979, 987

Penruddock v. Hammond (11 B. 59) - 996

Penryn (Mayor of) v. Holm (2 Ex. D. 328 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 506 ; 37

L.T. 133; 25 W. E. 498) - - 419

Peperell, Re (27 W. E. 410) - - 40

Pepper v. Barnard (12 L. J. Q. B. 361 ; 7 Jur. 1128 ; 1 L. T. O. S.
169) - .... 333

Peppercorn v. Peacock (4 Jur. 1122) - 1235

- v. "Wayman (5 De G. & S. 230) - - 1275
Perfect v. Lane (3 D. F. & J. 369 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 489 ; 6 L. T. 8 ;

8 Jur. N. S. 547 ; 10 W. E. 197) - - 844, 849, 850

Perkes, Exparte (3 M. D. & D. 85) - - 38

Perkins v. Bradley (1 Ha. 219) . - 988

v. Ede (16 B. 193) 1201, 1337

Perks, In re (I S. & G. 545 ; 7 Ey. Ca. 605 ; 2 W. E, 24) - - 762

Perriam v. Perriam (32 W. E. 369 ; 49 L. T. 710) 498, 1192

Perrin, In re (2 D. & War. 147) 529, 531

-, fle(14C. B. 420) - - 651
Perring v. Trail (18 Eq. 88 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 775 ; 30 L. T. 248 ; 22

W. E. 512) - - 24, 777

Perry, In re (I Jur. N. S. 917) - 758, 1079

— v. Edwards (1 Str. 400) - 883

• v. Fitzhowe (8 Q. B. 778 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 239 ; 10 Jur. 799 ;

7 L. T. 0. S. 180) - - - - - - 230

- v. Holl (2 D. F. & J. 38) - 990

v. Meddowcroft (4 B. 203) - - 926

v. Phelips (4 V. 108; 17 Y. 173) - 1066

• v. Smith (Car. & M. 554 ; 9 M. & W. 681 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ex.

269) - 143, 720, 994

Perry-Herrick v. Attwood (2 D. & J. 21 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 121 ; 4 Jur.

N. S. 101 ; 30 L. T. 267 ; 6 W. E. 204) - - 826, 950, 952

Persse v. Persse (7 C. & F. 279) 847, 1246

Perth Earldom, In re (2 H. L. C. 865) - - - 393, 394

TABLE OF CASES. CC1

Per— Phi.

Perton, Re (53 L. T. 707) ...... 395

Pet and Galley's Case (1 Leon. 304) - - 887

Peter v. Nicolls (11 Eq. 391 ; 24 L. T. 381 ; 19 W. E. 618) - 1118, 1234
Peters v. Anderson (5 Taunt. 596) - - 905

-- v. Bacon (8 Eq. 125; 38 L. J. Ch. 571; 20 L. T. 729; 17

W. E. 782) ...... 1304

- v. Lewes and East Grinstead E. Co. (16 Ch. D. 703 ; 18 Ch.
D. 429; 50 L. J. Ch. 172, 839; 44 L. T. 372; 45 L. T. 234 ; 29

W. E. 422, 874) 67, 68, 69, 92, 93, 704, 1273

Peterson v. Ayre (13 C. B. 353) - 1079

-v. Elwes(6 W. E. 611) - - 765

Peto v. Brighton, Uckfield, &c. E. Co. (1 II. & M. 468; 2 N. E.

415; 11 W. E. 874) - - 1164

- v. Gardner (2 Y. & C. C. C. 312) - - - 1350

- v. Hammond (29 B. 91 ; 30 B. 495 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 354 ; 8 Jur.

N. S. 550) - 200, 479, 828, 952, 970, 974, 977, 980, 985

Petre v. Buncombe (7 Ha. 24) - 1128 1186

- v. Espinasse (2 M. & K. 426) - - 1175

- v. Petre (1 Dr. 397 ; 21 L. T. 0. S. 136 ; 1 W. E. 139) 437, 440, 454
Pettit's Estate, Ee (I Ch. D. 478 ; 44 L. J. Bkcy. 63 ; 34 L. T. 51 ;

24 W. E. 359) - - 34

Peyton's Settlement, Re (30 B. 252 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 440 ; 8 Jur. N. S.

458; 6 L. T. 883; 10 W. E. 515) - - 91

Peyton, Ex parte (2 Jur. N. S. 1013 ; 4 W. E. 380) - - 759

- In re (7 H. & N. 265 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 50 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 921 ; 5

L. T. 213; 9 W. E. 838) - - 318

Phelan v. Tedcastle (15 L. E. Ir. 169) - - 263, 1095

Phelps v. Prew (3 E. & B. 430 ; 2 C. L. E. 1422 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 140 ;

18 Jur. 249) - 995

- v. Prothero (3 C. L. E. 906 ; 7 D. M. & G. 722 ; 25 L. J. Ch.

334; 2 Jur. N. S. 311) - - 1088

- v. White (7 L. E. Ir. 160) - 900, 905

Phene's Trust, In re (5 Ch. 139 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 316 ; 22 L. T. Ill ; 18

W. E. 303) - - 388, 389

Pheysey v. Vicary (16 M. & W. 484; 8 L. T. 0. S. 451) - 431

Phillimore v. Barry (1 Camp. 513) - 269, 271

Phillipo v. Munnings (2 M. & C. 309) 454, 455
Phillipps v. Phillipps (4 Q. B. D. 127 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 135 ; 39 L. T.

556 ; 27 W. E. 436) - - - - 916

Phillips, In re (4 Ch. 629 ; 17 W. E. 904) - - 656

- v. Alderton (24 W. E. 8) - 232, 1139

- v. Andrews (56 L. T. 108 ; 35 W. E. 266) - 1305

- v. Bucks (Duke of) (1 Vern. 227 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 18, pi. 10;

14V. 527, n.) -212,1182

- v. Caldcleugh (L. E. 4 Q. B. 159 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 68 ; 20

L. T. 80 ; 17 W. E. 575) - 129, 157, 163, 172

- v. Commissioners of Inland Eevenue (L. E. 2 Ex. 399 ; 16

L. T. 839) - - 599, 788

-- v. Edwards (33 B. 440 ; 3 N. E. 658) - 86, 322, 1121, 1138

- v. Everard (5 Si. 102) ...... 623

CC11 TABLE OF CASES.

Phi— Pil. PAQE

Phillips v. Fielding (2 H. Bla. 123) - - 1086

- v. Gutteridge (4 D. & J. 531) - 1042, 1319

- v. Homfray (6 Ch. 770) - - 119

v. Miller (L. B. 9 C. P. 196 ; 10 C. P. 420 ; 43 L. J. C. P.

74 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 265 ; 30 L. T. 61 ; 32 L. T. 638 ; 22

W. E. 485 ; 23 W. E. 834) - 519, 976, 1196

v. Mullings (7 Ch. 244 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 211 ; 20 W. E. 129) - 1022,

1023

v. Phillips (4 D. F. & J. 208 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 145 ; 5 L. T.

655 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 321 ; 10 W. E. 236) - 940, 1359

v. Silvester (8 Ch. 173 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 225 ; 27 L. T. 840 ;

21 W. E. 179) 284, 291, 709, 733

Phillipson v. Gatty (7 Ha. 516 ; 13 Jur. 318) - 57

— v. Gibbon (6 Ch. 428 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 406 ; 24 L. T. 602 ; 19
W. E. 661) - - 445, 1224, 1259

Phillpotts v. Phillpotts (10 C. B. 85 ; 20 L. J. C. P. 11) - 280

Phipps v. Child (3 Dr. 709) 319, 326, 496, 1150, 1157, 1159, 1227, 1243

v. Lovegrove (16 Eq. 80 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 892 ; 28 L. T. 584 ; 21

W. E. 590) - - - - - - - 966

Phosphate Sewage Co. v. Hartmont (5 Ch. D. 394 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 661 ;

37 L. T. 9) - 215

Picard v. Mitchell (12 B. 486) - - - 805

Pick, In re (10 W. E. 365 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 495) - 807

Pickard, Re (53 L. T. 293) - 299, 1303

- v. Sears (6 A. & E. 469 ; 2 N. & P. 488 ; W. W. & D. 678)- 114

- v. Wheater (31 Ch. D. 247 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 307 ; 53 L. T. 865) 1315
Pickering v. Dowson (4 Taunt. 785) - - 102, 103, 121

- v. Sherborne (Lord) (1 Crawf. & Dix. 254) - - - 336
Pickett v. Loggon (14 V. 215 ; 2 B. & P. 22) -617, 841, 842

- v. Packham (4 Ch. 190 ; 16 W. E. 1177)- - - 367
Pierce v. Deny (4 Q. B. 635 ; 3 G. & D. 477 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 277) - 531

- v. Scott (1 Y. & C. 257) 681, 1277
Piers v. Piers (2 H. L. C. 331 ; 13 Jur. 569 ; 13 L. T. 0. S. 41) - - 384

v. (1 D. & Wai. 265) - 1346, 1352

Piggott v. Piggott (4 Eq. 549 ; 16 L. T. 766) - 1122, 1125

• v. Stratton (1 D. F. & J. 33 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 6 Jur. N. S.

129; 1 L. T. Ill; 8 W. E, 13) - - 870

- v. Waller (7 V. 98) - - 307
Pigott and Great Western By. Co., In re (18 Ch. D. 146 ; 50 L. J.

Ch. 679 ; 44 L. T. 792 ; 29 W. E. 727) - - 711

Pike v. Fitzgibbon (17 Ch. D. 454 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 394 ; 44 L. T. 562 ;

29 W. E, 551) - 1124

v. Ongley (18 Q. B. D. 708 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 373 ; 35 W. E. 534) 213,

1074

v. Stephens (12 Q. B. 465) - - - 981

v. Vigors (2 D. & Wai. 1, 252) - 112, 902

v. Wilson (1 Jur. N. S. 59) - - 203, 204

Pilcher v. Eawlins (7 Ch. 259 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 485 ; 25 L. T. 921 ; 20

W. E. 281) - 929, 931, 934, 939

Filling's Trusts, Re (26 Ch. D. 432 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1052 ; 32 W. E. 853) 684

TABLE OF CASES. CC111

Pil— Pol. PAGE

Pilling v. Armitage (12 V. 78) - - - - - 949

Pilmore v. Hood (5 Bingh. N. C. 97) - 905

Pirn v. Curell (6 M. & W. 234) - - - 396

Pimm v. Insall (1 M. & G. 449 ; 10 Ha. App. Ixxiv.) 702, 1313

Pincliard v. Fellowes (17 Eq. 421 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 227 ; 29 L. T. 882 ;

22 W. E. 612)- - - 1340

Pinchin v. Bl. Ey. Co. (1 K. & J. 46 ; 5 D. M. & G. 851 ; 24 L. J. Ch.

417 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 241 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 125, 196 ; 3 W. E. 52, 125 ;

3 Eq. Eep. 433) - 242, 244, 249, 511, 1098

Pincke v. Curteis (4 Br. C. C. 332) - - 491

Pinnell v. Hallett (Amb. 106) - 1068

Pinnington v. Galland (9 Ex. 1 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 349 ; 1 C. L. E. 819 ;

22 L. T. 0. S. 41) 412, 608, 609

Piper v. Piper (1 J. & H. 91) 921, 922

Pisani v. A.-G. of Gibraltar (L. E. 5 P. C. 516 ; 30 L. T. 729 ; 22

W. E. 900) - - 35, 44

Pitcairn v. Ogbourne (2 V. sen. 376) - 1212

Pitcher v. Tovey (1 Salk. 81) - - - 1016

Pitchers v. Edney (4 Bing. N. C. 721 ; 6 Sc. 582 ; 1 Arn. 267 ; 7 L. J.

N. S. C. P. 276) - - 206

Pitt v. Donovan (1 M. & S. 639) - - 121

v. (5 App. Ca. 651 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 795 ; 43 L. T. 385 ; 29

W. E. 33) - 1299, 1301, 1302

v. Pitt (2 Jur. N. S. 1010 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 257) - - 1067

Planche v. Colburn (8 Bing. 14 ; 1 M. & Sc. 51 ; 5 C. & P. 58 ; 1
L. J. N. S. C. P. 7) - - - - - - - 215

Plant v. Pearman (41 L. J. Q. B. 169 ; 26 L. T. 313 ; 20 W. E. 314) - 981

v. Taylor (7 H. & N. 211 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 289 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 140 ;

5 L. T. 318) 393, 579

Plasterers' Co. v. Parish Clerks' Co. (6 Ex. 630 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 362 ;
15 Jur. 965 ; 17 L. T. O. S. 246) - - - 431,432

Platt, Re (W. N. (1887) 140 - - 655

v. Platt (28 W. E. 533) - 1307

Playford v. Hoare (3 Y. & J. 175) 1259, 1274

-v. Playford (4 Ha. 546) - 842, 1208

Pleasants v. Eoberts (2 Mol. 507) - - 1337

Plevins v. Downing (1 C. P. D. 220 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 695 ; 35 L. T. 263) 1096,

1097
Plimmer v. Wellington (Mayor of) (9 Ap. Ca. 699 ; 53 L. J. P. C.

104 ; 51 L. T. 475) - 949, 1144

Plowden v. Hyde (2 Si. N. S. 171 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 16 Jur. 512 ;

19 L. T. 0. S. 348) - - - 307

Plowes v. Bossey (2 De G. & S. 145) - - - 382

Plowright v. Lambert (52 L. T. 646) 49, 54

Plumb v. Fluitt (2 Anstr. 438) - - 969, 984

Plumbtree v. O'Dell (4 Ir. Eq. E. 602) - 1335

Plummer v. Whiteley (John. 585 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 247 ; 5 Jur. N. S.

1416 ; 1 L. T. 230 ; 8 W. E. 20 - - 915

Polden v. Bastard (L. E. 1 Q. B. 156 ; 35 L. J. Ex. 92 ; 13 L. T.

441 ; 14 W. E. 198) - - 519, 602, 977

CC1V TABLE OF CASES.

Pol— For. PAGE

Pole v. Leask (28 B. 562 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 889 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1104 ; 2
L. T. 737) 213

Polhill v. Walter (3 B. & Ad. 114 ; 1 L. J. N. S. K B. 92) - - 114

Pollard v. Clayton (1 K. & J. 462 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 342 ; 25 L. T. 0. S.

50; 3 W. E. 349) - 1106, 1113, 1215

Pollock v. Eabbits (21 Ch. D. 466; 31 W. E. 150) - - 1250, 1345

- v. Worrall (28 Ch. D. 552 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 489 ; 52 L. T. 718) - 1058
Ponsford v. Walton (L. E. 3 C. P. 167 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 113 ; 17 L. T.

511; 16 W. E. 363) - 785
Poole's Settled Estate, Re (32 W. E. 956 ; 50 L. T. 585) - - 1279
Poole, Exparte (De G. 581) - 1068, 1069
v. Adams (12 W. E. 683 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 639 ; 10 L. T. 287 ; 4

N. E. 9) - 287, 913
v. Coates (2 D. & War. 497 ; 4 Ir. Eq. E. 497 ; 1 Con. & L.

531) - - 307
v. Hill (6 M. & W. 835 ; 9 D. P. C. 300 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ex.

81) - - 146, 1086, 1087

- v. Middleton (29 B. 646 ; 4 L. T. 631 ; 9 W. E. 758) - - 1106

- v. Poole (W. N. (1885), 15) - - 1308

- v. Eudd (3 Br. C. C. 49) - - 221, 222
v. Shergold (1 Cox, 273; 3 Br. C. C. 118) - 285, 286, 287, 507,

1203, 1207, 1210, 1274
Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham (33 Ch. D. Ill ; 55 L. J. Ch. 899; 55

L. T. 333 ; 34 W. E. 689) - - - 82
Pooley v. Budd (14 B. 34) 1105, 1106
— v. Quilter (2 De G. & J. 327 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 374 ; 4 Jur. N. S.

345 ; 31 L. T. 0. S. 64 ; 6 W. E. 402) - - . 37, 33

Pope, Ee (17 Q. B. D. 743 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 522 ; 55 L. T. 268, 369 ;

34 W. E. 654, 693) - 541, 547, 553, 558, 559

• v. Garland (4 Y. & C. 394 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq. 13) 105, 106,

129, 132, 1205
. v. Great Eastern E, Co. (3 Eq. 171 ; 15 L. T. 239 ; 36 L. J. Ch.

60; 15 W. E. 192) 1218, 1219

v. Boots (1 Br. P. C. 370) 288, 1209

v. Simpson (5 V. 145) - - 1215

Popham v. Eyre (Lofft, 786) 485, 1182

Popple and Barratt, Re (25 W. E. 248) - - 412, 602

- v. Henson (5 De G. & S. 318) - 1248
Popplewell v. Hodkinson (L. E. 4 Ex. 248 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 126 ; 20

L. T. 578 ; 17 W. E. 806) - - 422

Porcher v. Gardner (8 C. B. 461 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 63 ; 14 Jur. 43) - 482,

1088

Pordage v. Cole (1 Saund. 320b) - 1088, 1089

Portadown E, Co., Exparte (10 I. E. Eq. 368) - - - 760

Portal and Lamb, Re (30 Ch. D. 50 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1012 ; 33 W. E.

859 ; 53 L. T. 650) 309, 1273

Porter's Trust, In re (2 Jur. N. S. 349 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 482, 688 ; 4

W. E, 417, 443 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 26) - 362, 392, 656

Porter v. Drew (5 C. P. D. 143 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 482 ; 42 L. T. 151 ;

28 W. E. 672 ; 44 J. P. 267) - 885
v. Lopes (7 Ch. D. 358 ; 37 L. T. 824) - - 1300, 1311

TABLE OF CASES. CCV

Por— Pow.

Portland v. Prodgers (2 Vorn. 104 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 171, pi. 1) - - 32

Portman v. Mill (3 Jur. 356 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 161 ; 2 Buss. 570 ;

1 R. & M. 696) - 138, 711, 728, 729, 736, 1200, 1202, 1205, 1240

Portmore v. Taylor (4 Si. 182) - 844

Postlethwaite, Re (35 Ch. D. 722 ; 56 L. T. 733 ; 35 W. E. 563) - 995

Pott v. Todhunter (2 Coll. 76) - - - 1018

Potter, Re (50 L. T. 8) - 1316

- v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (10 Ex. 147 ; 23 L. J.

Ex. 345 ; 18 Jur. 778) - 599, 788

- v. Crossley (5 W. R. 35 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 137) - 1228

- v. Duffield (18 Eq. 4 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 472 ; 22 W. R. 585) - - 252

- v. Parry (7 W. R. 182) - 1232, 1276

- v. Sanders (6 Ha. 1) 254, 268, 1116, 1131
Potteries R. Co., Re (25 Ch. D. 251 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 556 ; 50 L. T. 104 ;

32 W. R. 300) .... 243, 860

Potts v. Curtis (You. 543) - - 849

- v. Button (8 B. 493) - - 815

- v. Smith (6 Eq. 311 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 58 ; 18 L. T. 207, 629 ; 16

W. R. 891) ....... 410

- v. Thames Haven Co. (15 Jur. 1004) - 92
Poulett (Earl) v. Hood (5 Eq. 115 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 224 ; 17 L. T. 486 ;

16 W. R. 323) 617, 619, 625, 627

Pounsett v. Fuller (17 C. B. 660 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 145) - - - 1079

Pountney v. Clayton (11 Q. B. D. 820 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 566 ; 49 L. T.

283 ; 31 W. R. 664) - - 424, 860

Pow v. Davis (1 B. & S. 220 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 257 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1010 ;

4 L. T. 399 ; 9 W. R. 611) - 1074

Powdrell v. Jones (2 S. & G. 407 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 123 ; 18 Jur. 1111 ;

24 L. T. 0. S. 88 ; 3 Eq. R. 63 ; 3 W. R. 32) - - - 586

Powell v. Divett (15 Ea. 29) . - 274

- v. Doubble (Sug. 29) - 137, 155
, - v. Edmunds (12 Ea. 6) 113, 114, 124
_ v. Jessop (18 C. B. 336; 25 L. J. C. P. 199 ; 4 W. R. 465) - 233
_ v. Lovegrove (8 D. M. & G. 357 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 791) - 241, 1136

- v. Martyr (8 V. 146) - 709, 710, 1260
_ v. Powell (19 Eq. 422 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 311 ; 32 L. T. 148 ; 23

W. R. 482; - 181, 221, 1337, 1338

v. - (10 Ch. 130 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 122 ; 31 L. T. 737 ; 23

W. R. 201) - - - 1303, 1310, 1314

v. - (6 Mad. 53) - 1274

- v. Robins (7 V. 209) - - 692
_ v. Smith (14 Eq. 85 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 734 ; 20 W. R. 602) 1155, 1174

- v. Smithson (20 L. T. 0. S. 105) - 178
_ v. South Wales R. Co. (1 Jur. N. S. 773) 1110, 1194
_ v. Thomas (6 Ha. 300) - 1144
Powers, Re (30 Ch. D. 291 ; 53 L. T. 647) 67, 455, 460
. _ v. Bathurst (49 L. J. Ch. 294 ; 42 L. T. 123 ; 28 W. R. 390) 411
_ v. Fowler (4 E. & B. 511 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 213 ; 3 W. R. 166) 263,

268

Powis v. Capron (4 Si. 138, n.) - - 1275

CCV1 TABLE OF CASES.

Pow — Pri. PAGE

Powys v. Mansfield (3 M. & C. 359) - - - - 1058

Poynder's Settled Estate, Re (50 L. J. Ch. 753 ; 45 L. T. 403 ; 30
W. E. 70) - - - - - - 79, 1279

Poynder v. Great Northern E. Co. (2 Ph. 330; 5 Ey. Ca. 196; 16
L. J. Ch. 444 ; 11 Jur. 646 ; 9 L. T. 0. S. 510) - - - 508

Poyntz v. Fortune (27 B. 393) - - -1217

Prance v. Sympson (Kay, 678 ; 18 Jur. 929) - 458

Prankerd v. Prankerd (1 S. & S. 1) 1059, 1060

Prees v. Coke (6 Ch. 645) - - 46, 843, 903

Prendergast v. Eyre (L. & G. t. PI. 180; 2 Hog. 81) - 1201, 1205, 1343
Prentice v. Prentice (10 Ha. App. xxii.) - 1316

Preston v. Barker (16 V. 140) - - - 1331

v. Liverpool, &c. E. Co. (5 H. L. C. 605 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 421 ;

2 Jur. N. S. 241 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 2 ; 4 W. E. 383) - 62, 219
- v. Luck (27 Ch. D. 497) - 1156

v. Preston (2 Jur. N. S. 1040 ; 4 W. E. 455) - - - 692

Pretty v. Solly (26 B. 606 ; 33 L. T. O. S. 72) - 1201

Prettyman's Case (cited 2 Vern. 279) - - - 998

Price, Re (28 Ch. D. 709 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 509 ; 52 L. T. 430 ; 33 W. E.

520) - - 1123

v. Assheton (1 Y. & C. 82, 441 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq. 3) - 257, 1145

v. Berrington (3 M. & G. 486 ; 15 Jur. 999 ; 18 L. T. 0. S. 56) 7, 1258

• v. Blakemore (6 B. 507) 833, 1065

v. Byrn (cited 5 V. 681) - - - 44

v. Carver (3 M. & C. 163) - 1320

v. Dyer (17 V. 356) - 1149, 1150, 1159, 1213

v. Griffith (1 D. M. & G. 80; 21 L. J. Ch. 78; 18 L. T. 0. S.

190) - - 255, 261, 1147, 1193, 1200

v. Hathaway (6 Mad. 304) - - 777

v. Jenkins (4 Ch. D. 483 ; 5 Ch. D. 119 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 214, 805;

36 L. T. 237 ; 37 L. T. 51 ; 25 W. E. 427) 1004, 1006, 1007, 1274

v. Ley (4 Gift. 235) - 1199

v. Macaulay (2 D. M. & G. 339 ; 19 L. T. 0. S. 238) - 155, 157, 180

v. North (2 Y. & C. 620 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ex. Eq. 9) 151, 157, 730, 1355

v. Penzance (Corp. of) (4 Ha. 506) - 1111, 1267

v. Price (35 Ch. D. 297 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 530 ; 56 L. T. 843 ; 35

W. E. 386) - - 564, 972, 983

v. (1 D. M. & G. 308) - - 1018

- — v. (15 Si. 484) - 1316

v. Salusbury (32 B. 446, 461) - - 1146

• v. Strange (6 Mad. 159) - 1232, 1274

Prichard v. Wilson (10 Jur. N. S. 330 ; 3 N. E. 350) - - - 81

Prickett v. Badger (1 C. B. N. S. 296; 26 L. J. C. P. 33 ; 3 Jur.

N. S. 66 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 65 ; 5 W. E. 117) 215, 216

Priddy v. Eose (3 Mer. 86) - - 943

Pride v. Bubb (7 Ch. 64 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 105 ; 25 L. T. 890 ; 20 W. E.

220) - 12, 643, 644

Primrose, Re (23 B. 590 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 666 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 899 ; 29

L. T. 0. S. 103; 5 W. E, 508) .... 109, 1270

TABLE OF CASES. CCV11

Pri— Pye.

Prince v. Cooper (16 B. 546 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 269 ; 1 W. E. 206) - 1315

Prior's Case (Co. Litt. 385 a) - 879

Prior v. Horniblow (2 Y. & C. 200) - 367, 455

- v. Moore (3 Times L. E. 624) - 210, 1166
Pritchard v. Ovey (1 J. & W. 396) - - 257
Probert v. Price (1 Eq. E. 51) - 1320
Proctor v. Cooper (2 Dr. 1 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 149 ; 18 Jur. 444 ; 22 L. T.

O. S. 182 ; 2 W. E. 4; 3 W. E. 224 ; 2 Eq. Eep. 450 ; 3 Eq.
Eep. 364) - -525,973,981

- v. Hodgson (10 Ex. 824; 24 L. J. Ex. 195; 3 Com. L. E.

755) ..... 412, 413

- v. Warren (Sel. Ca. in Ch. 78) - - - 1063
Prodgers v. Langham (1 Sid. 133) - - 1019
Propert, In re (22 L. J. Ch. 948) - - 662

- v. Parker (1 E. & M. 625) - - 270
Prosser v. Bank of England (13 Eq. 611 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 327 ; 26 L. T.

60 ; 20 W. E. 362) - - 361

— v.Edmunds (1 Y. & C. 481) - - 278

- v. Eice (28 B. 68) - 933, 935
-- Vt Watts (6 Mad. 59) - - 340, 345, 355, 1236, 1274
Proud v. Bates (34 L. J. Ch. 406 ; 12 L. T. 565) - - 423

- v. Proud (32 B. 234 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 125 ; 7 L. T. 553 ; 11 W. E.
101) - - - 439

Prudential Assurance Co. v. Edmonds (2 Ap. Ca. 487) - - 388

Pryce v. Bury (16 Eq. 153, n.) 543, 1321

Pryor v. Pryor (12 W. E. 781 ; 10 L. T. 360 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 603 ; 4

' N. E. 82; 33 L. J. Ch. 441) - - - 1019

- v. - (10 Ch. 469; 44 L. J. Ch. 535; 32 L. T. 713; 23

W. E. 738) - 1298

Pryse's Estate, Re (10 Eq. 531 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 760 ; 18 W. E. 1064) - 1298

Pryse v. Cambrian E. Co. (2 Ch. 444; 36 L. J. Ch. 565; 15 W. E. 604) 1220
Pugh v. Heath (7 Ap. Ca. 235 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 367 ; 46 L. T. 321 ;

30 W. E. 553)- - - - 436,453,455

Pullan v. Eawlins (4 B. 142) - 362
Pullen & Liverpool Corporation, Ee (51 L. J. Q. B. 285 ; 46 L. T.

391 ; 46 J. P. 468) - - 707

- v. Snelus (27 W. E. 534 ; 48 L. J. C. P. 394 ; 40 L. T. 363) - 1148
Pulling v. L. C. & D. E. Co. (3 D. J. & S. 661 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 505 ;

10 Jur. N. S. 665 ; 10 L. T. 741 ; 12 W. E. 969; 4 N. E. 386) - 245
Pulsford v. Eichards (17 B. 95; 22 L. J. Ch. 559; 17 Jur. 865; 22

L. T. 0. S. 51 ; 1 W. E. 295) - 115, 116, 152

Pulvertoft v. Pulvertoft (18 Y. 92) - 1011, 1016, 1118, 1119

Purcell v. Blennerhasset (3 J. & L. 24 ; 9 Ir. Eq. E, 103) - - 434

Purser v. Darby (4 K. & J. 41) - 302, 799, 800, 1262

Purvis v. Eayer (9 Pr. 488) - - 331

Pusey v. Pusey (1 Yern. 273) - - - 1105

Pybus, Re (35 W. E. 770) - - 816

Pye v. Daubuz (3 Br. C. C. 595) - - 910

Pyer v. Carter (1 H. & N. 916 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 258; 28 L. T. 0. S. 371 ;

6 W. E. 371) ...... 520, 608.

CCV111 TABLE OF CASES.

Pyk— Ram. PAGE

Pyke v. Northwood (1 B. 152) - - - - 1222

v. Williams (2 Vern. 455) - 1136

Pym v. Blackburn (5 V. 38) 1133, 1148, 1149

v. Campbell (6 E. & B. 370 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 277 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

641 ; 27 L. T. O. S. 122 ; 4 W. E. 528) - 268, 1095

v. Lockyer (5 M. & C. 29) - 1058

Pyrke v. Waddingham (10 Ha. 8) - 94, 1113, 1229, 232, 1260, 1273

Queen's Camel (Vicar of), In re (11 W. E. 503) - - - 752

Queen's College, Ex parte (14 B. 159, n.) - - 751

Queen's Proctor v. Fry (4 P. D. 230 ; 41 L. T. 530) - - 357

Quenerduaine v. Cole (32 W. E. 185) 254, 268
Quincey v. Sharpe (1 Ex. D. 72 ; 45 L. J. Ex. 347 ; 34 L. T. 495 ; 24

W. E. 373) 445, 458

Quincy, Ex parte (I Atk. 477) - - - 149

Eabbett v. Eaikes (Woodfall, 617) - - 150

Eabbidge, Ex parte (8 Ch. D. 367 ; 38 L. T. 663 ; 26 W. E. 646) 749, 954
Eaby v. Eidehalgh (7 D. M. & G. 104 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 528 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

363 ; 25 L. T. 19 ; 3 W. E. 344) - - 71

Eace v. Ward (4 E. & B. 702 ; 24 L. J. Q. B. 153 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 704 ;

24 L. T. 0. S. 270 ; 3 Com. L. E. 744 ; 3 W. E. 240) - 429

Eackham v. Marriott (3 Jur. N. S. 495 ; 2 H. & N. 196 ; 26 L. J. Ex.

315 ; 29 L. T. O. S. 145 ; 5 W. E. 572) - - - 459

v. Siddall (1 M. & G. 607 ; 2 H. & Tw. 44) - 95

Eadcliffe, Re (22 B. 201) - - 764

— v. Eccles (1 Ke. 130) - 1347

— v. Warrington (12 V. 326) - - - 584
Eadford v. Willis (7 Ch. 7 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 19 ; 25 L. T. 720) - - 1234
Eadnor (Lord) v. Shafto (11 V. 448) - 240, 304
Eaffety v. King (1 Ke. 601 ; 6 L. T. N. S. Ch. 87) - - 451

Eaggett, Re (16 Ch. D. 117 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 187 ; 44 L. T. 4 ; 29 W. E.

314) - - - 574

Eailston, Ex parte (15 Jur. 1028) - - 808

Eailstone v. York, &c. E. Co. (15 Q. B. 404; 19 L. J. Q. B. 644;

14 Jur. 1021) - - - 707
Eains v. Buxton (14 Ch. D. 537 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 673 ; 43 L. T. 88 ; 28

W. E. 954) - - 440

Eainy v. Vernon (9 C. & P. 559) - - 207

Ealeigh's Case (cited Hard. 497) - 1061

Ealph, Ex parte (De Or. 219) - - 634

Eameshur Singh v. Koonj Pattuk (4 Ap. Ca. 121) - - 417

Eamsay, In re (30 B. 75 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 849 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1225 ; 5

L. T. 166; 9 W. E. 910) - - - 218

v. Blair (1 Ap. Ca. 701 ; 3 Eett. (H. L.) 41) - 423

Eamsbottom v. Gosden (1 Y. & B. 165) - - - - - 1153

TABLE OF CASES. CC1X

Bam — Ray. PAGE

Ramsden v. Dyson (L. R. 1 H. L. 129 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 506 ; 14 W. R.

926) 948, 949, 1143, 1144

v. Hirst (27 L. J. Oh. 482 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 200 ; 31 L. T. 0. S.

325; 6 W. R. 349) - 131, 1194, 1201

v. Hylton (2 V. sen. 308) - - - 1004

v. Manchester R. Co. (1 Ex. 723 ; 5 Ry. Ca. 552 ; 12 Jur.

293; 10 L. T. O. S. 464) - 511

v. Smith (2 Dr. 298; 18 Jur. 566; 23 L. T. O. S. 166; 2

Eq. R. 660 ; 2 W. R. 435) - - 595

Ranee, In re (22 B. 177) - - - 816

Rand v. Macmahon (12 Si. 553 ; 6 Jur. 450) - - - 362

Randall v. Errington (10 V. 423) - - 44, 49, 51

— v. Hall (4 De G. & S. 343) - - 136

v. Morgan (12V. 74) - 1004, 1053

v. Randall (7 Si. 271 ; 1 Wh. & T. L. C. 233) - - - 1053

v. Stevens (2 E. & B. 641 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 68 ; 18 Jur. 128 ;

1 C. L. R. 642 ; 21 L. T. O. S. 334) - 441, 442, 444

Randell v. Trimen (18 C. B. 786 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 307) - - - 1074
Ranelagh (Lord), Will of, Re (26 Ch. D. 590 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 689 ; 51

L. T. 87 ; 32 W. R. 714) 39, 755

v. Melton (10 Jur. N. S. 1141 ; 2 Dr. & S. 278 ; 11

L. T. 409 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 227 ; 13 W. R. 150 ; 5 N. R. 101) - - 485
Rangeley v. Midland R. Co. (3 Ch. 306; 37 L. J. Ch. 313; 17 L. T.

408 ; 18 L. T. 69 ; 16 W. R. 547) - - 513

Ranger v. Gt. Western R. Co. (5 H. L. C. 86) - - - - 902

Ranken v. E. & W. India Dock Co. (12 B. 298 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 14

Jur. 7)- - 511

• v. Harwood (5 Ha. 215; 15 L. J. Ch. 446; 10 Jur. 794; 7

L. T. 0. S. 467) - - 527

Rankin v. Lay (2 D. F. & J. 65 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 685 ; 1 L. T. 680 ; 8

W. R. 591) - 1217

Raphael v. Thames Valley R. Co. (2 Ch. 147 ; 16 L. T. 1 ; 36 L. J. Ch.

209; 15 W. R. 322) - - - 1185

Ratcliffe v. Barnard (6 Ch. 652 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 777 ; 19 W. R. 764) - 766,

951, 952, 960, 961, 980, 987

Rathbone, In re (2 Ch. D. 483 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 531 ; 24 W. R. 566) - 657
Raven, Re (30 W. R. 134 ; 45 L. T. 742) - - 820

Ravenscroft v. Frisby (1 Coll. 16 ; 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 153) - - 455
Rawlins v. Briggs (3 C. P. D. 368 ; 27 W. R. 138 ; 47 L. J. C. L. 487) 192

v. Burgis (2 V. & B. 382) - - 307

— v. Wickham (3 D. & J. 304 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 188 ; 5 Jur. N. S.
278 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 231 ; 7 W. R. 145) - 116, 948

Rawlinson v. Miller (1 Ch. D. 52 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 252) - 1309, 1310

Rawson v. Tasburgh (cited 1 Y. & J. 450) - - 324

Rawstron v. Taylor (11 Ex. 369 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 33) - 415, 416

Ray's Settled Estate, Re (25 Ch. D. 464 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 205 ; 32 W. R.

458 ; 50 L. T. 80) - - 86

Rayne v. Baker (1 Gif. 241 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 366) - - 828, 928

Rayner's Trustees and Greenaway (53 L. T. N. S. 495) 83, 199

Rayner v. Grote (15 M. & W. 359; 16 L. J. Ex. 79) - - - 1073

D. o

CCX TABLE OF CASES.

Ray— Beg. PAGE

Eayner v. Julian (2 Dick. 677) - - - 1129

v. Preston (18 Ch. D. 1 ; 50 L. J. Oh. 472 ; 44 L. T. 787 ; 29

W. B. 546; 45 J. P. 829 - - 197, 284, 287, 913

Eaynes v. Wyse (2 Mer. 472) - - - 1253

Eea v. Williams (Sugd. 698)- - 1047

Bead v. Brookman (3 T. B. 151) - - 365

v. Shaw (Sug. Pow. 953) - 90

Beaston's Estate, Re (17 Eq. 564 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 832 ; 26 L. T. 148 ;

20 W. B. 355) ----- - - 758

Beddin v. Metropolitan Board of Works (4 D. F. & J. 532 ; 31 L. J.

Ch. 661 ; 10 W. B. 764 ; 7 L. T. 6) - - - - 247

Bedding v. Wilkes (3 B. C. C. 400) - - 1138

Bede v. Oakes (4 D. J. & S. 505 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1246;

11 L. T. 549; 13 W. B. 303; 5 N. B. 209) 76, 198, 199, 1165, 1255

Bedgrave v. Hurd (20 Ch. D. 1 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 113 ; 45 L. T. 485 ; 30
W. B. 251) - 54, 106, 112, 115, 154, 899

Bedington v. Bedington (3 Bidg. 180) - - 1057, 1059, 1062, 1065

Bedshaw v. Newbold (12 Jur. 833) - - 1347

Beece v. Trye (1 De G. & S. 273) - - 826

v. (3 B. 316) - 996

Beed v. Don Pedro Gold Mining Co. (3 D. J. & S. 593 ; 2 N. B. 473;

11 W. B. 935)- - 1224, 1225

Bees, In re (12 B. 256) 816, 818

v. Lloyd (Wight. 123) - - 370

v. Williams (L. B. 10 Ex. 200 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 116 ; 32 L. T. 462;

23 W. B. 550)- - - - - - - - 821

Beese v. Atwell (7 Eq. 347 ; 20 L. T. 163 ; 17 W. B. 601) - - 1028

Beese Biver Mining Co., Re (2 Ch. 604 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 618 ; 16 L. T.

549; 15 W. B. 882) - - - - - - 117

• Biver Silver Mining Co. v. Smith (L. B. 4 H. L. 64 ; 39 L. J.

Ch. 849) - - 899

Beeves v. Barraud (7 So. 281) - - - 206

— v. Gill (1 B. 375) - 572, 814

— v. Greenwich Tanning Co. (2 H. & M. 54) - - - 1216

Begent's Canal Co. v. Ware (23 B. 575 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 566 ; 3 Jur.

N. S. 924 ; 29 L. T. 0. S. 274 ; 5 W. B. 617) 243, 248, 709, 733, 1 108,

1112
Beg. v. Ambergate, &c. B. Co. (15 Jur. 993) - - - 1101

v. Birmingham & Oxford Junction B. Co. (15 Q. B. 634 ; 6 By.

Ca. 628; 19 L. J. Q. B. 453; 14 Jur. 899 ; 15 L. T. 0. S.
392) - 61, 243, 248, 1098

v. Bishop's Stoke (Lord of the Manor of) (8 Dowl. 608 ; 4 Jur.

630) - - 570, 604

v. Burgon (2 Jur. N. S. 596 ; 7 Cox, C. C. 131 ; 27 L. T. 0. S.

143; 4W. B. 525) - - 117

• v. Burrow (34 J. P. 53) - - - 428

v. Cambrian B. Co. (L. B. 4 Q. B. 320 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 198 ; 20

L. T. 437 ; 17 W. B. 667 ; 10 B. & S. 315) - - 1099, 1100

• v. Chorley (12 Q. B. 515 ; 12 Jur. 822 ; 12 L. T. 0. S. 371) - 432

v. Clinton (4 I. B. C. L. 6) - - - - - 429

TABLE OF CASES. CCX1

"Reg. PAGE

Reg. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (12 Q. B. D. 461 ; 32 W.

R. 543 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 229 ; 51 L. T. 46;

48 J. P. 452) - - ;- - 1101

v. Woods and Forests (15 Q. B. 761 ; 19 L. J.

Q. B. 497 ; 15 Jur. 35 ; 15 L. T. 0. S. 561) - 242, 1101
v. Corbett (1 E. & B. 836 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 335 ; 17 Jur. 1024) - 801

v. Cox (14 Q. B. D. 153 ; 54 L. J. M. C. 41 ; 52 L. T. 25 ; 33

W. R. 396 ; 49 J. P. 374 ; 15 Cox, C. C. 611) - - - 995

v. Ellis (4 Ex. 652 ; 6 Ex. 921 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 77 ; 20 L. J. Ex.

348 ; 15 Jur. 917) - - 562

v. Eton College (8 Q. B. 526 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 18) - - 571, 795

v. Garland (L. R. 5 Q. B. 269; 39 L. J. Q. B. 86 ; 22 L. T. 160;

18 W. R. 429) - - 580

v. G. W. R. Co. (1 E. & B. 774) - - - 1101

v. Ingleton (Lord of the Manor of) (8 Dowl. 693 ; 4 Jur. 700) - 781

v. Irish South Eastern R. Co. (13 I. C. L. R. 119) - 1098

v. L. & N. W. R. Co. (3 E. & B. 443 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 185 ; 22

L. T. 0. S. 346) - - - - - - 1098

v. L. & S. W. R. Co. (12 Q. B. 775 ; 5 Ry. Ca. 669 ; 17 L. J.

Q. B. 326 ; 12 Jur. 973 ; 11 L. T. O. S. 433) - 244, 245

v. L. & York. R, Co. (20 L. J. Q. B. 507, n.) - - 1101

v. Mansfield (Inhabitants of) (1 Q. B. 444 ; 1 G. & D. 7 ; 5 Jur.

505 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 188) - - 381

v. Middlesex Registrar (15 Q. B. 976; 19 L. J. Q. B. 537; 14

Jur. 1001) - - - 773

v. Registrars (7 Q. B. 156) - - 773

?'. Petrie (4 E. & B. 737 ; 24 L. J. Q. B. 166 ; 6 Cox, C. C. 512 ;

24 L. T. 0. S. 271 ; 3 Com. L. R. 829 ; 3 W. R. 243; 1
Jur. N. S. 752) - 411

v. Pratt (4 E. & B. 860 ; 3 C. L. R, 686; 1 Dear. C. C. 502 ; 24 L. J.

M. 0.113; Uur.N.S.681; 25L. T.O. S. 65; 3 W. R. 372)- 419
v. Roebuck (2 Jur. N. S. 597 ; 7 Cox, C. C. 126 ; 25 L. J. M. C.

101 ; 27 L. T. O. S. 143 ; 4 W. R. 514) - 117
v. Saffron Hill (1 E. & B. 93 ; 22 L. J. M. C. 22 ; 16 Jur. 1139;

20 L. T. O. S. 92) 159

v. Smith (2 Cox, C. C. 31) - 1030

v. South Devon R. Co. (15 Q. B. 1043 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 145; 15

Jur. 464) -708, 1099
v. St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey (2 E. & B. 809 ; 23 L. J.

M. C. 1 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 30 ; 17 Jur. 1075 ; 22 L. T. 0. S.

96 ; 2 Comm. L. R. 223 ; 2 W. R. 35) - 384
v. Tart (1 E. & E. 618 ; 28 L. J. Q. B. 173 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 679 ;

32 L. T. 0. S. 315) 271

v. Tithe Commissioners (19 L.J.Q.B. 177; 14Q.B.459; 18Q.B.

156 ; 14 Jur. 290 ; 14 L. T. 0. S. 348) - 327, 400

v. (15Q.B.620; 19 L. J. Q.B. 505; 14Jur.

955 ; 15 L. T. 0. S. 300) - - 400

v. Waterford & Limerick R. Co. (13 Ir. L. R. 272) - - 1098

v. Weaver (L. R. 2 C. C. 85 ; 43 L. J. M. C. 13; 29 L. T. 544;

22 W. R. 190 ; 12 Cox, C. C. 527) - - 362

v. Wellesley (2 E. & B. 924) - - 801

v. York R. Co. (20 L. J. Q, B. 503 ; 6Ry. Ca, 648 ; 16 Q, B. 886) 1101

02

CCX11 TABLE OF CASES.

Reh— Bey. PAGE
Eehoboth Chapel, In re (19 Eq. 180 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 376 ; 31 L. T. 571 ;

23 W. E. 405)- - - - 760

Eeid's Case (24 B. 318 ; 5 W. E. 854) - 1057

Eeid v. Draper (7 Jur. N. S. 1125 ; 6 H. & N. 813 ; 30 L. J. Ex.

208) - - - . - - - 213
v. Hoskins (6 E. & B. 953 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 5 ; 3 Jur. N. S.

238) - - - 1089

v. Langlois (1 M. & G. 627) - - 994

v. Eeid (31 Oh. D. 402 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 294 ; 54 L. T. 100 ; 34

W. E. 332) - 14, 587, 1124, 1237

v. Shergold (10 V. 370) 90, 946

Eeilly v. Fitzgerald (6 Ir. Eq. E. 348 ; Dru. 153) - 395, 396

Eelph v. Horton (19 W. E. 220) - 1326

Eemington v. Deverall (2 Anst. 550) - - - 634

Eenals v. Cowlishaw (9 Ch. D. 125 ; 38 L. T. 503 ; 26 W. E. 754 - 866, 867
Eendlesham (Lord) v. Meux (14 Sim. 249) - - 73, 76, 680, 1272

Eenshaw v. Bean (18 Q. B. 112 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 219 ; 16 Jur. 814 ;

19 L. T. 0. S. 22) - - 406
Eeuss v. Picksley (L. E. 1 Ex. 342 ; 35 L. J. Ex. 219 ; 12 Jur. 628;

13 L. T. 489 ; 14 W. E. 924) 253, 266

Eex v. Bailey (cited Mann. Exch. P. 37, n.) - 563

v. Bathwick (2 B. & Ad. 648) - - 369

v. Boston (4 Ea. 562) - - 1056

v. Cracroft (1 M'C. & Y. 460) - - 1337

• v. Dunstan (Ey. & M. 109) - - 1149

v. Eastbourne (4 Ea. 107) 26, 378

• v. Gregory (4 Pr. 380) - - 1334

• v. Haddenham (15 Ea. 463) - 33

v. Hatfield (4 A. & E. 156) - - 380

v. Holland (Aleyn. 14) - 26

v. Hungerford M. Co. (4 B. & Ad. 327 ; 1 N. & M. 112) - 243, 1099

v. Lamb (13 Pr. 649 ; M'Clel. 402) - 562, 563

v. Marsh (3 Y. & J. 331) - 224

• v. Montague (4 B. & C. 598 ; 6 D. & E. 616 ; 4 L. J. K. B. 21) 411

v. Oundle (1 A. & E. 283 ; 3 N. & M. 484 ; 3 L. J. N. S. K. B.

117) - - 579

v. Pedly (1 A. & E. 827) - - - 1045

v. Preston (5 B. & Ad. 1028) - - 785

v. Eigge (2 B. & Aid. 550) - - - 570

v. Smith (Sug. 543) - 562

v. Snow (1 Pr. 220, n.) - - 289

v. Sourton (5 A. & E. 180 ; 6 N. & M. 575 ; 2 H. & W. 209 ;

5 L. J: N. S. K. B. 217) 382

v. Wandsworth (Inhabitants of) (1 B. & Aid. 63) - - - 411

v. Williams (Sug. 698) - - 1047

v. Yarborough (3 B. & C. 91 ; 4 D. & E. 790; 2 L. J. K. B.

196) - , . . _ . 380

Eeynell v. Sprye (1 D. M. & G. 660 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 633) - 116, 280, 842,

1174, 1175
v. (10 B. 51 ; 11 B. 618 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 13) - - 996

TABLE OF CASES. CCX111

Bey— Hie.

Keynolds, Ex parte (5 V. 707) - - - 51

- Re (3 Ch. D. 61 ; 35 L. T. 293 ; 24 W. B, 991) - - 759

- v. Blako (2 S. & S. 117) - - 1337

- v. Nelson (6 Mad. 18) - - - 487

- v. Waring (You. 351) - 1136, 1146
Khodes, In re (28 L. T. 392) - 388, 389

- Re (W. N. (1887) 175) - 389

- Re (8 B. 224 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 97) - - - 815

- Re (2 Ph. 575) - 818

— v. Airedale Drainage Commissioners (1 C. P. D. 402; 45

L. J. C. P. 861 ; 35 L. T. 46 ; 24 W. E. 1053) - - 705

- v. Batefl Ch. 252; 35 L. J. Ch. 267; 12 Jur. N. S. 178;

13 L. T. 778 ; 14 W. E. 292) - - - - 24

- v. Buckland (16 B. 212) - - - 80

- v. Ibbetson (4 D. M. & G. 787 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 459 ; 2 Eq.

E. 76) 122, 171

Rhys v. Dare Valley E. Co. (19 Eq. 93 ; 23 W. E. 23) - - - 711

Eiccard v. Inclosure Commissioners (4 E. & B. 329 ; 24 L. J. Q. B.

49 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 495 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 129 ; 3 Com. L. E.

119; 3W. E. 113) - 473

- v. Prichard (1 K. & J. 277 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 750) - - 214, 828
Eice, In re (2 Ke. 181) - 820

- v. Gordon (11 B. 265) - - 842

- v. Eice (2 Dr. 85 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 289 ; 22 L. T. 208 ; 2 Eq. E.

341 ; 2 W. E. 139) 825, 826, 833, 942, 945, 951, 953

Eich v. Basterfield (16 L. J. C. P. 273; 11 Jur. 696; 2 C. & K.

257 ; 4 C. B. 783) - - 1045

- v. Jackson (4 Br. C. C. 514) - - 1149

- v. Eiche (Cro. Eliz. 43) - - 890, 891
Eichards v. Attorney-General of Jamaica (6 Mo. P. C. 381 ; 13 Jur.

197) - - - - - - - 297

- v. Barton (1 Esp. 269) - - 641

- v. James (L. E. 2 Q. B. 285 ; 36 L. J. Q. B. 116 ; 16 L. T.

174; 15 W. E. 580; 8 B. & S. 302) - - 965

- v. Jenkins (17 W. E. 30 ; 18 L. T. 437) - - 604

- v. Lewis (11 C. B. 1035 ; 20 L. J. C. P. 177 ; 15 Jur. 512 ;

17 Jur. 1036; 22 L. T. 0. S. 104) - - 159

- v. Eevitt (7 Ch. D. 224 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 472 ; 37 L. T.

632 ; 26 W. E. 166) - 870, 873

— v. Eose (9 Ex. 218 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 3 ; 2 C. L. E. 311) 421, 609
v. Swansea Improvement Co. (9 Ch. D. 425 ; 38 L. T. 833 ;

26 W. E. 764) - - - 244, 245, 247

Richardson's Case (19 Eq. 588 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 252 ; 32 L. T. 18 ; 23

W. E. 467) 1057

Eichardson v. Chasen (10 Q. B. 756) - - - 1076

- v. Eyton (2 D. M. & G. 79 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 194) 170, 1146

- v. Horton (7 B. 112) - - 702

v. McCausland (Beat. 457) - 830

Vm Richardson (3 Eq. 686 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 653 ; 15 W. E.

690) --------- 1018

CCX1V TABLE OF CASES.

Bic— Bis. PAGE

Eichardson v. Smith (5 Ch. 648 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 877, 881 ; 19 W. E,

81) - - 258, 259

. v. Ward (11 B. 378) - 1249, 1344

- v. Williamson (L. E. 6 Q. B. 276 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 145) 213

v. Younge (10 Eq. 275 ; 6 Ch. 478 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 475 ;

40 L. J. Ch. 338 ; 18 W. E. 800 ; 19 W. E, 612 ; 25 L. T. 230) - 451,

456
Eiche v. Ashbury Carriage Co. (L. E. 9 Ex. 224 ; 43 L. J. Ex. 177 ;

31 L. T. 339; 23 W. E. 7) - 21

Eichmondv.NorthLondonE.Co.(3Ch.679; 37L. J. Ch.886) 248,249,513

, v. (5 Eq. 352 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 18

L. T. 8 ; 16 W. E. 449) - - 1099

Eickards v. Gledstanes (3 Giff. 298 ; 5 L. T. 416 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 455)- 956,

967

Eicketts v. Bell (1 De G. & S. 335 ; 11 Jur. 918)- - - 1114

v. Lewis (20 Ch. D. 745 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 837 ; 46 L. T. 368 ;

30 W. E. 609) - 89

Eiddell v. Errington (26 Ch. D. 220 ; 50 L. T. 584 ; 32 W. E, 680) - 1293

— v. Eiddell (7 Si. 529)- 879, 880
Eideout's Trusts, (10 Eq. 41 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 192) - - - 383
Eider v. Jones (2 Y. & C. C. C. 329)- - 476

v. Kidder (10 V. 360) - 1025, 1055, 1058, 1065

Eidgway v. Gray (1 M. & G. 109 ; 1 II. & Tw. 195) 158, 999, 1189, 1194

— v. Sneyd (Kay, 635) 907, 1211

v. Wharton (3 D. M. & G. 677 ; 6 H. L. C. 238 ; 27 L. J.

Ch. 46 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 173 ; 22 L. T. O. S. 265 ; 29 L. T. O. S. 390 ;
2 W. E, 137 ; 5 W. E. 804 ; 2 Eq. E, 839) 240, 249, 261, 262, 265, 268,

1148

Eidler v. Eidler (22 Ch. D. 81 ; 31 W. E, 93) - - 1006, 1025, 1029
Eigby v. Bennett (21 Ch. D. 559 ; 48 L. T. 47 ; 31 W. E, 222) - 421

• v. Connol (14 Ch. D. 482 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 328 ; 42 L. T. 139 ; 28

W. E, 650) - 1163

— v. G. W. E. Co. (14 M. & W. 816 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 60) - - 615
- v. M'Namara (6 V. 515) - 1334

Eigden v. Yallier (2 Y. sen. 252 ; 3 Atk. 731) - 1047, 1048

Eight v. Beard (13 Ea. 210) - 290, 1085

v. Bucknell (2 B. & Ad. 278) 911, 1001

Eiley v. Crossley (2 C. B. 146 ; 1 Lutw. Eeg. Cas. 420 ; 15 L. J. C. P.

144; 10 Jur. 316) - 280
to Streatfield, Re (34 Ch. D. 386; 56 L. J. Ch. 442; 56 L. T.

48 ; 35 W. E. 470) - 717

Eimington v. Hartley (14 Ch. D. 630 ; 43 L. T. 15 ; 29 W. E, 42) - 1307
Eing v. Jarman (14 Eq. 357; 41 L. J. Ch. 535; 26 L. T. 690; 20

W. E. 744) - 315

Einger to Thompson (51 L. J. Ch. 42 ; 45 L. T. 580) - - 193, 520

Eipley v. Sawyer (31 Ch. D. 494 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 407 ; 54 L. T. 294 ;

34 W. E. 270)- - - 1310

Eippiner v. Wright (2 B. & Aid. 478) - 786

Eippingall v. Lloyd (2 N. & M. 410 ; 5 B. & Ad. 742) - - 470, 472

Eiseley v. Shepherd (21 W. E. 782) - - 392

TABLE OF CASES. CCXV

His— Bob. PAGK

Eishton v. Whatmoro (8 Ch. D. 467 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 629 ; 26 W. E.
827) 257

Eitchie v. Smith (6 C. B. 462 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 9 ; 13 Jur. 63) - '1096, 1162
Eittson v. Stordy (3 S. & G. 230 ; 3 W. E. 627) - - - 26

Eiver Steamer Co., In re (6 Ch. 822 ; 25 L. T. 319 ; 19 W. E. 1130)- 458

Eivers (Lord) v. Adams (3 Ex. D. 361 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 47 ; 39 L. T.
39; 27 W. E. 381} 24

Eivett-Carnac, Re (30 Ch. D. 136; 54 L. J. Ch. 1074 ; 53 L. T. 81;

33 W. E. 837) 1281

Eivis v. Watson (5 M. & W. 255) - 914, 1044

Eoach v. Wadham (6 Ea. 289) - - - 878

Eoake v. Kidd (5 V. 647) - - 1232, 1276

Eob v. Butterwick (2 Pr. 190) - - - 838

Eobb v. Dorrian (11 I. E. C. L. 292) 278, 279

Eoberts v. Ball (1 Jur. N. S. 585 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 471 ; 25 L. T. 0. S.

139 ; 3 Eq. E. 632 ; 3 W. E. 466) - - - 749

v. Berry (3 D. M. & G. 291 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 398 ; 20 L. T. O. S.

215) - - 346, 347, 483, 486

- v. Brett (11 H. L. C. 337) - - 1088

v. Croft (2 D. & J. 1 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 220 ; 6 W. E. 144) 945, 951,

953, 977, 987, 991

— v. Haines (6 E. & B. 643 ; 27.L. J. Ex. 49 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 886 ;

27 L. T. 0. S. 171) 420, 422, 609

- v. Macord (1 Mo. & E. 230)- - 405

v. Marchant (1 Ph. 370 ; 1 Ha. 547 ; 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 56)- 1114,

1130

v. Massey (13 V. 561) 221, 709

v. Eichards (50 L. J. Ch. 297 ; 44 L. T. 271) - - - 417

— v. Skelton (13 B. 91) - 1354

v. Tunstall (4 Ha. 257 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 184 ; 9 Jur. 292) - 55

- v. Williams (4 Ha. 130; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 65 ; 5 Jur. 1057) 1021
— v. Wyatt (2 Taun. 268) - 181, 184, 319

Eobertson, In re (19 Q. B. D. 1 ; 56 L. T. 859 ; 35 W. E. 833) - 346

— Me (23 B. 433 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 349 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 352) - - 812

— v. Armstrong (28 B. 123)- - 744

— v. Lockie (15 Sim. 281 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 379 ; 10 Jur. 533) - 82

— v. Norris (1 Gift. 421) - - 40

v. Skelton (12 B. 260 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 140 ; 14 L. T. 0. S.

542) - 287, 720, 1329, 1332

Eobins' Estate, (W. N. (1879) 95) - - 1307

Eobinson and Lords, Re (3 L. E. Ir. 429) - 682, 686

v. Briggs (1 S. & G. 188 ; 21 L. T. 30 ; 1 W. E. 223) 70, 978,

990

v. Bristol (Marquis of) (20 L. J. C. P. 208 ; 11 C. B. 208 ;

15 Jur. 926) - - 452
v. Davison (1 Br. C. C. 63) - - - 933

— v. Drybrough (6 T. E. 317) - 275

v. Grave (21 W. E. 569 ; 27 L. T. 648) - - 409

v. Harman (1 Ex. 850) - 1079, 1080

CCXV1 TABLE OF CASES.

Bob— Hoe. PAGE

Eobinson v. Hedger (13 Jur. 846 ; 14 Jur. 784 ; 17 Sim. 183 ; 19

L. J. Ch. 463 ; 14 L. T. 0. S. 126 ; 15 L. T. 0. S. 323) 530,

540

v. London Hospital (10 Ha. 19) - - 777

v. Lowater (17 B. 592 ; 5 D. M. & G. 272 ; 18 Jur. 321,

363; 23 L. T. 17, 85;2Eq. E. 337; 2W.E. 181, 394) 673,

694, 697, 700

v. Macdonnell (5 M. & S. 228)- - - 785

v. Musgrove (8 C. & P. 469 ; 2 Mo. & E, 92) - 152, 155, 174

v. Page (3 Euss. 114) - - 1159, 1213, 1247

v. Preston (4 K. & J. 505 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 394 ; 4 Jur. N. S.

181) --- - 1047, 1048, 1049, 1058, 1060

v. Eidley (6 Mad. 2) - - - 52

v. Eosher (1 Y. & C. 0. C. 7) - 1263

v. Eutter (4 L. & B. 954 ; 24 L. J. Q. B. 250 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

823 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 127 ; 3 W. E. 405 ; 3 Com. L. E.

1195) --- - 205

v. Sykes (2 Jur. N. S. 895 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 115) - - 1070

• v. Trevor (12 Q. B. D. 423 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 85; 50 L. T. 190;

32 W. E. 374) - - 784, 937, 938
v. Wall (2 Ph. 372 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 401 ; 11 Jur. 577 ; 9 L. T.

0. S. 389) - - 126, 224

- v. Wood (5 B. 246) - 1348

— v. Woodward (4 De G. & S. 562) - 525, 555

v. Wheelwright (6 D. M. & G. 535 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 385 ; 2 Jur.

554 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 73 ; 4 W. E. 427) 10, 1121

Eobson v. Collins (7 V. 130) - - 1150
v. Flight (34 B. 110 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 101 ; 11 L. T. 558 ; 10 Jur.

N. S. 1228 ; 13 W. E. 195; 5 N. E. 154; 4 D. J. & S. 608) 520,

682, 865, 869, 980, 984
v. McCreight (25 B. 272 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 471 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 269;

31 L. T. 0. S. 21 ; 6 W. E. 385) - - 1026

v. Whittingham (35 L. J. Ch. 228 ; 1 Ch. 442 ; 12 Jur. N. S.

40 ; 13 L. T. 730 ; 14 W. E. 291) - - - 408

Eoch v. Callen (6 Ha. 536 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 144 ; 12 Jur. 48, 112) 454, 462
Eochard v. Fulton (1 J. & L. 413) - - 973

Eochdale Canal Co. v. King (2 Si. N. S. 78) - 873

v. Eadcliffe (18 Q. B. 287 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 297 ;

16 Jur. 1111; 19 L. T. 0. S. 163) - - 411

Eoche v. O'Brien (1 B. & B. 330) - 56, 117

Eochford v. Hackman (9 Ha. 475 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 511 ; 16 Jur. 212) - 22

Eock Portland Co. v. Wilson (52 L. J. Ch. 214 ; 48 L. T. 386 ; 31
W. E. 193) - - 263, 1095, 1104

Eodbard v. Cook (25 W. E. 555 ; 36 L. T. 504) - - - 745

Eoddam v. Morley (1 D. & J. 1 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 438 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 449 ;

29 L. T. 0. S. 151 ; 5 W. E. 510) - 455, 456

Eoddy v. Williams (3 J. & L. 1)- - 898, 977, 1019

Eodick v. Gandell (1 D. M. & G. 763) 214, 828

Eodney v. Eodney (16 Si. 307) - - - 1316

Eodwell v. Phillips (9 M. & W. 501 ; 1 D. N. S. 885 ; 11 L. J. Ex. 217) 234
Eoe v. Ireland (11 Ea. 280) - - - - - - 367

TABLE OF CASES. CCXV11

Hoe— Bos. PAGE

Eoe v. Mitton (2 Wils. 356) - - 1007, 1016

Eoebuck v. Chadebet (8 Eq. 127 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 940 ; 38 L. J. Ch.

488) - - 1310

Eoffey v. Bent (3 Eq. 759) - - 885

-v. Shallcross (4 Mad. 227) - -1200

Rogers, Exparte (26 Ch. D. 31 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 936 ; 51 L. T. 177 ; 32

W. E. 737) - - - 474

- (8 D. M. & G. 271 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 480) 966, 991

, Re (L. E. 1 C. P. 47 ; 35 L. J. M. C. 71 ; 1 Har. & Euth. 85;

14 W. E. 142) - - 649

- v. Allen (1 Camp. 312) - 427
v. Brenton (12 Jur. 263 ; 10 Q. B. 26 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 34 ; 9

L. T. 0. S. 352) 132, 428

- v. Challis (27 B. 175 ; 7 W. E. 710) - - 1112, 1164

- v. Earl ( 1 Dick. 294) - - - 856

- v. Humphreys (4 A. & E. 299; 5 N. & M. 511 ; 1 H. & W. 625) 914

- v. Eogers (6 Si. 364) - - 678
v. Taylor (2 H. & N. 828 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 173 ; 30 L. T. 0. S.

321 ; 6 W. E. 249) - - - - 422

- v. Tudor (6 Jur. N. S. 692 ; 2 L. T. 303) - 1217

- v. Waterhouse (4 Dr. 329 ; 6 W. E. 823) 1232, 1274
Eokeby Peerage (Min. of Ev. 4) - 394
Eolfe v. Perry (9 Jur. N. S. 853 ; 8 L. T. 441 ; 32 L. Ch. 471 ; 2 N. E,

97 ; 11 W. E. 674) - 922

Eolland v. Hart (6 Ch. 678 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 701 ; 25 L. T. 191 ; 19

W. E. 962) - - 965, 967, 990, 991

Eollason v. Leon (7 H. & N. 73 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 96 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 608) 229
Eolleston v. Morton (1 D. & War. 182 ; 1 Con. & L. 252 ; 4 Ir. Eq. E.

149) -536, 1346, 1352

Eolls v. Miller (27 Ch. D. 71 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 682 ; 50 L. T. 597 ; 32

W. E. 806) _-.-__ 875

Eolph v. Crouch (L. E. 3 Ex. 44 ; 37 L. J. Ex. 8) - 894, 895

Eolt v. White (31 B. 520 ; 7 L. T. 345) - 943

Eome v. Young (3 Y. & C. 199) - 825, 1248

Eomney, In re (3 N. E. 287) - 810

Eonayne v. Sherrard (I. E. 11 C. L. 146) - 231, 237

Eooke v. Kensington (Lord) (2 K & J. 753 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 795 ; 2 Jur.

N. S. 755 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 62 ; 4 W. E. 829) 594, 603, 613, 838

Eooper v. Harrison (2 K. & J. 103) - 518, 613, 942, 943, 950

Eoots v. Dormer (Lord) (4 B. & Ad. 77 ; 1 N. & M. 667) - - 275

v. Snelling (48 L. T. 216) - - - 112

Eoper v. Williams (T. & E. 18) 872, 874

Eoscommon Earldom (cited Hub. on Ev. p. 257) - - 383

Eose v. Calland (5 V. 186) - 1230, 1231, 1260, 1275

v. Cunynghame (11 V. 550) 239, 254, 306, 307

v. Groves (5 M. & G. 613 ; 6 Sc. N. E. 645 ; 1 D. & L. 11 ; 12

L. J. C. P. 251 ; 7 Jur. 951) - 412

v. Watson (10 H. L. C. 672 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 385 ; 10 Jur. N. S.

297 ; 10 L. T. 106 ; 3 N. E. 673 ; 12 W. E. 585) - 283, 506, 997,

1156

CCXV111 TABLE OF CASES.

Bos— Bow. PAGE

Eosenberg v. Cook (8 Q. B. D. 162 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 170 ; 30 W. E.

344) - - - 171, 860

Eosewell v. Prior : see Eosewell v. Pryor.

- v. Pryor (2 Salk. 460 ; 6 Mod. 116) - 409, 1045
Eosher, Ee (26 Ch. D. 801 ; 53 L. J. Oh. 722 ; 51 L. T. 785 ; 32

W. E. 820) - 22

- v. Williams (20 Eq. 210 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 419 ; 32 L. T. 387 ; 23
W. E. 561) - - 1002, 1004, 1117

Eoss v. Boards (8 A. & E. 290 ; 3 N. & P. 382; 1 W. & H. 376 ; 2 Jur.

567) - 1194

v. Estates Investment Co. (3 Ch. 682 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 873 ; 19

L. T. 61 ; 16 W. E, 1151) - - 117

• v. Pope (Plow. 72) - 1043

Eosse (Lord) v. Sterling (4 Dow. 442) - - - 1246

v. Wainmain (14 M. & W. 859 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 67 ; 6 L. T. 0. S.

193) - 77

Eossiter, Re (13 Ch. D. 355 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 36 ; 42 L. T. 353 ; 28 W. E.

238) - - - - - - - 923

v. Miller (5 Ch. D. 658 ; 3 Ap. Ca. 1124 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 228;

48 L. J. Ch. 10 ; 37 L. T. 14 ; 39 L. T. 173 ; 25 W. E.

890 ; 26 W. E, 865) - 239, 253, 265

- v. Walsh (4 D. & War. 485 ; 2 Con. & L. 562) - 43
Eotherham v. Eotherham (26 B. 465 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 402 ; 33 L. T.

O. S. 159 ; 7 W. E. 368) - - 702

Eothschild v. Brookman (2 Dow. & C. 188 ; 5 Bli. N. E, 165) 23, 51

Eoughton v. Gibson (25 W. E. 268 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 366 ; 36 L. T. 93) - 1300
Eound v. Bell (30 B. 121 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 127 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1183 ; 5

L. T. 15 ; 9 W. E. 846) - - 460

Eousilloii v. Eousillon (14 Ch. D. 351 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 339 ; 42 L. T.

679; 28 W. E. 623; 44 J. P. 663) - - 1111

Eoutledge v. Grant (4 Bing. 653 ; 1 M. & P. 717 ; 3 C. & P. 267 ; 6

L. J. C. P. 166) - --- - 139, 267, 268

Eow v. Gray (5 Ch. D. 263 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 279 ; 25 W. E. 250) - - 1300

Eowbotham v. Wilson (8 E. & B. 123 ; 8 H. L. C. 348 ; 27 L. J. Q. B.

61 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 49 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 695) 420, 422, 604

Eowe v. Brenton (3 Man. & E. 247 ; 8 B. & C. 765) - - 132

v. London School Board (57 L. T. 182) - - 1083

v. May (18 B. 613) 208, 654

v. Teed (15 V. 375) - -1148

Eowland v. Cuthbertson (8 Eq. 466 ; 20 L. T. 938; 17 W. E. 901) - 614,

702
• v. Witherden (3 M. & G. 568) - - - 743

Eowlands v. Evans (30 B. 302 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 88 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 265 ;

5L. T. 658; 10 W. E, 186) - 485

Eowley, In re (1 N. E. 251 ; 7 L. T. 702; 32 L. J. Ch. 158; 11 W. E.

297) - - 656

v. Adams (7 B. 548 ; 4 M. & C. 534 ; 14 B. 130) 631, 657, 1316

v. - - (12 B. 476)- 144, 724

v. Eyton (2 Mer. 128) - - - - 307

v. Merlin (6 Jur. N. S. 1165) - - - - 481

TABLE OF CASES. CCX1X

Box— But.

Roxburgh (Duke of) v. ilamsay (7 BeU's Ap. Ca. 248) - - - 1096

Eoyal Bristol Building Society v. Bomash (35 Ch. D. 390 ; 56 L. J.

Ch. 840 ; 57 L. T. 182) 284, 733, 1083

- British Bank v. Turquand (5 E. & B. 248 ; 6 E. & B. 327 ; 25

L. J. Q. B. 317 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 663) - 218, 274, 370

- Liver Friendly Society, In re (L. E. 5 Ex. 78 ; 39 L. J. Ex.

37 ; 21 L. T. 721 ; 18 W. R. 349) - - 790

- Society v. Thompson (17 Ch. D. 407 ; 00 L. J. Ch. 344; 44

L. T. 274 ; 29 W. R. 838) - - 20

Royle v. Wynne (Cr. & P. 252) - - - 1113

Rudge v. Richens (L. R. 8 C. P. 358 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 127 ; 28 L. T.

537) - 81

Eliding v. Smith (2 Hag. Consist. 371) - - - 384

Ruffey v. Henderson (21 L. J. Q. B. 49) - 230, 232

Rugby Charity v. Merryweather (11 Ea. 375, n.) - - 411

Rumble v. Heygate (18 W. R. 749) - - 1146

Rumbold v. Forteath (3 K. & J. 44) - - 476

Rummens v. Robins (3 D. J. & S. 88 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 631 ; 13 W. R.

979) 264, 1148

Rushbrooke v. Hood (5 C. B. 131 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 58; 11 Jur. 931) - 796,

797

Rushout v. Turner (5 W. R. 670) - - 931

Rushton v. Craven (12 Pr. 599) - 1234, 1273

Russel v. Russel (1 Mol. 525) - 1350

Russell's Estate, Me (12 Jur. N. S. 224 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 461) - - 663
Russell, Exparte (19 Ch. D. 588 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 521 ; 46 L. T. 113;

30 W. R. 584) - - 1025

_ , In re (30 Ch. D. 114 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 948 ; 52 L. T. 794 ; 33

W. R. 815) . - - - 820

Russell-road Purchase-moneys, In re (12 Eq. 78 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 673 ;

23 L. T. 839 ; 19 W. R, 520, 706) - - 749, 960

Russell, Son, & Scott, Re (55 L. T. 71) - - - 819

- v. Dickson (4 H. L. C. 293) - - 1263

- v. Harford (2 Eq. 507 ; 15 L. T. 171 ; 14 W. R. 982) - - 177

- v. Jackson (9 Ha. 387) 994, 995, 996
_ r. McCulloch (1 K. & J. 313; 1 Jur. N. S. 157; 24 L. T. O. S.

308 ; 3 W. R, 280) - - 537, 538

_ v. Plaice (18 B. 21 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 441 ; 18 Jur. 254 ; 22 L. T.

0. S. 326; 2 W. R, 243 ; 2 Eq. R. 1149) 89, 1275

- v. Tithe Commissioners (L. R. 6 C. P. 596 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 265;

24 L. T. 908; 19 W. R. 1007) - 401

_ v. Watts (25 Ch. D. 565 ; 10 Ap. Ca. 590 ; 50 L. T. 673 ; 53
L. T. 876; 32 W. R. 621 ; 34 W. R. 277 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 158; 50
J. P. 68) - 409,608

Rust v. Baker (8 Si. 443) - - 385

Ruthin Ry. Act, He (32 Ch. D. 438 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 30 ; 55 L. T. 237 ;

34 W. R. 581) 243, 860

Rutland's (Duke of) Settlement (31 W. R. 947 ; 49 L. T. 196) - - 758

CCXX TABLE OF CASES.

Rut — St. PAGE

Butledge v. Eutledge (2 Bli. N. S. 352) - 1080

Eutley v. Gill (3 De G. & S. 691) - - 1338

Butter v. Marriott (10 B. 33) - - 1338, 1354

Eyal v. Eyal (Amb. 413) - - - - 1057

Eyan and Cavanagh, Re (11 L. E. Ir. 42) - - 66, 679, 695

Eylar, Re (24 W. E. 949) 1284, 1285

Eyle v. Swindells (M'C. 519) - 1208

Sabin v. Heap (27 B. 553; 29 L. J. Ch. 79; 5 Jur. N. S. 1146; 1
L. T. 51 ; 8 W. E. 120) 65, 66, 676, 679, 695

Sacheverell v. Porter (Sir W. Jones, 396 ; Cro. Car. 482) - - 427

Sackville v. Smyth (17 Eq. 153 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 494 ; 22 W. E. 179) - 925
Sadd v. Maldon, &c. E. Co. (6 Ex. 143 ; 6 Ey. Ca. 779; 20 L. J. Ex.

102 ; 16 L. T. 0. S. 370) - - 242

Saffron Walden Society v. Eayner (14 Ch. D. 406 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 465 ;

43 L. T. 3 ; 28 "W. E. 681) - - - 967

Sainsbury v. Jones (5 M. & C. 1 ; 4 Jur. 499) 116, 1104, 1130

- v. Matthews (4 M. & W. 343 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ex. 1) - - 235
St. Alban's (Bishop of) v. Battersby (3 Q. B. D. 359 ; 47 L. J. Q. B.

571 ; 38 L. T. 685 ; 26 W. E. 679) - - 138

- (Duke of) v. Shaw (1 H. Bl. 270) - - - 1086

St. Albyn v. Harding (27 B. 11) - 844

St. Alphage (Parson of), Re (W. N. (1886) 154) - - - 759

St. Bartholomew's Hospital (Trustees of), Ex parte (4 Dr. 425 ; 7

W. E. 224) - - 806

— , Ex parte (20 Eq. 369) - - 811

St. Cross v. Howard de Walden (Lord) (6 T. E. 338) - 1091

St. Dunstan's Schools, Re (12 Eq. 537 ; 24 L. T. 613 ; 19 W. E. 887) 812

St. George (Parish of) v. St. Margaret's (1 Salk. 123) - 381
St. Germans (Lord) v. Crystal Palace E. Co. (11 Eq. 568 ; 24 L. T.

288 ; 19 W. E, 584) - - - 515
St. Giles' Volunteer Corps, In re (25 B. 313 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 297 ; 31

L. T. 0. S. 112 ; 6 W. E. 434) - - 759

St. Helen's Co. v. Tipping (11 H. L. C. 642 ; 13 W. E. 1083) - - 1045
St. John (Lord) v. Boughton (9 Si. 219 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 208 ; 2

Jur. 413) - 445

- v. Winton (Bishop of) (Cowp. 94) - - 307
St. Katherine's Dock Co., In re (3 Ey. Ca. 514) - 806
St. Katherine (Hospital of), Ex parte (17 Ch. D. 378) - - 751, 813
St. Leonard's (Shoreditch) v. Hughes (17 C. B. N. S. 137 ; 33 L. J.

C. P. 349 ; 10 L. T. 723 ; 12 W. E. 1106 ; 4 N. E. 465) - - 179

St. Luke's (Middlesex) (W. N. (1880) 58) - - 758

St. Pancras Burial Ground, In re (3 Eq. 173) - 757

St. Paul's (Dean and Chapter of), Ex parte (1 K. & J. 538 ; 24 L. J.
Ch. 395 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 444 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 93 ; 3 Eq. E. 634 ; 3

W. E. 430) - - - 756

St. Paul's Schools (Finsbury) (52 L. J. Ch. 454 ; 48 L. T. 412 ; 31

W. E. 424) - - - 807

TABLE OF CASES. CCXX1

K>\j. 13 till.

St. Paul v. Birmingham, &c. R. Co. (11 Ha. 305 ; 17
L. T. 0. S. 226 ; 1 W. R. 494 ; 1 Eq. R. 274)

St.— San. PAGE

17 Jur. 1176; 21

- 221

St. Sepulchre's Estate, He (4 D. J. & S. 232 ; 9 L. T. 819 ; 10 Jur.

N. S. 298 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 372 ; 3 N. R. 594 ; 12 W. R. 499) - - 813
St. Thomas's Hospital, In re (7 W. R. 425) - - 811
v. Charing Cross R. Co. (1 J. & H. 400 ; 30

L. J. Ch. 395 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 256 ; 4 L. T. 13, 85 ; 9 W. R. 411) - 245
Sainter v. Ferguson (1 M. & G. 286) - 1183, 1217

Salaman v. Glover (20 Eq. 444 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 551 ; 32 L. T. 792 ; 23
W. R. 722) - - - 1094

Sale v. Lambert (18 Eq. 1 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 470 ; 22 W. R. 478) - 253

Salisbury (Marquis of), Re (2 Ch. D. 29; 45 L. J. Ch. 250 ; 34 L. T. 5;

24 W. R. 380) - - 1291

Salisbury (The Bishop), In re (16 L. T. 0. S. 122) - - 812

(Lord) v. G. N. R. Co. (17 Q. B. 840 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 185 ;

16 Jur. 740 ; 18 L. T. 0. S. 240) - 62,

243, 509, 1098

v. (5 C. B. N. S. 174; 28 L. J. C. P. 40;

5 Jur. N. S. 70 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 175 ;
7 W. R. 75) - 414

— and L. & N. W. R. Co. (W. N. (1879) 214) - - 802
- v. Wilkinson (3 Br. C. C. 44) - 207

- v. Hatcher (2 Y. & C. C. C. 62) - 1161, 1178, 1179

Salkeld v. Johnston (1 M. & G. 261 ; 1 Ha. 203 ; 2 Ex. 256 ; 1 H. &
Tw. 329 ; 11 L. J. Ch. 201 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 493 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 89 ; 11
L. T. O. S. 180 ; 13 L. T. O. S. 501 ; 6 Jur. 210) - 401, 402, 403, 1271
Salman v. Bradshaw (Cro. Jac. 304) - - 881

Salmon v. Cutts (4 De G. & S. 125; 15 Jur. 615 ; 16 Jur. 123; 16
L. T. O. S. 502 ; 17 L. T. 0. S. 87 ; 19 L. T. 0. S. 53 ;
21 L. J. Ch. 750) 45, 56

- v. Randall (3 M. & C. 439) - - 243

Saloway v. Strawbridge (1 K. & J. 371 ; 7 D. M. & G. 594 ; 25 L. J.

Ch. 121 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1194; 4 W. R. 34) - 686, 1273

Salt v. Cooper (16 Ch. D. 544 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 529 ; 43 L. T. 682 ; 29

W. R. 553) - - 543, 547

Salter v. Bradshaw (26 B. 161) - 844, 853, 855

- v. Cavanagh (1 D. & Wai. 668) - - - 437

- v. Metropolitan R. Co. (9 Eq. 432 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 567) - 245

Salters' Co. v. Jay (3 Q. B. 109 ; 2 G. & D. 414 ; 11 L. J. Q. B. 173 ;

6 Jur. 803) - - - 404

Sampson v. Hoddinott (1 C. B. N. S. 590; 26 L. J. C. P. 148 ; 3 Jur.

N. S. 243 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 304 ; 5 W. R. 230) - 415

Samuda v. Lawford (4 Gif. 42 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 739 ; 6 L. T. 890) 1109, 1147
Sanders v. Benson (4 B. 350) - - 311, 631

- v. Richards (2 Col. 568) - 1275
— v. Sanders (19 Ch. D. 373; 51 L. J. Ch. 276 ; 45 L. T. 637) - 445,

452
Sanderson and Great Northern R. Co. (25 Ch. D. 788 ; 53 L. J. Ch.

445 ; 50 L. T. 87 ; 32 W. R. 519) - 749

v. Berwick (Mayor of) (13 Q. B. D. 547) - - 883

v. Chadwick (2 N. R. 414)- - 800, 1262

CCXX11 TABLE OF CASES.

San— Say. PAGE

Sanderson v. Cockermouth E. Co. (11 B. 497 ; 2 H. & Tw. 327) - 1110,

1113, 1146

v. Graves (L. E. 10 Ex. 234 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 210 ; 33 L. T.

269 ; 23 W. E. 797) - 232, 237, 1090, 1096

v. Walker (13 V. 603) - 43, 54, 208

Sands to Thompson (22 Ch. D. 614 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 406 ; 48 L. T. 210 ;

31 W. E. 397) - - 367, 437, 442, 444, 1236, 1275
Sandwich (Earl of) v. G. N. E, Co. (10 Ch. D. 707 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 225 ;

27 W. E. 707) - - - - 415

Sanger v. ganger (11 Eq. 470 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 372 ; 24 L. T. 649 ; 19

W. E. 792) - 10, 57

Sangster v. Cochrane (28 Ch. D. 298 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 301 ; 51 L. T. 889 ;

33 W. E. 221 ; 49 J. P. 327) - - 936, 938

Sari v. Bourdillon (1 C. B. N. S. 188 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 78 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

1208 ; 5 W. E. 196) 252, 253

Sastry v. Sembecutty (6 Ap. Ca. 364 ; 50 L. J. P. C. 28 ; 44 L. T.

895) - - - 384

Saumarez, Re (4 W. E. 658 ; 27 L. T. 212) - - 656

Saunders v. Cramer (3 D. & War.'87 ; 5 Ir. Eq. E. 12 ; 2 Con. & L. 54) 295

- v. Dehew (2 Vern. 271) - 928, 935

— v. Dence (52 L. T. N. S. 644) - 74, 211, 1166
v. Gray (4 M. & C. 515) - - 1353

— v. Merewether (3 H. & C. 902 ; 35 L. J. Ex. 115 ; 11 Jur.

N. S. 655 ; 13 W. E. 814) - 595
v. Musgrave (6 B. & C. 524 ; 9 D. & E. 549) - - - 504

— v. Topp (4 Ex. 390; 18 L. J. Ex. 374 ; 13 L. T. 0. S. 305) 234
Saunderson v. Jackson (2 B. & P. 238 ; 3 Esp. 180) - 262, 269, 270
Savage v. Carroll (1 B. & B. 283, 550) - - - 1146

- v. Foster (9 Mod. 36) - 13, 517, 947

Savery v. King (5 H. L. C. 627 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 482 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 503 ;

27 L. T. O. S. 145 ; 4 W. E. 571) - 45, 46, 846, 853
Savile v. Savile (1 P. W. 745) - 1355
Savory v. Underwood (23 L. T. 0. S. 141) - 324, 725
Saward v. Anstey (10 J. B. Moore, 55) - 890
Sawston (Vicar of), Ex parte (27 L. J. Ch. 755)- - - 808
Sawyer and Baring's Contract (33 W. E. 26 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1104 ; 51

L. T. 356; 33 W. E. 26)- - 619

v. Birchmore (3 M. & K 572) - - - 994

— v. Mills (1 M. & G. 390) - 1267
Saxon v. Blake (29 B. 438) - 212, 1173
Saxton v. Barsley (27 W. E. 615 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 519) - 1300
v. Saxton (13 Ch. D. 359 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 128 ; 41 L. T. 649;

28 W. E. 294) - 309, 310
Say, Ex parte (1 Dea. & Ch. 32 ; Mont. 364 ; 1 L. J. N. S. Bkcy. 17) 41

• v. Barwick (1 V. & B. 195) - 1160

Saye and Sele Barony (1 H. L. C. 507) - - 382, 383

Sayer v. Wagstaff (5 B. 415) - 817

Sayers v. Collier (28 Ch. D. 103 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 51 L. T. 723 ; 33

W. E. 91 ; 49 J. P. 244) - 871,1082,1104

TABLE OF CASES. CCXX111

Say— Sco.

Sayles v. Blano (14 Q. B. 205 ; 6 Ey. Ca. 79 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 19 ; 14

Jur. 87 ; 14 L. T. O. S. 176) - 333

Sayre v. Hughes (5 Eq. 376 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 401 ; 18 L. T. 347 ; 16

W. E. 662) ........ 1058

Scales v. Baker (28 B. 91) - - 1067

- v. Maude (6 D. M. & G. 43 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 433 ; 1 Jur. N. S.
1147 ; 26 L. T. 0. S. 131 ; 4 W. R. 109) - - 1054

Scawin v. Scawin (1 Y. & C. C. C. 65) - 1060, 1062

Schmaling v. Thoinlinson (6 Taunt. 147 ; 1 Marsh. 500) - - 204

Schmaltz v. Avery (16 Q. B. 655 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 228 ; 15 Jur. 291) - 1073,

1092

Schneider v. Heath (3 Camp. 506) - 102, 114

- v. Norris (2 M. & S. 286) - - 269

Scholefiold v. Heafield (7 Si. 669 ; 8 Si. 470) - 1347

-v. Eedfern (2 Dr. & S. 173 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 627 ; 9 Jur.

N. S. 485; 8 L. T. 487; IN. R. 465; 11 W. E. 453)- - - 99

Schoole v. Salt (1 Sch. & L. 176) - - 474

Schotsmans v. Lancashire & Yorkshire E. Co. (2 Ch. 332 ; 16 L. T.

189 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 361 ; 15 W. E. 537) - - 825

Schreiber v. Creed (10 Si. 9 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 346)- - 136

— v. Donkel (54 L. T. 911 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 241) - - - 1005

Schroder v. Schroder (Kay, 578 ; 3 Eq. E. 97 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 916 ; 24

L. J. Ch. 510 ; 18 Jur. 621, 987 ; 2 W. E. 462; 3 W. E. 55 ; 24

L. T. 0. S. 245) --- - 306, 307, 1034
Schwinge v. London & Blackwall E. Co. (3 S. & G. 30 ; 24 L. J. Ch.

405 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 368 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 124 ; 3 Eq. E. 536 ; 3 W. E.

260) - ....... 245

Scoones v. Morrell (1 B. 251) 187, 1265, 1275

ScoreU v. Boxhall (1 Y. & J. 396) - - 234

Scott v. Avery (5 H. L. C. 811 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 308 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 815;

28 L. T. 0. S. 207 ; 4 W. E. 746) - - 257

- v. Davis (4 M. & C. 92 ; 2 Jur. 1051) - - 56

- v. Dunbar (1 Moll. 442) 44, 845, 1258

- v. Ebury (Lord) (L. E. 2 C. P. 255 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 161 ; 15

L. T. 506 ; 15 W. E. 517) - - 62

- v. Fenhoullet (1 Br. C. C. 69) - - 310

- v. Hanson (1 Si. 13 ; 5 L. J. Ch. 67) - - 110

- v. Hastings (Lord) (4 K. & J. 633 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 240 ; 6 W. E.

862) - - - - - - - 550

- v. Jackman (21 B. 110) - - 162, 763, 1349

- v. Langstaffe (cited Lofft. 797) - 1182

- v. Liverpool (Corporation of) (3 D. & J. 334 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 230 ;

5 Jur. N. S. 105 ; 32 L. T. 265 ; 7 W. E. 153) - - - 257

- v. Miller (John. 221 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 584 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 858 ; 33

L. T. 0. S. 270 ; 7 W. E. 470) ..... 280

- v. Nesbit (3 Br. C. C. 475) - 1131

- v. Nixon (3 D. & War. 388 ; 2 Con. & L. 185 ; 6 IT. Eq. E. 8) 462,

463, 1277

- v. Pape (31 Ch. D. 554 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 426 ; 54 L. T. 389 ; 34

W. E. 465) - 406, 407

- v. Eayment (7 Eq. 112 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 48 ; 19 L. T. 481) 1111, 1167

CCXX1V TABLE OF CASES.

Sco— Sel. PAGE

Scott v. Eobarts (4 W. E. 499) - - - - 1319

- v. Scholey (8 Ea. 467 - - 526

- v. Scott (9 L. E. Ir. 367) - - - 299

v. (4 H. L. C. 1085 ; 18 Jur. 755) 443, 454, 1007

v. - - (11 W. E. 766 ; 8 L. T. 450) - - 1263

- v. Wedlake (7 Q. B. 778) - 232
Scottish Petroleum Co., Re (23 Ch. D. 413 ; 49 L. T. 348 ; 31 W. E.

846) - - 117, 118
Widows' Fund v. Craig (20 Ch. D. 208 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 363 ; 30

W. E. 463) - 1316

Scotto v. Heritage (3 Eq. 212; 15 L. T. 349; 36 L. J. Ch. 123; 15

W. E. 168) - - - 1272

Scrafton v. Quincey (2 V. sen. 413) - - 770

Scroope v. Scroope (1 Ch. Ca. 27) - - 1058

Scully v. Delany (2 Ir. Eq. E. 379) - - 279

Seabourne v. Powell (2 Yern. 11) - - 909

Seaforth (Lord), Ex parte (19 V. 235 ; 1 Eose, 306) - - 185

Seagood v. Meale (Ch. Prec. 560 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 49, pi. 2 ; 1 Str. 426) 251,

255
Seagram v. Knight (3 Eq. 398; 2 Ch. 628 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 310; 15

W. E. 477, 1152) - - 54,437,456

v. Tuck (18 Ch. D. 296 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 572 ; 44 L. T. 800 ;

29 W. E. 784) - - 438

Seaman v. Price (Ey. & M. 195 ; 2 Bing. 437 ; 1 C. & P. 586 ; 10

Moore, 34 ; 3 L. J. C. P. 58) - - 232

- v. Yawdrey (16 Y. 390) - 131, 1194, 1201, 1234, 1277
Sear v. House Property Society (16 Ch. D. 387 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 77 ; 43

L. T. 531 ; 29 W. E. 192) - 192

Searle v. Colt (1 Y. & C. C. C. 36) - 436, 462

- v. Law (15 Si. 95) - - 1018
Seaton v. Booth (4 A. & E. 528 ; 1 H. & W. 742 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Q. B.

97) - - - 504

- v. Mapp (2 Coll. 562) - 122, 168, 483, 484
Seaward v. Willcock (5 Ea. 202) - - 1086
Seawell v. Webster (29 L. J. Ch. 71 ; 7 W. E. 691) - 1186
Secretary of State for War and Denne, Re (33 W. E, 120 ; 54 L. J.

Ch. 45; 51 L. T. 657) - 320

Seddon v. Bank of Bolton (19 Ch. D. 462; 51 L. J. Ch. 542; 46 L. T.

225 ; 30 W. E. 362) - - - 404

v. Senate (13 Ea. 74) - 635, 883

— v. Smith (36 L. T. 168) - - 448, 463

Sedgwick v. Thomas (48 L. T. 100) - - 11
Seear v. Lawson (15 Ch. D. 426 ; 42 L. T. 805, 893 ; 28 W. E. 763,

929) - - - 278

Segrave's Trusts, Re (17 L. E. Ir. 373) - 11

Selby v. Cooling (23 B. 418) - 89, 1275

v. Jackson (6 B. 192) - 7,1175

v. Pomfret (3 D. F. & J. 598 ; 4 L. T. 314 ; 9 W. E. 583) - 1037

v. Selby (3 Mer. 2 ; 4 Euss. 336) - 269, 829

TABLE OF CASES. CCXXV

Sel — Sha. PAGE

Sellick v. Trevor (11 M. & W. 722 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 401 ; 1 L. T. 0. S.
289) ... . 172, 321

Selsey (Lord) v. Lake (1 B. 146) - - - - 1067

- v. Rhoades (2 S. & S. 49 ; 1 Bli. N. S. 1) 43, 64

Selwyn v. GarEt (56 L. T. 699) - - 73, 82

Semple v. Pink (1 Ex. 74 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 237) - 115

Senior v. Hereford (4 Ch. D. 494 ; 25 W. R. 223) - - 1309

- v. Pawson (3 Eq. 330 ; 15 W. R. 220) - 870
Sentance v. Porter (7 Ha. 426 ; 13 Jur. 980 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 468) - 1268
Serif v. Acton Local Board (31 Ch. D. 679 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 569 ; 54

L. T. 379; 34 W. R. 563) - 413

Serrao v. Nowell (15 Q, B. D. 549) - - 1152

Seton v. Slade (2 Wh. & T. L. C. ; 7 V. 274) 152, 269, 285, 347, 490
Sevin v. Deslandes (9 W. R. 218 ; 3 L. T. 461 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 457) - 1167

Sewart, In re (18 Eq. 278; 30 L. T. 355) - - 806

Sewell v. Moxsy (2 Si. N. S. 189) - - 1018

- v. Walker (12 Jur. 1041) - 845, 849

Sewers (Commissioners of) v. Glasse (7 Ch. 456 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 415 ;
26 L. T. 647 ; 20 W. R. 515) - - - 425

Sexton Barn's Settled Estates, In re (10 W. R. 416 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 40) 1289
Shackleton v. Sutcliffe (1 De G. & S. 609 ; 12 Jur. 199) 131, 156, 735,

1201, 1277

Shadforth v. Temple (10 Si. 184; 3 Jur. 996) - 296

Shakespear, Re (30 Ch. D. 169 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 44 ; 53 L. T. 145 ; 33
W. R. 744) 1124

Shakespeare Walk Estate, Re (12 Ch. D. 178 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 677 ; 28
W. R. 148) 807

Shales v. Shales (Freem. 252) - - - 1062

Shallcross v. Dixon (5 Jarm. Convey. 493) - 972

- v. Hibberson (1 Coop. t. Cott. 380) - - - 1331

- v. Weaver (12 B. 272) - 52
Shannon v, Bradstreet (1 Sch. & L. 52) - - - 1114
Shapland v. Smith (1 B. C. C. 75) - 1229, 1231, 1275
Shardlow v. Cotterell (20 Ch. D. 90 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 353 ; 45 L. T. 572 ;

30 W. R. 143) - 255, 263

Sharman v. Brandt (L. R. 6 Q. B. 720 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 312 ; 19 W. R.

936) 39, 210

Sharp v. Adcock (4 Russ. 375) - - 1230, 1232, 1274

v. Milligan (22 B. 606) 487, 1214

v. Page (Sug. 430) - - - 471

v. St. Sauveur (7 Ch. 343 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 576 ; 26 L. T. 142 ; 20

W. R. 269) - - 26, 27, 29

v. Taylor (2 Ph. 801) - - 1163

Sharpe v. Toy (4 Ch. 35 ; 19 L. T. 541 ; 17 W. R. 65) 13, 947, 948, 967,

990, 1120

v. Roahde (2 Ro. 192) - 529

Sharpies v. Adams (32 B. 213 ; 8 L. T. 138 ; 1 N. R. 460 ; 11 W. R.

450) - 935

D. p

CCXXV1 TABLE OF CASES.

Sha— She. PAGE

Shaw, Ex parte (4 Y. & C. 506) - - - 752

and Birmingham Corporation, In re (27 Ch. D. 614 ; 54 L. J.

Ch. 51; 33 W. E. 74) - - 711

v. Benson (11 Q. B. D. 563 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 575) - - - 1163

v. Bunny (2 D. J. & S. 468 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 257 ; 11 Jur. N. S.

99 ; 11 L. T. 645 ; 13 W. E. 374 ; 5 N. E. 260) - - 41

v. Fisher (5 D. M. & G. 596; 16 Jur. 1055; 26 L. T. 99 ; 4

W. E. 35) - - 332, 1108, 1132

v. - - (2 De G. & S. 11) - - 1106

v. Ford (7 Ch. D. 669 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 531 ; 37 L. T. 649 ; 26

W. E. 235) - - - 22

v. Foster (L. E. 5 H. L. 321 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 49 ; 27 L. T. 281 ;

20 W. E, 907) - 210, 284

v. Johnson (1 Dr. & S. 412 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1005 ; 30 L. J. Ch.

646 ; 4 L. T. 461 ; 9 W. E. 629) 329, 454, 460, 579

v. Kay (1 Ex. 412 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 17) - - 1217

• v. Keighron (3 I. E. Eq. 574) - - 447

v. Neale (20 B. 157; 6 H. L. C. 581 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 563; 27

L. J. Ch. 444 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 666 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 695 ; 25
L. T. O. S. 112; 31 L. T. 0. S. 190; 3 W. E. 350; 6
W. E. 635) - - 535, 553

v. Shaw (12 Pr. 167) - - 474

v. Thackray (1 S. & G. 537; 17 Jur. 1045; 22 L. T. 0. S.

115) 1116, 1131, 1161

Shedden v. Patrick (1 Macq. 535 ; 2 Sw. & Tr. 170 ; 30 L. J. Pr. M.
& A. 217 ; 23 L. T. O. S. 194 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1163 ; 3 L. T. 592 ; 9
W. E. 285) 28, 396

Sheehy v. Muskerry (7 C. & F. 1) - - 1000

Sheerness Waterworks Co. (Official Manager of) v. Poison (3 D. F.
& J. 36; 4L. T. 568)- - - 170

Sheffield's Settled Estate, Re (W. N. (1876) 152) - - 1344

Sheffield (Corporation of), Ex parte (21 B. 162 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 31 ; 26

L. T. 0. S. 146; 4 W. E. 70) - - 760, 808

- (Town Trustees of), Ex parte (8 W. E. 602) - 808
& Eotherham E. Co., Ee (1 S. & G. App. IV.) - - 99

, &c. Building Society v. Harrison (15 Q. B. D. 358; 54

L. J. Q. B. 15 ; 51 L. T. 649; 33 W. E. 144) - - 607

Canal Co. v. Sheffield & Eotherham E. Co. (3 E. C. 121) - 267

-Gas, &c. Co. v. Harrison (17 B. 294) - 1111, 1166

v. Eden (10 Ch. D. 291 ; 40 L. T. 283 ; 27 W. E. 477) - 476

v. Mulgrave (Lord) (2 V. 525) - 1232, 1273

Shelburne v. Inchiquin (1 B. C. C. 350) - - 1159

Sheldon v. Cox (Amb. 624 ; 2 Ed. 224) - 959, 960, 967, 969, 988, 990
Shelley's Case (Tud. L. C. ; 1 Co. 93 b) - 1274

Shelly v. Nash (3 Mad. 232) - 196, 849

Shelmardine v. Harrop (6 Mad. 39) - - 478

Shelton v. Livius (2 C. & J. 411 ; 2 Tyr. 420 ; 1 L. J. N. S. Ex. 139) 124
Shepheard's Settled Estates, In re (8 Eq. 571 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 173; 21

L. T. 525) - - 1281
Shepheard v. Beetham (6 Ch. D. 597 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 763 ; 36 L. T.
909 ; 25 W. E. 764) 303

TABLE OF CASES. CCXXV11

She— Shr. PAOB

Shepheard v. Walker (20 Eq. 659 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 648 ; 33 L. T. 47 ;

23 W. R. 903) 1213

Shepherd's Case (2 Ch. 16; 36 L. J. Ch. 32 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 897 ; 15

L. T. 198; 15 W. R. 2) - 333

Shepherd v. Gillespie (5 Eq. 293 ; 3 Ch. 764 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 335 ; 38
L. J. Ch. 67 ; 17 L. T. 280 ; 18 L. T. 37 ; 19 L. T. 196 ;
16 W. R. 243, 1133) - - - 114,333

- v. Hall (3 Camp. 180) - - - 790
v. Keatley (1 C. M. & R. 127 ; 4 Tyr. 571 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ex.

288) 164, 173

v. Londonderry (Lord) (18 Q. B. 145 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 204;

16 Jur. 796 ; 19 L. T. 0. S. 179 ; 3 Jur. 168) - - 400

- v. Norwich Corporation (30 Ch. D. 553 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1050 ;

53 L. T. 251 ; 33 W. R. 841) - - 707

Sheppard r. Doolan (3 D. & War. 1) - 1234, 1336

- v. Duke (9 Si. 567 ; 8 L. J. Ch. N. S. 228) 454, 455

- v. Murphy (2 Ir. R. Eq. 544) - - - 1106

- v. Oxenford (1 K. & J. 491 ; 25 L. T. 63 ; 3 W. R. 384) - 1163

- v. Wilson (4 Ha. 392 ; 9 Jur. 920) - 691
Sherard, Re (1 D. J. & S. 421) - 8
Sherbrook v. Tufnell (46 L. T. 886) - - 609
Sheridan's Estate, Re (1 L. R. Ir. 54) - - - 1015
Sherry v. Oke (3 Dowl. 349 ; 1 H. & W. 119) - 1076
Sherwin v. Shakspear (5 D. M. & G. 517 ; 17 B. 267 ; 23 L. J. Ch.

177, 899 ; 18 Jur. 843 ; 1 W. R. 460 ; 2 W. R. 668 ; 21 L. T. 0. S.
252) - - 141, 184, 291, 325, 346, 709, 722, 724, 734, 1258

Sherwood v. Beveridge (3 De G. & S. 425) - - 1335, 1337

- v. Robins (3 C. & P. 339 ; M. & M. 194) - 157, 845
Shields v. Boucher (1 De G. & S. 40) - 395

- v. Rice (3 Jur. 950) . - - - 367

Shillibeer v. Jarvis (8 D. M. & G. 79) - 1136

Shippey v. Derrison (5 Esp. 190) - - 272

Shipton-under-Wychwood (Rector of), Ex parte (19 W. R. 549) 752, 806
Shirley, Ex parte (5 Bing. N. C. 226 ; 7 D. P. C. 258 ; 3 Jur. 125) - 650

v. Stratton (1 Br. C. C. 440) 102, 1210

Shore v. Collett (G. Coop. 234) - - 473, 764

v. Wilson (9 C. & F. 355) - 1092

Short v. Kalloway (11 A. & E. 28) - - 894

— v. McCarthy (3 B. & Aid. 626) - 881

v. Stone (8 Q. B. 358 ; 3 D. & L. 580 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 143 ; 10

Jur. 245) - - 1086

Shortrede v. Cheek (1 A. & E. 57 ; 3 N. & M. 366) - - 1092

Shrewsbury (Earl of) v. North Staffordshire R. Co. (1 Eq. 593; 35

L. J. Ch. 156 ; 12 Jur. 63 ; 13 L. T. 648 ; 14 W. R.

220) - 219
(Earl of) v. Shrewsbury (Countess of) (18 Jur. 397; 23

L. T. 0. S. 86) 224, 251

— v. Blount (2 Man. & G. 475 ; 2 Sc. N. R. 588) - - 114

Hospital, Ex parte (9 Ha. Ap. xlv.) - - 761

CCXXV111 TABLE OF CASES.

Shr— Sim. PAGE

Shrewsbury and Birmingham E. Co. v. N. W, E. Co. (6 H. L. C. 113 ;

26 L. J. Ch. 482 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 775 ; 29 L. T. 186) - 219

and Chester E. Co. v. Shrewsbury and Birmingham E.

Co. (15 Jur. 548) 1222

— Peerage Case (7 H. L. C. 1) - 383, 393, 394, 395, 398

E. Co. v. London & North Western E. Co. (16 B. 451 ;

4 D. M. & G. 115 ; 6 H. L. C. 113 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 482 ; 29 L. T.

O. S. 186) - - 1118, 1162, 1165, 1172

Shropshire Union E. Co. v. Eeg. (L. E. 7 H. L. 511 ; 45 L. J. Q. B.

31 ; 32 L. T. 283 ; 23 W. E. 709) - - 945

Shurmur v. Sedgwick (24 Ch. D. 597 ; 49 L. T. 156 ; 31 W. E. 884)- 1007
Shuttleworth v. Le Fleming (19 C. B. N. S. 687 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 309;

11 Jur. 841 ; 13 L. T. 0. S. 518 ; 14 W. E. 13) - - 427

Sibbald v. Lowrie (18 Jur. 141 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 593 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. 155;

2 Eq. E. 485 ; 2 W. E. 89) - 500

Sibbering v. Balcarres (Earl of) (3 D. G. & S. 735) 844, 846, 855

Sibson v. Fletcher (1 Ch. E. 32) 518, 943

Sibthorp v. Brunei (3 Ex. 826) - - - 1088

Sichel v. Mosenthal (30 B. 371 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 275 ; 5 L. T. 784 ; 31

L. J. Ch. 387 ; 10 W. E. 283) 1112, 1164, 1167

Siddall, Be (29 Ch. D. 1 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 682 ; 52 L. T. 114; 33 W. E.

509) - - - 1163

Siddons v. Short (2 C. P. D. 572 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 795 ; 37 L. T. 230)- 421
Sidebotham, Ex parte (1 M. & A. 655 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Bkcy. 122) - 500

v. Barrington (3 B. 524 ; 4 B. 110 ; 5 B. 261 ; 3 Jur. 947) 324,

496, 1239, 1242, 1260, 1276

Sidmouth v. Sidmouth (2 B. 447) - 1057, 1059, 1060, 1062

Sidney v. Wilmer (31 B. 338) - 810

Sidny v. Eanger (12 Sim. 118) - - 39, 1322

Sidwell v. Mason (3 Jur. N. S. 649 ; 2 H. & N. 306 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 407 ;
29 L. T. O. S. 213 ; 5 W. E. 729) - - 445

Siegenberg v. Metr. Dist. E. Co. (32 W. E. 333 ; 49 L. T. 554) - - 246
Sievewright v. Archibald (17 Q. B. 124; 20 L. J. Q. B. 529; 15 Jur.

947 ; 17 L. T. O. S. 264) - - 271

Siffkin v. Davies (Kay, App. xxi.) - - 1316

Siggers v. Evans (5 E. & B. 567 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 851) 1004, 1019

Sikes v. Wild (4 B. & S. 421 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 325 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 375;

7 Jur. N. S. 1280 ; 5 L. T. 422; 8 L. T. 642 ; 10 W. E. 14 ; 11

W. E. 954) 893, 1079

Sillick v. Booth (1 Y. & C. C. 117 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 41, 123 ; 5 Jur.

1151; 6 Jur. 142) - 385, 387

Silver v. Udall (9 Eq. 227 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 118 ; 21 L. T. 660 ; 18 W.

E. 665) - - 1309

Silvester v. Bradley (13 Sim. 75 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 365) - - 76

Simmonds v. Palles (2 J. & L. 489) - - 1004

Simmons v. Hesseltine (5 C. B. N. S. 554 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 129 ; 5 Jur.

N. S. 270) - - - 1076

v. Eudall (1 Si. N. S. 115 ; 15 Jur. 162) - 440, 481

Simons v. M'Adam (6 Eq. 324 ; 18 L. T. 679 ; 16 W. E. 963) - - 1272

- v. Patchett (7 E. & B. 568 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 195 ; 3 Jur. N. S.
742) 1078

TABLE OF CASES. CCXX1X

Sim— Sla. PAGE

Simper v. Foley (2 J. & II. 555 ; 5 L. T. 669) - 403, 404, 405, 431

Simpson v. Bathurst (5 Ch. 193 ; 23 L. T. 29 ; 18 W. E. 772) - - 87

— v. Bendy (8 C. B. N. S. 433 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1058) - 379, 602, 736

-v. Denny (10 Ch. D. 28 ; 27 W. E. 280) - - 1304

v. Lancaster & Carlisle E. Co. (15 Si. 580 ; 4 Ey. Ca. 625 ;

9 L. T. 0. S. 167) 248

-r. Gutteridge (1 Mad. 609) - -652, 1276

- v. Henderson (M. & M. 300) - 1092

v. Lamb (4 W. E. 328; 5 W. E. 227; 7 E. & B. 84 ; 7C.B.

603 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 113 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 121 ; 2 Jur. N. S.
91 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 412 ; 26 L. T. O. S. 203 ; 28 L. T. 0. S.
245) - ... 216, 278

v. Margitson (11 Q. B. 23 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 81 ; 12 Jur. 155) 492,

1091, 1094

r. Morley (2 K. & J. 71 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1158 ; 26 L. T. 0. S.

135) - 531, 543, 553, 1321

v. Eitchie (16 Eq. 103 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 543 ; 28 L. T. 548 ; 21

W. E. 666)- - 1311

v. Sadd (4 D. M. & G. 665 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 562 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

457 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 205 ; 3 Eq. E. 263 ; 3 W. E. 118) - 497,

498, 499, 501

v. South Staffordshire Waterworks Co. (5 N. E. 70 ; 34 L.

J. Ch. 380 ; 11 L. T. 411 ; 13 W. E. 131) - 248

- v. Terry (34 B. 423) - - - 1254
Sims v. Bond (5 B. & Ad. 389 ; 2 N. & M. 608) - 1072

- v. Marryat (17 Q. B. 281 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 454) - - 163

v. Thomas (12 A. & E. 536 ; 4 P. & D. 233 ; 4 Jur. 1181) - 461

Sinclair v. Jackson (17 B. 405 ; 1 W. E. 400) 460, 461

Sinclay, In re (17 B. 523) - - 382

Singleton, In re (9 Jur. N. S. 941) - 805, 809

Sivell v. Abraham (8 B. 598) - 1267, 1268

Skaife v. Jackson (3 B. & C. 421 ; 5 D. & E. 290) - - 825

Skarf v. Soulby (1 M. & G. 364) - - 1024

Skeats v. Skeats (2 Y. & C. C. C. 9) - 1058, 1059

Skeeles v. Shearly (3 M. & C. 112 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 3 ; 1 Jur. 888)- 530
Skeet v. Lindsay (2 Ex. D. 314 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 249 ; 36 L. T. 98 ; 25

W. E, 322) --- - 445, 458

Skelton v. Cole (1 D. & J. 587) 252, 253, 263, 264, 269

Skerratt v. N. Staff. E. Co. (2 Ph. 476 ; 5 Ey. Ca. 1167 ; 17 L. J. Ch.

161 ; 12 Jur. 46) - - 707

Skidmore v. Bradford (8 Eq. 134 ; 17 W. E. 1056) - - 1058, 1062

v. M'Douall (2 De G. & S. 265 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 347 ; 12 Jur.

741 ; 11 L. T. 0. S. 411) - - - 243

- v. Stacey (1 Wils. 80) - 311
Skitter's Mortgage Trusts, In re (4 W. E. 791) - - 658, 664
Skottowe v. Williams (3 D. F. & J. 535; 7 Jur. N. S. 665; 4L. T. 719) 55
Skull v. Glenister (16 C. B. N. S. 81 ; 33 L. J. N. S. 185 ; 10 L. T.

763; 12 W. E, 554; 3 N. E. 389)- - - - 129

Sladden, In re (10 B. 488) - - 816
Slade v. Tucker (14 Ch. D. 824; 49 L. J. Ch. 644; 43 L. T. 49; 28

W. E. 807) - 994

CCXXX TABLE OF CASES.

Sla— Smi.

Slane Peerage Case (5 C. & F. 24) 394, 395

Slaney v. Wade (1 M. & C. 338 ; 7 Si. 614) - - 394, 396, 397

Slark's Settled Estates, Re (W. N. (1875), 224) - - - 1284

Slark v. Dakyns (10 Ch. 35; 44 L. J. Ch. 205; 31 L. T. 712; 23

W. E. 118) - 68

Slater's Devisees, Ex parte (5 Ey. Ca. 700) - - 812
Trust, Re (11 Ch. D. 227; 48 L. J. Ch. 473; 40 L. T. 184;

27 W. E. 448) - - - 854

Sleddon v. Cruikshank (16 M. & W. 71 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 61) - - 234
Slim v. Croucher (1 D. F. & J. 518 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 6 Jur. N. S.

437; 2L. T. 103; 8 W. E. 347) - 110,518

Slipper v. Tottenham & H. Junct. E. Co. (4 Eq. 112; 36 L. J. Ch.

841 ; 16 L. T. 446 ; 15 W. E. 861) - - - 244

Sloane v. Cadogan (Sug. 719) - 1018

Sloper, In re (cited 22 B. 198) - - - 298

v. Fish (2 Y. & B. 145) - 529, 1229, 1232, 1233, 1275, 1277

Small v. Attwood (You. 490 ; 3 Y. & C. 131) - 102, 112, 502, 898, 902,

903, 1129, 1271

v. Carrie (2 Dr. 115 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. 268 ; 2 W. E. 213) - 985

Smart v. Harding (15 C. B. 652 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 76 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 311) 231

v. Morton (5 E. & B. 30 ; 24 L. J. Q. B. 60 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 825) 420 ;

422, 609

— v. Sandars (5 C. B. 917 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 258 ; 12 Jur. 751) - 352

- v. Sanders (3 C. B. 380 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 39 ; 10 Jur. 841) - 216
Smedley v. Yarley (23 B. 358) - 40
Smeed v. Foord (1 E. & E. 602 ; 28 L. J. Q. B. 178 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 291 ;

32 L. T. O. S. 314; 7 W. E. 266) - - 1078
Smethurst v. Mitchell (1 E. & E. 622; 28 L. J. Q. B. 241 ; 5 Jur.

N. S. 978 ; 7 W. E. 74) - - - 1073

Smith's Leaseholds, Re (14 W. E. 949) - - - 757

Settled Estate, Re (W. N. (1878), 196) - 1279

Smith, Ex parte (16 L. J. C. P. 168 ; 6 Ey. Ca. 150) - - 651, 759

In re (14 W. E. 218 ; 13 L. T. 626) - - 759

Re (9 B. 182, 342) - 815, 819

— v. Acton (26 B. 210 ; 7 W. E. 159) - - 440
v. Adams (5 D. M. & G. 712 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 258 ; 18 Jur. 968 ;

23 L. T. 0. S. 325; 2 W. E. 698 ; 2 Eq. E. 1001) - 313, 586
v. Anderson (15 Ch. D. 247 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 39 ; 43 L. T. 329 ;

29 W. E. 21) 1163

v. Baker (1 Y. & C. C. C. 223) - - - 910

v. Bennett (30 L. T. 100) - 436

v. Bicknell (3 Y. & B. 51, n.) - - - 478

v. Boucher (1 S. & G. 72 ; 16 Jur. 1154 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 88 ;

1 W. E. 51) - - 665

- v. Burnam (2 Anst. 527) - 347
v. Capron(7Ha. 189; 19 L. J. Ch. 322 ; 13 Jur. 147; 14 Jur.

687) - 105, 331, 480, 497, 1242

v. Chadwick (20 Ch. D. 27 ; 9 Ap. Ca. 187 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 597;

53 L. J. Ch. 873 ; 46 L. T. 70 ; 50 L. T. 697 ; 30 W. E. 661 ; 32

W. E, 687 ; 48 J. P. 644) - - - - - 115

TABLE OF CASES. CCXXX1

Smi. PAGE
Smith v. Cherrell (4 Eq. 390 ; 16 L. T. 517 ; 15 W. E. 919) - 1015, 1017
v. Chichester (2 D. & War. 393) - 762

- v. Clarke (12 V. 483) - - - 225

- v. Compton (3 B. & Ad. 189) 890, 893, 894
v. Cowell (6 Q. B. D. 75 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 38 ; 43 L. T. 328 ;

29 W. E. 227) - - 543, 547

- v. Daniell (18 Eq. 649 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 189 ; 30 L. T. 752) - 994
v. Darby (L. E. 7 Q. B. 716; 42 L. J. Q.B. 140; 26L.T.762;

20 W. E. 982) - - - - - 421, 422

— v. Death (5 Mad. 371) 1235, 1274, 1277

— v. Dimes (13 Jur. 518; 7D. &L. 78; 4Ex. 32; 19L.J.Ex.66) 819
v. East India Co. (16 Si. 76 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 178 ; 12 Jur. 367 ;

10 L. T. 0. S. 411) - 211

- v. Ellis (14 Jur. 682 ; 15 L. T. 0. S. 451) - - 169

- v. Evans (28 B. 59) - 833, 950

- v. Garland (2 Mer. 123) - - 1002, 1118, 1164, 1234
v. Gt. W. E. Co. (3 Ap. Ca. 165 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 97 ; 37 L. T.

645 ; 26 W. E. 130) - - 423
v. Harrison (5 W. E. 408 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 412 ; 3 Jur. N. S.

287; 29 L. T. 11) - 175, 908
v. Henley (1 Ph. 391 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 221 ; 8 Jur. 434 ; 3 L. T.

O. S. 49) - - 276, 370

— v. Hibbard (2 Dick. 730) - - - 364
v. Hill (9 Ch. D. 143 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 788 ; 38 L. T. 638) - 460

- v. Howell (6 Ex. 730 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 377) - 629, 894
v. Hughes (L. E. 6 Q. B. 597 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 221 ; 25 L. T.

329; 19 W. E, 1049) - - 104
v. Hull Glass Co. (11 C. B. 897; 7 Ey. Ca. 287; 21 L. J. C. P.

106 ; 16 Jur. 595) - 218
v. Hurst (1 Coll. 705 ; 10 Ha. 30 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 289 ; 9 Jur.

343 ; 17 Jur. 36 ; 5 L. T. O. S. 20 ; 20 L. T. O. S. 303) - 528,

532, 542, 543, 1004, 1019, 1020, 1021

- v. Jackson (1 Mad. 620) 205, 208, 1221

- v. Jeffryes (15 M. & W. c61 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 325) - 1092

- v. Jones (1 Ph. 255) - - 978

- v. Kay (7 H. L. C. 750 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 45) - - 24
v. Keating (6 C. B. 136) - - - 1004

- v. Land Property Co. (28 Ch. D. 7 ; 51 L. T. 718) - - 111

- v. Leigh (Sugd. 648) 1264, 1271
v. Lloyd (9 Ex. 572 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 194 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. 289 ;

' 2 W. E. 271 ; 2 Com. L. E. 1007)
-v.— -(1 Mad. 83) -
v. - - (2 Sw. 224, n.)
v. Marrable (11 M. & W. 5 ; Car. & M. 479 ; 2 D. N. S. 810 ;

12 L. J. Ex. 223 ; 7 Jur. 70) - - 102

v. Matthews (3 D. F. & J. 139; 30 L. J. Ch. 445; 7 Jur.

N. S. 378 ; 4 L. T. 266 ; 9 W. E. 644) - - 1053, 1133

v. Neale (2 C. B. N. S. 67 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 143 ; 3 Jur. N. S.

516; 28L.T.O.S.87; 29L.T.O.S.93; 5W.E.563) 253,267
v. Nelson (2 S. & S. 557) 1337

CCXXX11 TABLE OF CASES.

Smi— Sno.

Smith v. Parkes (16 B. 115) -

— v. Pawson (25 L. T. O. S. 40) -
-v. Peters (20 Eq. 511)

- v. Phillips (1 Ke. 694) -

v. Pilgrim (2 Oh. D. 127 ; 34 L. T. 408)

- v. Pincombe (3 M. & G. 653) -

v. Eobinson (13 Ch. D. 148 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 20 ; 41 L. T. 405;

28 W. E. 37) - 108, 169, 171 1228, 1244

v. (1 S. & G. 140; 22 L. J. Ch. 482 ; 20 L. T. O. S.

205; 1 W. E. 123) - ... 1319,1320

- v. Sleap (12 M. & W. 585) - - 1075

- v. Smith (10 Ir. Eq. 273) - - 395

- v. - -(L. E. 3 Ex. 282 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 37) 860, 861

- v. - - (9 B. 80) - - 905
-v. - -(2Eq. E. 727) - 1345

- v. - -(1 Y. & C. 338) - - 966
v. (20 Eq. 500 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 630; 32 L. T. 787 ; 23

W. E. 771) - 871
v. Stocks (38 L. J. Q. B. 306 ; 20 L. T. 740 ; 17 W. E. 1135) 448

- v. Surman (9 B. & C. 569 ; 4 M. & E. 455 ; 7 L. J. Q. B.

296) 233, 234, 264
v. Tebbitt (L. E. 1 P. & D. 354 ; 36 L. J. P. & M. 35 ; 15

L. T. 594 ; 16 L. T. 96 ; 15 W. E. 562)- - 393
v. Thackrah (L. E. 1 C. P. 564 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 276; 12 Jur.

N. S. 545 ; 14 L. T. 761 ; 14 W. E. 832) - - - 421

— v. Thompson (8 C. B. 44; 18 L. J. C. P. 314) - 1091

- v. Thome (18 Q. B. 134 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 199 ; 16 Jur. 332) - 445
v. Tolcher (4 Euss. 302) - - - 1206

- v. Tombs (3 Jur. 72) - 231

v. Watts (4 Dr. 338; 32 L. T. 190; 7 W. E. 126) - 170, 1199

v. Webster (3 Ch. D. 49 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 528 ; 35 L. T. 44 ; 24

W. E. 894) - 240, 271, 272
v. Wheatcroft (9 Ch. D. 223 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 745 ; 39 L. T.

103; 27 W. E. 42) 1150, 1151, 1182, 1245
v. Whitmore (1 H. & M. 576 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 10 Jur. N. S.

65; 10 L. T. 128; 3 N. E. 193; 12 W. E. 244)- - 261

- v. Widlake (3 C. P. D. 10 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 282 ; 26 W. E. 52) - 998
v. Wilkinson (3 Y. 705) - 1056

- v. Wilson (3 B. & Ad. 728) - - 1091

- v. Wyley (16 Jur. 1136) - 190
Smithson v. Powell (20 L. T. O. S. 105) 158, 1194
Smithwick v. Smithwick (5 L. T. 23 ; 6 Ir. Jur. N. S. 282) - - 648
Smyth, Be (34 W. E. 493 ; 55 L. T. 37) - - 655

, Sir J., Be (Shelf, on Lunacy, 446) - - 39

Sneesby v. Thorne (1 Jur. N. S. 1058 ; 7 D. M. & G. 399 ; 25 L. T.
O. S. 250; 3 W. E. 605; 3 Eq. E, 849) 652, 674, 1118, 1165, 1187

Snelling, Ex parte (3 C. L. E. 149, n. (c) ) - - 651

v. Thomas (17 Eq. 303 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 506) - - 1149

Snow v. Booth (8 D. M. & G. 69 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 417; 2 Jur. N. S.

244 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 7 ; 4 W. E. 345) - - - 454

TABLE OF CASES. CCXXX111

Soa— Spa. PAGE

Soar v. Foster (4 K. & J. 152 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 400 ; 6 W. E. 265) - 1058
Sober v. Kemp (6 Ha. 155) - - 1036

Soloman v. Solomon (33 L. J. Ch. 473 ; 10 L. T. 54 ; 10 Jur. N. S.

331 ; 12 W. E. 540) - - - - 921

Soltan v. De Held (2 Si. N. S. 133) - - 1045

Somerset (Duke of) v. Cookson (3 P. W. 390; 1 Wh. & T. L. 0.) - 1105

- v. Cox (33 B. 634) - - 944

- v. G. W. E. Co. (46 L. T. 883) - - 414
Somersetshire Coal Co. v. Harcourt (2 D. & J. 596 ; 4 Jur. N. S.

671 ; 31 L. T. 0. S. 259 ; 6 W. E. 670) - - 1145

Somerville, Ex parte (23 Ch. D. 167 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 438 ; 48 L. T.

416; 31 W. E. 518) - - - - - 803

- v. Mackay (16 V. 382) - - 1051

Soper v. Arnold (35 Ch. D. 384; 56 L. J. Ch. 456; 56 L. T. 330;

35W.E. 451) - - 185,222

Sotilichos v. Kemp (3 Ex. 105; 18 L. J. Ex. 36) - - 1091

Souter v. Drake (5 B. & Ad. 992 ; 3 N. & M. 40 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Q. B.
31) ... - 163, 330

South, In re (9 Ch. 373 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 441 ; 30 L. T. 347 ; 22 W. E.
460) - - 545, 546

Southby v. Hutt (2 M. & C. 207 ; 1 Jur. 100) - 141, 142, 163, 346, 353,

489, 496, 724, 1227

Southcomb v. Exeter (Bishop of) (6 Ha. 225 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 378) - 223,

487, 488, 504, 1214, 1215, 1255

South Eastern E. Co. v. Knott (10 Ha. 122) - 1132, 1176, 1213

Southern E. Co., Re (5 L. E. Ir. 165) - - - 541

South Essex Estuary, &c. Co., Re (4 Ch. 215 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 305) - 475, 479

Kensington Co-operative Stores, Re (17 Ch. D. 161 ; 50 L. J.

Ch. 446 ; 44 L. T. 471 ; 29 W. E. 662) - - 915

of Ireland Colliery Co. v. Waddle (L. E. 4 C. P. 617 ; 38 L. J.

C. P. 338; 17 W. E. 896) - - - 220, 273

Wales E. Co., Ex parte (6 Ry. Ca. 151) - 510

, In re (14 B. 418) - - - 799, 803, 805

v. Wythes (1 K. & J. 200; 5 D. M. & G. 880) 1111,

1112, 1164

Western District Bank v. Turner (31 W. E. 113; 47 L. T.

433) - - - - 1320

Yorkshire, &c. E. Co., In re (18 L. J. Q. B. 333; 7 D. & L.

36 ; 14 Jur. 1093) 707, 1099

Southwell v. Bowditch (1 C. P. D. 374 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 630 ; 35 L. T.

196; 24 W. E. 838) - - 1074

- v. Nicholas (1 Mad. 9, n.) - - 1172
Sowarsby v. Lacy (4 Mad. 142) - - 613
Sowden v. Sowden (1 Br. C. C. 582) - - 1068
Sowerby v. Brooks (4 B. & Aid. 523) - 981
Spackman v. Great Western E. Co. (1 Jur. N. S. 790; 26 L. T.

0. S. 22) - - 247

- v. Timbrell (8 Si. 253) - 702
Spaight v. Patterson (9 Ir. Eq. E. 149) - - - 1322
Spain (King of) v. Machado (4 Euss. 225 ; 6 L. J. Ch. 61) - - 1130
Spalding v. Shalmer (1 Vern. 301) - - 78

CCXXX1V TABLE OF CASES.

Spa— Spu. PAGE

Sparke v. Moutrion (1 Y. & C. 103) - - - - -475

Sparrow's Case (cited 2 Sch. & L. 604) - - - 484

Sparrow, Ex parte (12 C. B. 334) - - 651

- v. Cooper (Hay & J. 504) - - 918
v. 0. W. & W. E. Co. (2 D. M. & G. 94 ; 16 Jur. 703 ; 19

L. T. 0. S. 131) - 62, 129, 242, 244, 247

Spartali v. Benecke (10 C. B. 212 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 293) - - 825, 1091

Spedding v. Nevell (L. E. 4 C. P. 212 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 133) - - 1079

Speer's Trusts, Re (3 Ch. D. 262 ; 24 W. E. 880) - 97, 752

Speight v. Gaunt (22 Ch. D. 727 ; 9 Ap. Ca. 1 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 503 ; 53

L. J. Ch. 419 ; 48 L. T. 279 ; 50 L. T. 330 ; 30 W. E. 401 ; 32

W. E, 435) - 85

Spence v. Healey (8 Ex. 668 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 249) - - - 1097

-v. Hogg(l Coll. 225) - 1131

Spencer-Bell to London & South Western E. Co. (33 W. E. 771) - 711

Spencer's Case (1 Sm. L. C. ; 5 Co. 16) - - 862, 863, 865, 876, 878

Spencer, Re (30 Ch. D. 183 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 80 ; 34 W. E. 62)- - 10

— (51 L. J. Ch. 271 ; 45 L. T. 645) - - - 819

— v. Boyes (4 V. 370) - 909

- v. Clarke (9 Ch. D. 137 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 692 ; 27 W. E. 133) 953

- v. Marriott (1 B. & C. 459) - - - 884
v. Metropolitan Board of Works (22 Ch. D. 142 ; 52 L. J.

Ch. 249 ; 47 L. T. 459 ; 31 W. E. 347) 515, 803

- v. Pearson (24 B. 266) - - - 933

v. Slater (4 Q. B. D. 13 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 480 ; 39 L. T. 424 ;

27 W. E, 134) --- - 1026

v. Topham (22 B. 573 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 865 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 56) 45,

47, 990, 1236, 1277

Spensley's Estate, In re (15 Eq. 16 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 21 ; 21 W. E. 95) 1340,

1341

Spickernell v. Hotham (Kay, 669 ; 2 W. E, 638 ; 2 Eq. E. 1103) - 454,

457

Spiers : see Squires.

Spiller v. Spiller (3 Sw. 556) - 1222

- v. Westlake (2 B. & Ad. 155) - 1086, 1089

Spirett v. Willows (3 D. J. & S. 293) - 1028, 1029

Spittle v. Lavender (2 Br. & B. 452) - - 213

Spooner's Estate, Re (1 K. & J. 220) 803, 809

Spoor v. Green (L. E. 9 Ex. 99 ; 43 L. J. Ex. 57 ; 30 L. T. 393 ; 22

W. E. 547) - - 881, 884

Spradbery's Mortgage, Re (14 Ch. D. 514 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 623 ; 43 L. T.

82 ; 28 W. E, 822) - 18, 664

Spratt v. Jeffery (5 Man. & E, 188 ; 10 B. & C. 249 ; 8 L. J. Q. B. 114) 164
Spring v. Pride*(12 W. E. 892 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 646 ; 10 L. T. 473) - 44
Sprowle v. Prior (8 Si. 189 ; 2 M. & K. 645) - 829

Sprye v. Porter (7 E. & B. 58 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 64 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 330 ;

28 L. T. O. S. 229; 5 W. E. 81) - - 279

Spunner v. Walsh (11 Ir. Eq. E. 597) - 134

Spurway's Settled Estate, Re (10 Ch. D. 230; 48 L. J. Ch. 213; 40

L. T. 377 ; 27 W. E. 302) 1285

TABLE OF CASES. CCXXXV

Spu— Sta. PAGE

Spurgeon v. Collier (1 Ed. 55) ----- H40

Spurrier v. Hancock (4 V. 667) - - 286, 484, 1215

— v. Mayoss (1 V. 527 ; 4 Br. C. C. 28) - 145

SpurstoWs Charity, Re (18 Eq. 279 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 512 ; 30 L. T. 355 ;
22 W. E. 566) - 759

Spyer v. Hyatt (20 B. 621 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 315 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 20;

3 W. E. 294) 313, 702

Squire, Ex parte (4 Ch. 47 ; 19 L. T. 272 ; 17 W. E. 40) - - 785

— v. Baker (5 Vin. Ab. 549) - - - 1210

- v. CampbeU (1 M. & C. 459 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ch. 41) - - 136

— v. Ford (9 Ha. 60) - - - - - - 1040

- v. Tod (1 Camp. 293) - - - 1072

— v. Whitton (1 H. L. C. 333) - - 1183
Squires, In re (17 C. B. 176 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 55 ; 26 L. T. 0. S. 106 ;

4 W. E. 122) - ------ 651

Stables, In re (4 D. J. & S. 257 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 422 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 245 ;

10 L. T. 1 ; 3 N. E. 620 ; 12 W. E. 513) 8

Stace v. Gage (8 Ch. D. 451 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 608 ; 38 L. T. 843 ; 26
W. E, 605) ----- - - 1303

Stackhouse v. Jersey (Countess of) (1 J. & H. 721 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 421 ;

7 Jur. N. S. 359 ; 4 L. T. 204 ; 9 W. E. 463) - 942

Stackpole v. Curtis (2 Moll. 504) - - 1350

- v. Stackpole (2 Con. & L. 489 ; 4 D. & War. 320)- - 1012,

1117

Stafford Barony, Case of (cited Hub. on Ev. 257) - - 383

Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Co. v. Birmingham Canal

Co. (L. E. 1 H. L. 254; 35 L. J. Ch. 757)- - 418

Staffurth v. Pott (2 De G. & S. 571) - - 1269

Staight v. Burn (5 Ch. 163 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 289 ; 22 L. T. 831 ; 18 W. E.

243) - 406

Stainbank v. Fernley (9 Si. 556 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 142 ; 3 Jur. 262)- 116
Staines v. Morris (1 V. & B. 8) - - 622, 629, 631, 638, 1260

- v. Eudlin (9 Ha. App. liii. n.) - 1316

— v. Staines (33 Ch. D. 172 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 913; 35 W. E. 75) - 1315
Stainton v. Chadwick (3 M. & G. 575) - - - 996
Stamford (Earl of) v. Dunbar (13 M. & W. 822 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 182 ;

9 Jur. 165) - 402

Stamps v. Birmingham & Stour Valley E. Co. (2 Ph. 673 ; 6 Ey. Ca.

123; 17 L. J. Ch. 431) - 243, 248

Standen v. Christmas (10 Q. B. 135 ; 16 L. J. Q. 265 ; 11 Jur. 694) - 916,

917

Standering v. Hall (11 Ch. D. 652 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 382 ; 27 W. E. 749) - 1307
Standish's Settled Estates, Re (25 W. E. 8) - - 1293

Standish v. Liverpool (Mayor of) (1 Dr. 1) - 511

Stanford v. Eoberts (6 Ch. 307 ; 19 W. E. 552) - 474

- v. — - (26 Ch. D. 155 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 338 ; 50 L. T. 147 ;

32 W. E. 404 ; 48 J. P. 692) - - - 822

Stanhope v. Yerney (Earl) (Ed. 81) - 826, 928

Stanhouse v. Gaskell (17 Jur. 157; 20 L. T. 0. S. 139; 1 W. E. 77) 1274

CCXXXV1 TABLE OF CASES.

Sta— Ste. PAGE

Stanley of Alderley's (Lord) Estate, In re (14 Eq. 227 ; 26 L. T. 822)- 808,

812

Stanley v. Chester, &c. E. Co. (3 M. & C. 773 ; 1 Ey. Ca. 58) - 219

- v. Dowdeswell (L. E. 10 C. P. 102 ; 23 W. E. 389) - - 266

- v. Hayes (2 G. & D. 411 ; 3 Q. B. 105) 884, 885

- v. Hemmington (6 Taun. 461) - - - 1087

- v. McGauran (11 L. E. Ir. 314) - 116, 133, 156

v. Stanley (7 Ch. D. 589 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 256 ; 37 L. T. 777 ;

26 W. E. 310)- 11,57,1120

Stannard v. Forbes (6 A. & E. 572) - - 886

v. Ullithorne (10 Bing. 491 ; 4 M. & Sc. 359 ; 3 L. J.

N. S. C. P. 307) - - 614

Stansfield v. Hobson (3 D. M. & G. 620 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 657 ; 20 L. T.

0. S. 301 ; 1 W. E. 216) - - 452

Stanton v. Tattersall (1 S. & G. 529 ; 17 Jur. 967 ; 21 L. T. 0. S. 333 ;

1 W. E. 502) - 129, 153, 494

Stapilton v. Stapilton (1 Atk. 2 ; 2 Wh. & T. L. C.) - 847, 1007

Staples, Exparte (1 D. M. & G. 294) - - 759, 811

Stapylton v. Scott (13 V. 425 ; 16 V. 274) - 1174, 1236, 1243, 1277

Starkie, In re (3 M. & K. 248) - - - 779

Staveley v. Alcock (16 Q. B. 636; 20 L. J. Q. B. 320; 15 Jur.

620) 914, 1044

Staynroyde v. Locock (Cro. Jac. 115) - - 887

Stead's Mortgaged Estates, Re (2 Ch. D. 713 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 634 ; 35

L. T. 465 ; 24 W. E, 698) - - 461

Stead v. Dawber (10 A. & E. 57) 1090, 1096

v. Nelson (2 B. 245) - - 1120, 1121

Stedman v. Collett (17 B. 608 ; 18 Jur. 457 ; 23 L. T. 0. S. 45)- - 817
Steed v. Galley (1 Ke. 620) - - 7, 32

v. Cragh (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 37 ; 9 Mod. 42) - - - 1122

v. Preece (18 Eq. 192 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 687 ; 22 W. E. 432) 2, 298,

299, 1303
Steedman v. Poole (6 Ha. 193; 16 L. J. Ch. 348; 11 Jur. 449; 9

L. T. 0. S. 218) - 10, 978
Steel v. Prickett (2 Stark. 463) 187, 379
Steele, In re (20 L. J. Ch. 562) - - 815, 817
v. Devonport (11 Ir. Eq. E. 339) - 1322

- v. Liverpool (Corporation of) (7 B. & S. 261 ; 14 W. E. 311)- 242
v. Midland E. Co. (1 Ch. 275 ; 12 Jur. 218 ; 13 L. T. 794 ; 14

L. T. 3 ; 14 W. E. 367) - - 246
v. - - (21 L. T. 387) - - 512

- v. Mitchell (2 D. & Wai. 568) - 997
v. Stewart (1 Ph. 471) - - - 994

— v. Waller (28 B. 466 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1004 ; 3 L. T. 74) 582, 1185

Steer v. Crowley (14 C. B. N. S. 337 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 191 ; 9 Jur.

N. S. 1292; 11 W. E. 861; 2 N. E, 128) - 184, 321

Stenning, Ee (W. N. (1884) 142) - 749

Stent v. Bailis (2 P. W. 217) - - - 907

Stephen, In re (2 Ph. 562) - - 817
Stephens, Ex parte (3 Ch. D. 807 ; 35 L. T. 68 ; 25 W. E. 126) - 1027

TABLE OF CASES. CCXXXV11

Ste— Sto. PAGE

Stephens v. Do Medina (4 Q. B. 422) - 1087

— v. Hotham (4 K. & J. 571 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 665 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

842 ; 3 W. E. 310 ; 3 Eq. R. 571)- - - 623

v. Olive (2 Br. C. C. 90) - - 1005

Stepney v. Biddulph (13 W. R. 576 ; 12 L. T. 176) - - 1033

Stevens' Will, Re (6 Eq. 597) - - 1273

Stevens, Exparte (2 Ph. 772 ; 5 Ry. Ca. 437 ; 13 Jur. 2) - - 510

-, He (31 Ch. D. 320 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 433 ; 54 L. T. 80 ; 34 W. R.

268) - - 387

v. Austen (7 Jur. N. S. 873 ; 3 E. & E. 685 ; 30 L. J. Q. B.

212; 3L. T. 810) - -682, 1273

v. Guppy (3 Rus. 171 ; 2 S. & S. 439 ; 6 L. J. Ch. 164) 290, 324,

375, 499, 627, 1151, 1244

v. Legh (2 C. L. R. 251 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. 84 ; 2 W. R. 16) - 206
v. Stevens (2 Coll. 20) - - - 950

Stevenson v. McLean (5 Q. B. D. 346 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 701 ; 42 L. T.

897 ; 28 W. R. 916) - - 268

v. Newnham (13 C. B. 285; 22 L. J. C. P. 110; 17 Jur.

600) 846, 855

Steward v. Blakeway (4 Ch. 603) - . 1049, 1053

Stewart, In re (1 S. & G. 37 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 369; 16 Jur. 1063; 20

L. T. 0. S. 87 ; 1 W. R. 17) - 297, 299, 761

, In re : see Sewart.

v. Alliston (1 Mer. 26) - 138, 155, 350, 1199

• v. Conyngham (Marquis of) (1 Ir. Ch. R. 534) 443, 1200, 1206,

1275

— v. Graham (19 V. 313) - 1253
v. Smith (6 Ha. 223, n.)- - 487, 490, 1214

— v. Stewart (6 C. & F. 911) - - 907
Stikeman v. Dawson (1 De G. & S. 90) - 5, 947
Stileman v. Ashdown (2 Atk. 479) - - 1004, 1058
Stiles v. Cowper (3 Atk. 692) - - - 1145
Stilwell v. Mellersh (4 M. & C. 581 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 356) - • 308, 1346

- v. Wilkins (Jac. 250) - - - 841
Stirke, In re (11 B. 304) - 817
Stock v. M'Avoy (15 Eq. 55 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 230 ; 27 L. T. 441 ; 21

W. R. 520) - 1057, 1062

Stocker v. Dean (16 B. 161) - - 241

- v. Wedderburn (3 K. & J. 403 ; 5 W. R. 671) - 1167
Stockport Waterworks Co. v. Potter (3 II. & C. 300) - - 415, 612
Stocks v. Dobson (17 Jur. 539) - 943
Stockton, &c. R. Co. v. Brown (9 H. L. C. 246 ; 8 W. R. 708) - - 248
Stogdon, Re (56 L. T. 355 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 420) 816, 820
Stokes v. Moore (1 Cox, 219) - - 270, 272

-v. Russell (3 T. R. 678) - 876

Stokoe v. Cowan (29 B. 637 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 901) - 1026, 1064

— v. Robson (19 V. 385) - 478
Stone, .Ek parfe (9 Dowl. 843) - - - - - - 650

CCXXXV111 TABLE OF CASES.

StO— Stll. PAGE

Stone v. Commercial E. Co. (4 M. & C. 124 ; 1 Ey. Ca. 375) - 243
v. Godfrey (5 D. M. & G. 76 ; 18 Jur. 524) - - 1007

v. Smith (35 Ch. D. 188 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 871 ; 56 L. T. 333 ; 35

W. E. 545) 1248

v. Stone (3 Jur. N. S. 708) - - 1060

v. Van Heythuysen (11 Ha. 126) - 1003, 1008, 1023, 1025, 1028

v. Yeovil (Mayor of) (2 C. P. D. 99 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 137 ; 36

o^n . ct- TK7" ~r> n A r\\ A t A ~if\ *t

L. T. 279 ; 25 W. E. 240) - 414, 510, 706

Storer v. Great Western E. Co. (2 Y. & C. C. C. 48) - 1111

Storry v. Walsh (18 B. 559; 18 Jur. 503 ; 23 L. T. O. S. 35 ; 2 W. E.

300) - ... 679, 694, 699

Story v. Windsor (Lord) (2 Atk. 630) - 928

Stoughton v. Leigh (I Taun. 402) - - 586

Stourton (Lord) v. Meers (cited 2 P. W. 630) - 1178

Stowell v. Eobinson (3 Bing. N. C. 928 ; 5 Sc. 196 ; 3 Hodges, 197 ;
6 L. J. C. P. 326) - 321, 482

Strachan's Estate, In re (9 Ha. 185) - 812

Straffon, In re (1 D. M. & G. 576 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 194 ; 16 Jur. 435) - 615
Strangways v. Bishop (29 L. T. 120) - 111

Stranks v. St. John (L. E. 2 C. P. 376 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 118 ; 16 L. T.

283 ; 15 W. E. 678) - - - 229, 331, 332, 636

Stratford v. Bosworth (2 V. & B. 341) 264, 1261

v. Twynam (Jac. 418) - 44

Strathmore (Countess of) v. Bowes (7 T. E. 482) - 308

Straton v. Eastall (2 T. E. 366) - - 742, 825
Stratton v. Pettit (16 C. B. 420 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 182 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

662 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 216 ; 3 W. E. 548) 228, 229, 1088

— v. Symon (2 Mo. P. C. 125) - - - 708
Stray v. Eussell (1 E. & E. 888 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 115 ; 6 Jur. N. S.

168; 8 W. E. 240) - 1107

Streaker, In re (28 L. J. Prob. 50) - - 481

Street, In re (10 Eq. 165 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 495 ; 22 L. T. 429) - - 816

Strickland v. Turner (7 Ex. 208 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 115) - - 907

Stringer v. Harper (26 B. 33 ; 6 W. E. 763) - 921

Strong v. Strong (4 Jur. N. S. 943 ; 6 W. E. 455) 161, 766, 1028, 1342
Stronge v. Hawkes (2 Jur. N. S. 388 ; 4 M. & G. 186 ; 4 D. & J.

632) - 163, 176, 517, 577, 824

Strother, In re (3 K. & J. 518 ; 5 W. E. 797) - - - 817

Stroughill v. Anstey (1 D. M. & G. 635 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 130 ; 16 Jur.

671 ; 19 L. T. 0. S. 367) - 63, 88, 673, 676, 678, 699

— v. Buck (14 Q. B. 781 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 209 ; 14 Jur. 741) - 595
v. Gulliver (2 Jur. N. S. 700 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 258 ; 4 W. E.

684) - 1138

Stroyan v. Knowles (6 H. & N. 454 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 102 ; 3 L. T. 746 ;

9 W. E. 615) - - - 420

Strugnell v. Strugnell (27 Ch. D. 258 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1167 ; 51 L. T.

512 ; 33 W. E. 30) - 1310

Stuart, Re (4 D. & J. 317) - - 656

- (Lord James) v. L. & N. W. E. Co. (1 D. M. & G. 721 ; 7 Ey. Ca.

25 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 450 ; 16 Jur. 531 ; 17 L. T. O. S. 99) 219, 255, 1147

TABLE OF CASES. CCXXX1X

Stu— Swa. PAOB

Stubbs, In re (5 Sc. N. E. 327 ; 4 M. & G. 609) - - 646

- v. Sargon (4 B. 90) - 159, 1349
Studdert, Ex parte (6 IT. Ch. E. 53) - - 751
Studds v. Watson (28 Ch. D. 305 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 626 ; 52 L. T. 129 ;

33 W. E. 118) 240

Stump v. Gaby (2 D. M. & G. 623) - 47, 855

Sturge v. Starr (2 M. & K 195) - 837

- v. Sturgo (12 B. 229 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 17 ; 14 Jur. 159) - 840, 847

Sturges v. Bridgman (11 Ch. D. 852 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 875 ; 41 L. T.

219 ; 28 W. E. 215) 368, 404
Sturgis v. Champneys (5 M. & C. 97) - - 1122
v. Morse (3 D. & J. 1 ; 2 D. F. & J. 223 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 766 ;

6 Jur. N. S. 766) - 439, 913

Sturla v. Freccia (5 Ap. Ca. 623 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 86 ; 43 L. T. 209 ; 29

W. E. 217) - - 357, 394

Styles v. Guy (1 M. & G. 422 ; 1 H. & Tw. 523 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 185 ;

14 Jur. 355 ; 14 L. T. 305) - - - 85

Suffield v. Brown (4 D. J. & S. 185 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 249 ; 10 Jur. N. S.

Ill ; 9 L. T. 627 ; 12 W. E. 356 ; 3 N. E. 340) 177, 409, 608

Suir Island Charity, In re (3 J. & L. 171) - - 1351

Sullivan v. Jacob (1 Moll. 472) - - - 1166

- v. Sullivan (28 B. 102) - 1347

Summers v. Griffiths (35 B. 27) - - 843, 903

Sumpter v. Cooper (2 B. & Ad. 226) - 767

Sunderland Freemen, Ex parte (1 Dr. 184 ; 16 Jur. 370) - 58, 757

Surcome v. Pinniger (3 D. M. & G. 571) - - 1136, 1141

Sussex Peerage Case (11 C. & F. 85 ; 8 Jur. 793 ; 3 L. T. 0. S. 277) 394
Sutcliffe v. Booth (9 Jur. N. S. 1037) - 417

Sutherland v. Briggs (1 Ha. 26-; 11L. J. N. S. Ch. 36 ; 5 Jur. 1141) 1137
Sutton's Hospital Case (10 Co. 1) - - 21

Sutton Coldfield Case (Duke's Charitable Uses, 642) - 1023

- v. Chetwynd (3 Mer. 249) - - 1012

Harb. C. v. Hitchins (1 D. M. & G. 170) - - - 1263

v. Sutton (22 Ch. D. 511 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 333 ; 48 L. T. 95 ; 31

W. E. 369) 67, 438, 455, 460, 695

- v. - - (W. N. (1883), 88) - - 455

- v. - - (1 E. & M. 663 ; 8 L. J. Ch. 161) - - 28
Swaine v. Denby (14 Ch. D. 326 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 734 ; 28 W. E. 622) 1300

- v. Great Northern E. Co. (3 N. E. 109, 399 ; 33 L. J. Ch.
399 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1196 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 191 ; 9 L. T. 571, 745 ; 12

W. E. 391) - 513

Swaisland v. Dearsley (29 B. 430 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 652 ; 7 Jur. N. S.

984 ; 4 L. T. 432 ; 9 W. E. 526) 122, 124, 127, 152, 225, 1154, 1174
Swann v. Phillips (8 A. & E. 457 ; 3 N. & P. 447 ; 1 W. W. & H.

374 ; 2 Jur. 494 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 200) - Ho

Swansborough v. Coventry (9 Bing. 305 ; 2 M. & Sc. 362 ; 2 L. J.

N. S. C. P. 11) - 136,409

Swansea Bank v. Thomas (4 Ex. D. 94 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 344 ; 40 L. T.

558; 27W.E.491) 915

CCxl TABLE OF CASES.

Swa— Tal. PAGE

Swansea (Mayor of) v. Thomas (10 Q. B. D. 48 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 340 ;

47 L. T. 657 ; 31 W. E. 506 ; 47 J. P. 135) - - - 916

Sweet v. Lee (2 Man. & Gr. 452 ; 4 Sc. N. E. 77 ; 5 Jur. 1134) - 262,

269

v. Meredith (3 Gif. 610 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 638 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 817 ;

6 L. T. 413 ; 10 W. E. 402) 281, 495, 498

v. (4 Gif. 207 ; 7 L. T. 664 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 147 ; 9 Jur.

N. S. 569) - - 1254, 1354

- v. Southcote (2 Br. C. C. 66) - - 1023

Sweeting v. Pearce (7 C. B. N. S. 449, 485 ; 9 C. B. N. S. 534 ; 30

L. J. C. P. 109 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 800 ; 5 L. T. 79 ; 9 W. E. 343) 221, 746
Sweetland v. Smith (1 Or. & M. 585) - 727

Swift v. Davies (8 Ea. 354, n.) - 1058, 1060

v. M'Ternan (13 Ir. Eq. E. 119) - 996

Swinbanks, Ex parte (11 Ch. D. 525 ; 48 L. J. Bkcy. 120; 40 L. T.

825 ; 27 W. E. 898) - - - 742

Swinburne v. Milburn (9 Ap. Ca. 844 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 6 ; 52 L. T.

222 ; 33 W. E. 325) - - 332

Swindon Waterworks Co. v. Berks and Wilts Canal Co. (L. E. 7 H. L.

697 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 638 ; 33 L. T. 513 ; 24 W. E. 284) - - 20, 415
Swire v. Francis (3 Ap. Ca. 106 ; 47 L. J. P. C. 18 ; 37 L. T. 554) - 1095
Syers v. Jonas (2 Ex. Ill) - - 1091

Sykes, Re (56 L. T. 425 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 230) - - 822

v. Beadon (11 Ch. D. 170 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 522 ; 40 L. T. 243 ;

27 W. E. 464) - - 1162, 1163

v. Dixon (9 A. & E. 693 ; 1 P. & D. 463 ; 8 W. W. & H. 120) 1087,

1164

v. Giles (5 M. & W. 645 ; 9 L. T. N. S. Ex. 106) 204, 205, 221

v. Schofield (14 Ch. D. 629 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 833 ; 42 L. T. 822 ;

29 W. E. 68) - - 1310

. v. Sheard(2D. J.&S. 6; 33 L. J. Ch. 181 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1263;

9 L. T. 430 ; 12 W. E. 117 ; 3 N. E. 144) - 86

Symonds v. Hallett (24 Ch. D. 346 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 60 ; 49 L. T. 380 ;

32 W. E. 103) - - - - 15

Symons v. James (1 Y. & C. C. C. 490 ; 6 Jur. 452) 122, 127, 186

v. Leaker (15 Q. B. D. 629 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 480 ; 53 L. T.

227 ; 33 W. E. 875 ; 49 J. P. 775) - - 430

v. Symons (6 Mad. 207) - - - 271

Synnot v. Sympson (5 H. L. C. 121) - 1004, 1019

T , Ee (15 Ch. D. 78 ; 29 W. E. 42) - - 86

Tacon v. National Standard Co. (56 L. T. 165) - 1248

Tait v. Gosling (11 Ch. D. 273 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 397 ; 27 W. E. 394 ; 40

L. T. 251) - - 916

v. Lathbury (1 Eq. 174 ; 11 Jur. 991 ; 14 W. E. 216) - - 689

Taite v. Swinstead (26 B. 525 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1019 ; 33 L. T. 0. S.

312 ; 7 W. E. 373) - 69
Talbot v. Ford (13 Si. 173) - - 1172
v. Kemshead (4 K. & J. 93 ; 6 W. E. 263) - - - 1270

TABLE OF CASES. CCxll

Tal— Tay. PAGE

Talbot v. Staniforth (1J. & H. 484 ; 9 W. R. 827) 845, 847, 848, 849, 854
Talbott v. Minnett (6 Ir. Eq. R. 83) - 1351

Tallis v. Tallis (1 E. & B. 391 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 185 ; 17 Jur. 1149) - 1096
Tamplin v. James (15 Ch. D. 215 ; 43 L. T. 520 ; 29 W. R. 311) 1155,

1156, 1256

- v. Miller (30 W. R. 422) - - 11
Tann, In re (7 Eq. 434) - - - 305

Tanner v. Christian (4 E. & B. 591 ; 24 L. J. Q. B. 91 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

519 ; 3 W. R. 204) 213

- v. Elworthy (4 B. 487 ; 5 Jur. 1099) - - 39

- v. Florence (1 Ch. Ca. 259) - - 973

- v. Smart (6 B. & C. 603 ; 9 D. & R. 549 ; 5 L. J. Q. B. 218) 250

- v. Smith (10 Si. 410 ; 4 Jur. 310) - 183, 1076

Tanqueray-Willaume and Landau, lie (20 Ch. D. 465; 51 L. J.
Ch. 434 ; 46 L. T. 542 ; 30 W. R. 801) 66, 679, 693, 694, 695, 1273

Taplin v. Florence (10 C. B. 744 ; 20 L. J. C. P. 137 ; 15 Jur. 402 ;

17 L. T. O. S. 63) 209, 1043

Tapling v. Jones (11 H. L. Ca. 290 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 342 ; 11 Jur.

N. S. 309 ; 12 L. T. 555 ; 13 W. R. 617 ; 5 N. R. 493) 368, 405, 406
Tapp v. Tanner (20 L. J. Ch. 559) 1267, 1268

Tarback v. Marbury (2 Vern. 510; Eq. Ca. Ab. 148, pi. 3) - - 1021

Tardiffe v. Scrugham (cited 1 Br. C. C. 423) - - - 830

Tarleton v. Liddell (17 Q. B. 390 ; 4 De G. & S. 538 ; 20 L. J. Q. B.

507; 15 Jur. 1170) - 852, 1007, 1016, 1027

Tarratt v. Lloyd (2 Jur. N. S. 371) - - 1118

Tarte v. Darby (15 M. & W. 601 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 326; 7 L. T. 0. S.
262) ___.-_- 290, 501

Tasker v. Small (6 Sim. 625 ; 3 M. & C. 70; C. P. Coop. 255 ; 7

L. J. N. S. Ch. 19 ; 1 Jur. 936) - 71, 285, 925, 1127, 1128

Tassell v. Smith (2 D. & J. 713; 27 L. J. Ch. 694; 4 Jur. N. S.

1090; 32 L. T. 0. S. 4 ; 6 W. R. 803) 574, 1037

Tate v. Gardiner : see Gardiner v. Tate.
• v. Williamson (2 Ch. 56 ; 1 Eq. 528 ; 14 L. T. 163 ; 15 L. T.

549 ; 14 W. R. 449 ; 15 W. R. 321) - 24, 43, 44

Tatham v. Platt (9 Ha. 660) - - 1147

Taverner, Ex parte (7 D. M. & G. 627 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 45 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

1194 ; 26 L. T. 0. S. 65 ; 4 W. R. 29) - - 646

Tawney v. Crowther (3 Br. C. C. 161) - - - 250

- v. Lynn & Ely R. Co. (16 L. J. Ch. 282 ; 4 Ry. Ca. 615) - 243
Taylor's Settlement, In re (9 Ha. 596) - - 651, 761
Taylor, Ex parte (8 D. M. & G. 254 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 220 ; 26 L. T.

O. S. 266 ; 4 W. R. 305) - 31

— , Ex parte (7 C. B. 1) - - 651

-, Ex parte (18 Q. B. D. 295 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 195 ; 35 W. R.

148) - 1032

-, In re (1 H. & Tw. 432 ; 6 Ry. Ca. 741) - - 93, 299

-, Re (31 W. R. 596 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 728 ; 49 L. T. 420) 8

-, Re (I M. &G. 210) - - 805

-, Re (18 B. 165 ; 18 Jur. 666 ; 23 L. T. 0. S. 72 ; 2 W. R. 249) 815

v. Ashton (11 M. & W. 401 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 363 ; 7 Jur. 978) - 114

D. q

CCxlii TABLE OF CASES.

Tay— Ten. PAGE

Taylor v. Baker (5 Pr. 306) - - 968, 979

- v. Beech (1 V. sen. 297) - - 250, 1134, 1140
v. Blacklow (3 Bing. N. C. 235 ; 3 Sc. 614 ; 2 Hodges, 224 ;

6 L. J. N. S. C. P. 14) - - - 350
v. Blakelock (32 Ch. D. 560 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 97 ; 53 L. T. 753 ;

55 L. T. 8 ; 34 W. E, 175) - 930
v. Brown (2 B. 180; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 14) 489, 1265

- v. Bullen (5 Ex. 779 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 21) - - - 103

— v. Coenen (1 Ch. D. 636 ; 34 L. T. 18) - 1025

v. Crowland Gas Co. (10 Exch. 293; 2 C. L. E. 1247 ; 23

L. J. Ex. 254; 18 Jur. 913) 823, 1096

- v. Debar (1 Ch. Ca. 274 ; 2 Ch. Ca. 212) 888, 909

- v. Forster (2 C. & P. 195) - - 994

- v. Gilbertson (2 Dr. 391) - 122

- v. Grange (15 Ch. D. 165) - - 1301

- v. Hawkins (8 V. 209) - 673

- v. Martindale (1 Y. & C. C. C. 661) 122, 127, 196

v. Meads (4 D. J. & S. 597 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 203 ; 11 Jur. N. S.

166; 12 L. T. 6 ; 13 W. E. 394; 5 N. E. 348) - 11, 643, 644

v. Poncia (25 Ch. D. 646 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 409 ; 50 L. T. 20 ;

32 W. E. 335) - - - - - - 86

v. Portington (7 D. M. & G. 328 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1057 ; 3 Eq.

E. 781) - - - 264, 1109, 1147

— v. Salmon (4 M. & C. 134) 211, 1129

- v. Stibbert (2 V. 437) 976, 997, 1116

- v. Tabrum (6 Si. 281) - - - 91

- v. Taylor (10 Ha. 475 ; 1 W. E. 198) - 297

- v. — - (1 Atk. 386) - - - 1062

v. (1 Ch. D. 426; 3 Ch. D. 145; 45 L. J. Ch. 373,

848 ; 35 L. T. 450 ; 25 W. E. 279) - 1285

v. Wheeler (2 Vern. 564; Eq. Ca. Ab. 122, pi. 3; 312, pi. 8;

\ 'A 'A

Salk. 449) - 1115
Teall v. Auty (4 Mo. 542 ; 2 B. & B. 99) - - 235
v. Watts (11 Eq. 213; 40 L. J. Ch. 176; 23 L. T. 884; 18

W. E. 317) 1308, 1309

Teasdale v. Braithwaite (5 Ch. D. 630 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 725 ; 36 L. T.

601 ; 25 W. E, 546 ; 4 Ch. D. 85) - 49, 1005

Tebbott v. Voules (6 Si. 40) - - 300

Teebay v. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire E. Co. (24 Ch. D.

572 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 613 ; 48 L. T. 808 ; 31 W. E. 739) - 603

Teed v. Carruthers (2 Y. & C. C. C. 31 ; 6 Jur, 987) - - - 829

Teevan v. Smith (20 Ch. 724 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 621 ; 47 L. T. 208 ; 30

W. E, 716) - - - 654

Tempest v. Camoys (Lord) (21 Ch. D. 571 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 785 ; 48
L. T. 13 ; 31 W. E. 326) - - 96

Templer v. Sweet (8 B. 464 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 424) - 1330

Tenant v. Elliott (1 B. & P. 3) - - - 1163

v. Goldwin (2 Ld. Eaym. 1089; Salk. 21, 360 ; 6 Mod. 311 ;

Holt, 500) - 409

Tendring v. London (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 680) - - 1177

Tenham's (Lord) Case (2 Lev. 105) ------ 1017

TABLE OF CASES. CCxliii

Ten— Tho. PAGE

Tennant v. Trenchard (4 Ch. 537 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 169 ; 20 L. T. 856 ;
17 W. E. 134, 172) - 41, 1320, 1322, 1323

Terry and White, Re (32 Ch. D. 14 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 54 L. T.
353 ; 34 W. E. 379) - 151, 159, 178, 180, 732, 737, 740, 1188, 1190,

1191,1266

Tew v. Harris (11 Q. B. 7 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 1 ; 11 Jur. 947) - - 704

— v. Jones (13 M. & W. 12 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 94) - 505, 918

Tewart v. Lawson (18 Eq. 490 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 673 ; 22 W. E. 822) - 71

- v. - (3 S. & G. 307 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 345 ; 4 W. E. 419) - 722
Tewkesbury (Bailiffs of) v. Bricknell (2 Taunt. 120) - 378
Thackeray v. Parker (1 N. E. 567 ; 8 L. T. 602) - 2, 1306

v. Wood (6 B. & S. 766 ; 34 L. J. Q. B. 226; 13 W. E,

996) - - ' - - - - 886

Thackwell i». Gardener (5 De G. & S. 58) - - 1121

Thames Haven Co. v. Brymer (5 Ex. 711) - - 1086, 1088

Theed v. Debenham (2 Ch. D. 165 ; 24 W. E. 775) - - 408

Thellusson v. Woodford (13 V. 209) - - 306

Thicknesse v. Lancaster Canal Co. (4 M. & W. 472; 3 Jur. 11;
8 L. J. N. S. Ex. 49) - - - 61

Thirtle v. Vaughan (24 L. T. 0. S. 5 ; 2 W. E. 632) - 302

Thomas' Settlement, Re ( 30 W. E. 244) - - 758, 759

Thomas, Re (34 Ch. D. 166; 56 L. J. Ch. 9; 55 L. T. 629) 301, 614, 702

— v. Blackman (1 Coll. 301) - 239, 264, 1138
v. Brown (1 Q. B. D. 714 ; 45 L. J. Q. B. 811 ; 35 L. T. 237 ;

24 W. E. 821) 222, 252, 253, 109&

- v. Cooper (18 Jur. 688 ; 23 L. T. 0. S. 241 ; 2 W. E. 619) - 145

v. Cross (2 Dr. & S. 423 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 580 ; 11 Jur. N. S.

384 ; 12 L. T. 11 ; 13 W. E. 647 ; 6 N. E. 18) - - 547

- v. Davis (1 Dick. 301) - - 838, 855
v. Dering (1 Ke. 729 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ch. 267 ; 1 Jur. 211) - 180,

1125, 1181, 1192

- v. Gwynne (9 B. 275 ; 8 B. 312) 1252, 1347, 1348

- v. Lloyd (3 Jur. N. S. 288) - - 278

- v. Phillips (11 Jur. 80) - 1261, 1266

— v. Powell (2 Cox, 394) - - 666, 906, 1340

- v. Silvester (L. E. 8 Q. B. 368) - 451

— v. Thomas (2 C. M. & E. 41) - - 403

(6T. E, 671) - 1092

(2 Sw. & Tr. 89 ; 36 L. T. 438 ; 8 W. E. 504) - 857
(2 Dr. & S. 298 ; 11 L. T. 471 ; 13 W. E. 225) 388, 418

v. (2 K. & J. 79 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 159 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

1160; 4 W. E, 135) 443, 1032, 1034

- v. Townsend (16 Jur. 736) - 78, 1351
Thomlinson v. Smith (Finch, 378) - - 673

Thompson's Settled Estates, In re (John. 423 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1343) 1289,

1290, 1351

• Trusts, In re (22 B. 506; 28 L. T. 0. S. 57; 4 W. E. 801) 16

Thompson, In re (8 B. 237) - 816, 817, 818

v. Blackstone (6 B. 470) - - 1165

v. Burra (16 Eq. 592 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 827) - 585, 614

CCxliv TABLE OF CASES.

Tho. PAGE

Thompson v. Bowyer (9 Jur. N. S. 863 ; 9 L. T. 12 ; 11 W. E. 975 ;

2 N. E. 504) - - - - - - 452

v. Cartwright(2 D. J. & S. 10; 9 L. T. 431 ; 9 Jur. N. S.

1215 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 234 ; 3 N. E. 144 ; 12 W. E. 116) 988

v. Falck (1 Dr. 21) - 996

— v. Finch (22 B. 316) - - - 744

v. Lapworth (L. E. 3 0. P. 149 ; 37 L. J. 0. P. 74 ; 17

L. T. 507 ; 16 W. E. 312) - - - - 192

v. Eaine (28 L. T. 362) 1346, 1347

v, Eichardson (6 I. E. Eq. 596) - - 1300, 1311

v. Einger (44 L. T. 507 ; 29 W. E. 520) - - 1226

v. Shakespear (1 D. F. & J. 399 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 276 ; 6 Jur.

N. S. 281 ; 2 L. T. 479 ; 8 W. E. 265) - - 24

— v. Simpson (1 D. & War. 459 ; 2 J. & L. 110) 437, 911, 947,

948, 969
v. Todd (15 Ir. Ch. E. 337) - 686

v. Tomkins (8 Jur. N. S. 185 ; 6 L. T. N. S. 305 ; 10 W. E.

310) - ... 956

v. Towne (2 Vern. 319 ; Prec. in Ch. 52 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 242,

pi. 6 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 460, pi. 8) - 293

— v. Webster (4 D. & J. 600; 7 Jur. N. S. 531) 1017, 1024
Thomson v. Christie (1 Macq. 236; 15 Dunl. (H. L.) 19) - - 185

- v. Davenport (2 Sm. L. C. ; 9 B. & C. 78) 1072, 1073

v. Eastwood (2 Ap. Ca. 215) 438, 440

v. Miles (1 Esp. 184) - 128, 353, 487

— v. Thomson (7 V. 470) - 1162
Thornbury v. Bevill (1 Y. & C. C. C. 554 ; 6 Jur. 407) - 268, 272, 1261
Thorndike v. Hunt (3 D. & J. 563 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 32 L. T. 346 ;

7 W. E. 246) ... - 930

Thome v. Kerr (2 K. & J. 54 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 57 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 322 ; 26
L. T. 0. S. 233; 4 W. E. 131) - ... 456

Thornett v. Haines (15 M. & W. 371 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 230) - 126, 224
Thornewell v. Johnson (50 L. J. Ch. 641 ; 44 L. T. 768 ; 29 W. E.

677) - - 869, 981

Thornhill v. Glover (3 D. & War. 195) - 1263, 1351

Vt Manning (1 Si. N. S. 451 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 604; 17 L. T.

O. S. 208) - 468, 469

Vm Thornhill (2 J. & W. 347) - 1331

Thorniley v. Aspland (2 C. B. 160 ; 1 Lutw. Eeg. Ca. 423) - - 280
Thornton, Ex parte (2 Ch. 171 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 190; 15 L. T. 523; 15

W. E. 292) - 566, 972

Vm Court (3 D. M. & G. 393) - 880, 895

Thoroton, Ex parte (12 Jur. 130) - - 812

Thorp v. Freer (4 Mad. 466) 1260, 1337

v. Owen (2 S. & G. App. i.) - - 1339

Thorpe's Settled Estates, Re (W. N. (1876) 251) - - 1285

Thorpe v. Holdsworth (7 Eq. 139 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 194 ; 17 W. E. 394) 473,

942, 951, 953

- v. Plowden (14 M. & W. 520 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 137 ; 5 L. T. 0. S.
287) - - - - - - - - 402

TABLE OF CASES. CCxlv

Thr— Tom. PAGE

Three Towns Banking Co. v. Maddever (27 Ch. D. 523 ; 53 L. J. Ch.
998 ; 52 L. T. 35 ; 33 W. R. 286) - - 1030

Thurlow v. Mackeson (L. R. 4 Q. B. 97 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 57 ; 19 L. T.

448 ; 17 W. R. 280) - - - 90

Thwaites, Ex parte (1 M. & A. 323) - 50

Thynne (Lady) v. Glengall (Earl of) (2 H. L. C. 131 ; 12 Jur. 805) - 272,

1138
Tickle v. Brown (4 A. & E. 369 ; 1 H. & W. 769 ; 6 N. & M. 230 ; 5

L. J. N. S. Q. B. 119) - 430

Tid St. Giles' Charity (Trustees of), Ex parte (17 W. R. 758) - - 759
Tidd v. Lister (10 Ha. 157) - - 1035

Tidey v. Mollett (16 C. B. N. S. 298 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 235 ; 10 Jur.

N. S. 800 ; 10 L. T. 280 ; 12 W. R. 802 ; 4 N. R. 109) - - 229

Tildesley v. Clarkson (30 B. 419 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 362 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 163 ;

6 L. T. 98 ; 10 W. R. 328) - 102, 103
v. Lodge (3 S. & G. 543; 3 Jur. N. S. 1000; 30 L. T.

0. S. 29) - 285, 932, 1040

Tillett v. Charing Cross Bridge Co. (26 B. 419 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 863 ; 5

Jur. N. S. 994 ; 7 W. R. 391) - 257

Tilley v. Thomas (3 Ch. 61 ; 17 L. T. 422 ; 16 W. R. 166) 347, 483, 484, 486
Tiinson v. Ramsbottom (2 Ke. 35) - - 966

Tindal v. Cobham (2 M. & K. 385 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Ch. 98) - - 1219

Tinkler, In re (19 L. T. 0. S. 338) - - 756

Tipping v. Eckersley (2 K. & J. 264) - - - 874

v. Power (1 Ha. 410) - 1320, 1340

Titley v. Davies (2 Y. & C. C. C. 399) - - - 1036

— v. Wolstenholme (7 B. 425 ; 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 410) - - 683

Titterton r. Cooper (9 Q. B. D. 473; 51 L. J. Q. B. 472; 46 L. T.

870 ; 30 W. R. 866) - - - 630

Tiverton Market Act, In re (26 B. 239) - 812

Tiverton R. Co. v. Loosemore (9 Ap. 480 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 812 ; 50 L. T.

637 ; 32 W. R. 929; 48 J. P. 372) - 61, 242, 249, 509, 513, 1098

Todd, Ex parte (19 Q. B. D. 186; 56 L. J. Q. B. 431 ; 35 W. R. 676) 1030

v. Gee (17 V. 273; Sw. 255) - 1104, 1186, 1259

v. Moorhouse (19 Eq. 69 ; 32 L. T. 8 ; 23 W. R. 155) - - 1058

v. Studholme (3 K. & J. 324 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 271 ; 29 L. T. O. S.

24; 5 W. R. 277) - 1340, 1341, 1342

Toft v. Stephenson (7 Ha. 1 ; 1 D. M. & G. 28 ; 5 De M. & G. 735 ;

21 L. J. Ch. 129; 15 Jur. 1187; 18 L. T. 0. S. 114) - 439, 454, 455,

456, 458, 462, 710, 827

Toker v. Toker (3 D. J. & S. 487 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 322) - - - 1022

Toler v. Slater (L. R. 2 Q. B. 42 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 33 ; 16 W. R. 124) - 643
Toll v. Lee (4 Ex. 230 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 364 ; 13 Jur. 614 ; 13 L. T. 0. S.

325) - 277

Toller v. Carteret (2 Vern. 494 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 134, pi. 5) - - 1107

Tollett v. Tollett (2 P. W. 489) - 946

Tolson v. Sheard (5 Ch. D. 19; 46 L. J. Ch. 815 ; 36 L. T. 756; 25

W.R. 667) - - 76, 1276
Tomkins, Ex parte (Sugd. 120) -1355
v. Colthurst (1 Ch. D. 626 ; 33 L. T. 591 ; 24 W. R. 264) 309, 702

CCxlvi -TABLE OF CASES.

Tom — Tow. PAGE

Tomkins v. White (3 Sm. 435) - - 134

Tomlin v. Budd (18 Eq. 368 ; 43 L. J. Oh. 627 ; 22 W. E. 529) - - 858
Tomlins v. Tomlins (3 Jur. 167) - 392

Tomlinson v. Manchester & Birmingham E. Co. (2 Ey.'Ca. 104) 1162, 1219
Tommey v. White (3 H. L. C. 49) - - 56, 83, 1350

Tompsett v. Wickens (3 S. & a. 171 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 10; 26 L. T. 0. S.

163; 4W. E. 136) - - - 1342

Tompson v. Knight (7 Jur. N. S. 704 ; 9 W. E, 780) - 1268

Tomson v. Judge (3 Dr. 306 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 785 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 583 ; 25
L. T. 0. S. 233 ; 3 W. E. 561 ; 3 Eq. E, 850) - - - 46

Tone v. Preston (24 Ch. D. 739 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 50 ; 49 L. T. 99 ; 32

W. E. 166) - - 431

TootaTs Trusts (23 Ch. D. 532 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 664 ; 48 L. T. 816 ; 31

W. E. 653) - ... 364

Topham v. Booth (35 Ch. D. 607 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 812 ; 57 L. T. 170 ; 35

W. E. 715) - - - - - - 456

v. Burgoyne (49 L. J. Ch. 213 ; 41 L. T. 670) - 1307

Toppin v. Lomas (16 C. B. 145 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 144 ; 25 L. T. 0. S.
129 ; 3 W. E, 446) - - - 233

Topple, Ex parte (19 W. E. 1058 ; 25 L. T. 407) - 727

Torbuck v. Hewitson (19 L. T. 0. S. 342) - - 648

Torrance v. Bolton (8 Ch. 118 ; 14 Eq. 130 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 643; 42 L. J.
Ch. 177 ; 27 L. T. 19, 738 ; 20 W. E. 718 ; 21 W. E, 134) 116, 128, 131,

139, 152, 177, 222, 223, 506
Tottenham, Ex parte (13 L. E. Ir. 479) - - - 751

- v. Byrne (12 Ir. C. L. E. 376) - - 448

- v. Green (32 L. J. Ch. 201 ; 1 N. E. 466) - - - 844

- v. Swansea Zinc Co. (52 L. T. 738) - 606

- Local Board v. Eowell (15 Ch. D. 378 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 147;

50 L. J. Ch. 99 ; 41 L. T. 720 ; 43 L. T. 616 ; 28 W. E.

409 ; 29 W. E. 36) - 524

&c. E. Co., In re (14 W. E. 669) - - - 510

Totton v. Vincent (5 Bing. N. C. 626) - 957

Toulmin v. Steere (3 Mer. 210) - - 988, 1040, 1041

Tourret v. Cripps (48 L. J. Ch. 567 ; 27 W. E. 706) - 253, 269

Tourville v. Naish (3 P. W. 306) 906, 928, 929, 942

Towgood, Ex parte (I Y. & C. 588) - - 812

Towle v. Topham (37 L. T. 308) - 250, 253, 1092

Townend v. Toker (1 Ch. 446 ; 14 L. T. 531 ; 12 Jur. 477; 35 L. J. Ch.

608 ; 14 W. E. 806) - 1005, 1119

Townley v. Bedwell (14 Y. 591) - 296, 302

Townsend v. Champernowne (1 Y. & J. 449) 321, 324, 1277

— v. — — (3 Y. & C. 505) - - 733, 1265, 1271
v.— -(9Pri. 130) - - 1132

— v. Westacott (2 B. 340) - - 1024

— v. Wilson (1 B. & Aid. 608 ; 3 Mad. 261) - - 686
Townshend v. Norwich (Bishop of) (1 Eop. H. & W. 308, n.) - - 272

(Marquis of) v. Stangroom (6 Y. 328) - 729, 736, 1149, 1153,

1174, 1261

TABLE OF CASKS. CCxlvii

Tra — Tuc. PAOB
Tracey v. Lawrence (2 Dr. 403 ; 18 Jur. 590 ; 24 L. T. 0. S. 13 ; 2

W. B. 610; 2 Eq. B, 813) 82, 1273

- Peerage (10 C. & F. 154 ; 1 L. T. 0. S. 310) - - 394

Trafford, Ex parte (2 Y. & C. 522) - - 808
Traherno v. Gardner (5 E. & B. 213; 25 L. J. Q. B. 201 ; 2 Jur.

N. S. 394) - - 571

Trail v. Bull (1 Coll. 352) - - 673

— v. Kibblewhite (10 Jur. 107) - - 392
Traill v. Baring (4 D. J. & S. 318 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 521 ; 10 Jur. N. S.

377; 10 L. T. 215; 12 W. E. 678; 3 N. B. 681) - - - 117

Trappes v. Harter (2 C. & M. 153; 3 Tyr. 604) - - - 606
Treadwell v. L. & S. W. B. Co. (33 W. B. 272 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 565 ; 51

L. T. 894) - ...... 245

Trefusis v. Clinton (Lord) (2 Si. 359) - - 712, 1343

Treloar v. Bigge (L. B. 9 Ex. 151 ; 43 L. J. Ex. 95 ; 22 W. B. 843) - 192
Trench v. Harrison (17 Si. Ill) - 1066

Trendry, In re (5 W. B. 322 ; 1 C. B. N. S. 187) - - 651

Trent v. Hunt (9 Ex. 14 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 318 ; 17 Jur. 899 ; 1 W. B.
481 ; 22 L. T. 0. S. 23 ; 1 Com. L. B. 752) - 212

Tress v. Savage (4 E. & B. 36 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 339 ; 18 Jur. 680 ; 23
L. T. 0. S. 208 ; 2 W. B. 564 ; 2 Com. L. B. 1315) - - - 228

Trestrail v. Mason (7 Ch. D. 655 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 249 ; 26 W. B. 260) - 921

Trevelyan v. Carter (9 B. 104) 52, 1249

— v. Trevelyan (53 L. T. 853) - - 241, 876

v. White (1 B. 588) 897, 1033

Trevor v. Trevor (2 M. & K. 677) - - 391

Tribe v. Taylor (1 C. P. D. 505) - 214

Trimleston (Lord) v. Kemmis (9 C. & F. 773) - - - 369

Trimmer v. Bayne (9 V. 209) - 829

Trinity College, Cambridge, Ex parte (18 L. T. 849) - - - 760

House (Corporation of), Ex parte (3 Ha. 95) - 805

Tristram v. Harte (Long. & T. 186) - - 458

Troutbeck v. Boughey (2 Eq. 534 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 840 ; 12 Jur. N. S.

543 ; 14 W. B. 790) 12, 644

Trowell v. Shenton (8 Ch. D. 318 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 738 ; 38 L. T. 369 ;

26 W. B.837)- - - - 1141

Trower r. Newcome (3 Mer. 704) - - 1 11

Truell ?'. Tyssen (21 B. 437 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 801 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 630; 27

L. T. O. S. 24 ; 4 W. B. 409) - - - 71

Trulock v. Bobey (12 Si. 402 ; 5 Jur. 1101) - - 445

Truscott v. Merchant Tailors' Co. (11 Ex. 855 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 173 ; 2
Jur. N. S. 356 ; 26 L. T. O. S. 283 ; 4 W. B. 295) - 404, 405

Trutch v. Lamprell (20 B. 116 ; 3 W. 193) - - 745

Trye v. Gloucester (Corporation of) (14 B. 173) - - 778, 1008

v. Sullivan (28 Ch. D. 705 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1065 ; 52 L. T. 754; 33

W. B. 729) ....... 1058

Tryon, In re (7 B. 496 ; 2 L. T. O. S. 516) - 471, 816

Tubbs v. Broadwood (2 B. & M. 487) - 1068

Tucker v. Burrow (2 H. & M. 515 ; 12 L. T. 485 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 525) 1057,

1058, 1060

CCxlviii TABLE OF CASES.

Tuc— Twe. PAGE

Tucker v. Linger (8 Ap. Ca. 508 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 941 ; 49 L. T. 373 ;

32 W. E. 40 ; 48 J. P. 4) - - - - 130, 1091

- v. Moreland (1 Amer. L. C. 314) - - 30
Tuckley v. Thompson (1 J. & H. 126 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 548 ; 2 L. T. 565;

8 W. E. 302) - ... 543, 1320

Tugwell, Re (27 Ch. D. 309 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1006 ; 51 L. T. 83 ; 33

W. E. 132) 8, 298

- v. Hooper (10 B. 348 ; 16 L. J. N. S. Ch. 171) - - - 996

Tulk v. Moxhay (2 Ph. 774) 863, 864

Tull v. Owen (4 Y. & C. 192) - - 397, 451

Tulloch v. Tulloch (3 Eq. 574) - 1315

Tunstall v. Trappes (3 Si. 286) - 529, 959, 965, 967

Turbutt's Estate, In re (2 N. E. 487 ; 8 L. T. 657) - - 1293

Turnbull v. Forman (15 Q. B. D. 234 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 489 ; 53 L. T.

128 ; 33 W. E. 768 ; 49 J. P. 708) - - 1124

Turner's Estate, Re (10 W. E. 128 ; 5 L. T. 524) - - 809

Turner and Skelton, Re (13 Ch. D. 130 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 114 ; 41 L. T.

668 ; 28 W. E. 312) - 905

-, Ex parte (9 M.od. 418) - - - 696

-, In re (3 C. B. 166) - - 650

-, Re (29 Ch. D. 985 ; 53 L. T. 528) - - 392

- v. Beaurain (Sug. 312) - 132

- v. Cameron (L. E. 5 Q. B. 307 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 125 ; 22 L. T.

525 ; 18 W. E. 544) - - 149, 607
v. Cameron's Co. (5 Ex. 932 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 71 ; 16 L. T. 0. S.

285) - - 505
v. Collins (7 Ch. 329 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 558 ; 25 L. T. 779 ; 20 W.

E. 305) - -848, 849

— v. Doe, d. Bennett (9 M. & W. 643 ; 11 L. J. Ex. 453) - 444

- v. Goulden (L. E, 9 C. P. 57 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 60) - - 260

- v. Harvey (Jac. 169)- 116, 118, 119, 1165, 1207

- v. Letts (7 D. M. & G. 243 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 638 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

1057 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 154 ; 3 W. E. 494 ; 3 Eq. E. 846) - 477

v. Marriott (3 Eq. 744 ; 15 L. T. 607; 15 W. E, 420) - 195, 223,

506, 727, 873

v. Trelawny (12 Sim. 49 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 249 ; 5 Jur. 698) 37,

39, 52

v. Turner (14 Ch. D. 829 ; 42 L. T. 495; 28 W. E. 859; 44

J. P. 734) - 840

v. Wight (4 B. 40) - - - - - - 1222

Turpin v. Chambers (29 B. 104 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 470 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 459 ;

9W. E. 363) - 179

Turquand, Ex parte (14 Q. B. D. 405 ; 51 L. T. 667; 33 W. E, 752;

1 M. B. E. 275) - - - 630
v. Board of Trade (11 Ap. Ca. 286 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 417; 55

L. T. 30) - - 75

v. Ehodes (37 L. J. Ch. 830 ; 18 L. T. 844 ; 16 W. E. 1074) 350,

496, 500, 502

Tuthill v. Eogers (1 J. & L. 36 ; 6 Ir. Eq. E. 429) - 468, 1277

Tweddell v. Tweddell (T. & E. 1 ; 2 Br. C. C. 101) - 847, 848, 919

TABLE OF CASES. CCxllX

Twe— Upp. PAGE

Tweed v. Mills (L. R. 1 C. P. 39) 169

Tweedale, In re (L. R. 3 P. & D. 204 ; 44 L. J. P. & M. 35 ; 31 L. T.

799) - - - - 841

Tweedie and Miles, Re (27 Ch. D. 315; 54 L. J. Ch. 71 ; 33 W. R.

133) ----- - 68, 1273

Tweedy, Ex parte (5 Ch. D. 559 ; 46 L. J. Bkcy. 43 ; 36 L. T. 70; 25

W. R. 399) 608

-, Re (9 W. R. 398) - - 656

Twentyman v. Barnes (12 Jur. 743 ; 2 De G. & S. 225) - 1154

Twigg v. Fifield (13 V. 518) 1343, 1344

Twining v. Morrice (2 Br. C. C. 326) -225, 1174, 1198, 1199

Twycross v. Moore (13 Ir. Eq. R. 250) - - - 988

Twynam v. Pickard (2 B. & Aid. 106) - 916

Twyne's Case (1 Sm. L. C. 9 ; 3 Co. 80) - - 1003, 1021, 1024

Tylden v. Hyde (2 S. & S. 238) 674, 694

Tylee v. Webb (14 B. 14 ; 15 Jur. 1023) - - 108, 907

— Vt (6 B. 552) - - 988

Tyler v. Beversham (Finch, 80) - - 729, 838

v. Thomas (25 B. 47) - - 983

v. Yates (6 Ch. 665 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 768 ; 25 L. T. 284 ; 19 W. R.

909) ----- 146, 842, 851, 853

v. - - (11 Eq. 276) - - 845

Tyndale v. Warre (Jac. 525) - - 1331

Tyne Boiler Co. v. Overseers of Longbenton (18 Q,. B. D. 81 ; 56 L.

J. M. C. 9 ; 55 L. T. 825 ; 35 W. R. 110) - - - - 607

Tynte, Ex parte (15 Ch. D. 125 ; 42 L. T. 598 ; 28 W. R. 767) - 560

Tyrconnel (Earl of) v. Ancaster (Duke of) (2 V. sen. 500) - - 137

Tyrer v. King (2 C. & K. 149) - 1078

Tyrrell v. Marsh (3 Bing. 31 ; 10 Moore, 305 ; 3 L. J. C. P. 138) - 87
Tyrwhitt v. Tyrwhitt (32 B. 244 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 553 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 346;

8 L. T. 140 ; 11 W. R. 409 ; 1 N. R. 458) - - 310
Tyson v. Jackson (30 B. 384) - 439, 455

Underwood, In re (3 K. & J. 745 ; 30 L. T. 0. S. 90; 5 W. R. 866) - 539,

655

v. Bedford & Cambridge R. Co. (7 Jur. N. S. 941 ; 31 L.

J. Ch. 215) - - 245
v. Wing (4 D. M. & G. 633 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 293 ; 1 Jur.

N. S. 169 ; 24 L. T. 364 ; 3 W. R. 228 ; 3 Eq. B. 794)- - - 390

Ungley v. Ungley (5 Ch. D. 887 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 854 ; 37 L. T. 52 ; 25

W. R. 733) - - - 1136, 1141

Union Bank v. Ingram (20 Ch. D. 463; 51 L. J. Ch. 508 ; 46 L. T.

507 ; 30 W. R. 375) - - 81, 1318

United Land Co. v. G. E. R. Co. (10 Ch. 586 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 685 ; 33

L. T. 292 ; 23 W. R. 896) - - - - - - 414

Upjohn v. Upjohn (7 B. 59) - - 98

Upperton v. Nickolson (6 Ch. 436 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 401 ; 25 L. T. 4 ; 19

W. R. 733) - 141, 154, 155, 346, 489, 494, 604, 1199, 1201, 1228, 1244,

1245
Uppington v. Bullen (2 D. & War. 184) - - - - 45

Ccl TABLE OF CASES.

Upt — Ver. PAGE

Upton v. Bassett (Cro. Eliz. 444) - - 1003

— v. Townend (17 C. B. 50 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 44 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1089) 917
Usher v. Scanlan (Fl. & K 243) - 1346, 1350

Vale v. Devonport (6 V. 615) - - - 1334
of Neath Colliery Co. v. Furness (45 L. J. Ch. 276 ; 34 L. T.

231 ; 24 W. E. 631) - 266

Yalentia (Visct.) v. Denton (1867, V. No. 34 ; M. E. 29 July, 1872)- 845
Valentine v. Dickinson (7 Jur. N. S. 857 ; 9 W.. E. 625) 843, 1209

Vallance, Re (24 Ch. D. 177 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 791 ; 48 L. T. 941 ; 32

W. E. 387) - - - - 364

Valpy v. Oakeley (16 Q. B. 941 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 380 ; 16 Jur. 38 ; 17

L. T. 0. S. 124) - 291, 1079

Van v. Corpe (3 M. & K. 269) - - 106, 133, 1150

Vance v. Eanfurley (Earl of) (1 Ir. Ch. E. 321) - 615

Vancouver v. Bliss (11 V. 458) - 499, 1199, 1229, 1241, 1256, 1257, 1270
Vandaleur v. Blagrave (6 B. 565) - - 746

Vandenbergh v. Spooner (L. E. 1 Ex. 316 ; 35 L. J. M. C. 210 ; 14

L. T. 791 ; 14 W. 843) - - - 252
Vane v. Barnard (Lord) (Gilb. E. 6)- 666, 881, 906
- (Lord) v. Eigden (5 Ch. 663 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 797 ; 18 W. E. 1092) 89
v. Vane (8 Ch. 383 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 299 ; 28 L. T. 320 ; 21 W. E.

252) - - 440

Vans Agnew v. Stewart (Sug. 68) - - 1350

Vansittart v. Vansittart (4 K. & Jo. 62 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 222 ; 4 Jur.

N. S. 276 ; 30 L. T. 331) - - 1096, 1164

Varden's Trusts (31 Ch. D. 275 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 259 ; 53 L. T. 895 ; 34

W. E. 185) -------- 1009

Vardy, In re (20 L. J. Ch. 325) - 817

Varley v. Leigh (2 Ex. 446; 17 L. J. Ex. 289) - - - 451

Vaudrey's Trusts, Ex parte (3 Giff. 224 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 753) - - 805

Vaughan v. Hancock (3 C. B. 766 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 1 ; 10 Jur. 926 ; 8

L. T. 0. S. 118) - - 237
- v. Magill (12 Ir. Eq. E, 207) - - - 107
v. Vanderstegen (2 Dr. 363, 408 ; 2 W. E. 599, 643 ; 23 L. J.

Ch. 793 ; 2 Eq. E. 1229 ; 23 L. T. O. S. 309) - 13

Vaughton v. Noble (30 B. 34) - - - 39

Vavasour, In re (3 M. & G. 275) - - 1351

Vawser v. Jeffery (3 Euss. 479) - - - 295

Venezuela (Central Ey. Co. of) v. Kisch (L. E, 2 H. L. 99 ; 36 L. J.

Ch. 849 ; 16 L. T. 500; 15 W. E. 281) - - 117

Venn v. Cattell (27 L. T. 469) - - 346, 486

Venour's Settled Estates, Ee (2 Ch. D. 525 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 409 ; 24

W. E. 752) - - 79, 1280

Ventilation and Sanitary Improvement Co. v. Edelsten (2 N. E. 53 ;

11 W. E. 613)- - - 1268

Verlander v. Codd (T. & E. 357) 261, 263

Verner v. Winstanley (2 Sch. & L. 393) - - - - - 926

TABLE OF CASES. Cell

Ver— Wai.

Vernon, Ewens & Co., Re (33 Ch. D. 402 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 12 ; 55 L. T.

416; 34 W. E. 606) •- . * - - - 945

- v. Keys (12 Ea. 632) - - 120

- v. Stephens (2 P. W. 66 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 56, pi. 3) - - 222
VerraU v. Cathcart (27 W. B. 645) 1302, 1322
Veseyv. Elwood (3 D. & War. 82) - 712,1329
Vick v. Edwards (3 P. "W. 372) - - ' - 1274
Vickers v. Hand (26 B. 630) - 144, 709, 717, 722, 724

- v. Scott (3 M. & K. 500 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 223) - - - 63

- v. Vickere (4 Eq. 529 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 946) 257, 260
Vigers v. Pike (8 C. & F. 645) - 842, 902, 1207, 1208
VignoUes v. Bowen (12 Ir. Eq. E. 194) - - 105, 107, 128, 156, 1200
Villars, Ex parte (9 Ch. 432 ; 43 L. J. Bkcy. 76 ; 30 L. T. 104 ; 22

W. E. 397) ........ 44

Vincent v. Goring (U. & L. 697 ; 7 Ir. Eq. E. 463) - - - 459

- v. Vincent (56 L. T. 243) - 1141

- v. Willington (Long. & J. 456) - - - 458
Vine v. Ealeigh (24 Ch. D. 238 ; 49 L. T. 440 ; 31 W. E. 855) 69, 1282
Viney v. Chaplin (2 D. & J. 468 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 434 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 619 ;

31 L. T. O. S. 142 ; 6 W. E. 562) - - 741, 742

Vint v. Padgett (2 D. & J. 611 ; 6 W. E. 641) - - 784, 1036

Volant v. Soyer (13 C. B. 231 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 83) - - 993

Vorley v. Cooke (1 Gif. 230 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 185 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 3 ; 30

L. T. 146) - - 931

Vouillon v. States (2 Jur. N. S. 845 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 875 ; 27 L. T. 0. S.

268) - - - - . - 261, 1148, 1153, 1156, 1159

Vowles v. Young (13 V. 144) - - - 394

Voyle v. Hughes (2 S. & G. 18 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 238 ; 18 Jur. 341 ; 22

L. T. 0. S. 269 ; 2 Eq. E. 42; 2 W. E. 143) - - - 1018

Wace v. Bickerton (3 De G. & S. 751) - - - - 892

Waddell v. Wolfe (L. E. 9 Q. B. 515 ; 43 L. J. Q. B. 139 ; 23 W. E.
44) .... 164, 169, 173

Wadderburn v. Wadderburn (4 M. & C. 41) - - - - 55
Waddington v. Bristow (2 B. & P. 452) - 235
Wade, In re (1 H. & Tw. 202) - - - 8, 93
and Thomas, Re (17 Ch. D. 348 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 601 ; 44 L. T. 599 ;

29 W. E. 625) - 478, 762, 764
v. Bowling (4 E. & B. 44 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 302 ; 18 Jur. 728 ; 2

C. L. E. 1642 ; 23 L. T. O. S. 187 ; 2 W. E. 567) - - 705

v. Wilson (22 Ch. D. 235) - - 1318, 1320, 1321

Wadeer v. East India Co. (2 Jur. N. S. 407 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 27

L. T. O. S. 30 ; 4 W. E. 421) - - - 995

Wadham v. Eigg (6 L. T. 180 ; 10 W. E. 365) - - - 1066

Wagstaff v. Wagstaff (8 Eq. 229 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 528) 308, 309

Wainewright, In re (1 Ph. 258 ; 13 Sim. 260 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 426 ;

7 Jur. 499) 779

y. Elwell (1 Mad. 632) .... 785

Cclii TABLE OF CASES.

PAGE

Wainewright v. Hardisty (2 B. 363) - - 1120

Waite v. Bingley (21 Oh. D. 674; 51 L. J. Oh. 651 ; 30 W. E. 698)- 364,

1300

Wake v. Hall (8 Ap. Ca. 195 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 494 ; 48 L. T. 834 ; 31

W. E. 585) ------ 133, 607

- v. Harrop (7 Jur. N. S. 710 ; 6 H. & N. 768 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 273;

4 L. T. 555 ; 9 W. E. 788) - - - - 268

Wakefield v. Buccleuch (Duke of) (4 Eq. 613 ; L. E, 4 H. L. 377 ; 36
L. J. Oh. 179 ; 39 L. J. Oh. 441 ; 15 L. T. 462 ; 23 L. T.
102; 15 W. E. 247) - - 422

- v. Gibbon (1 Gif. 401 ; 26 L. J. Oh. 505 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 353 ;

29 L. T. 0. S. 51 ; 5 W. E. 479) - - 848, 1016, 1027

- v. Llanelly E. Co. (3 D. J. & S. 11 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 456 ; 12

L. T. 509 ; 13 W. E. 823) - - - - 707

- v. Newbon (6 Q. B. 276 ; 13 L. J. Q. B. 258; 8 Jur. 735) 476, 826

Wakeman v. Eutland (Duchess of) (3 V. 234 ; 8 Br. P. C. 145) 364, 616,

624, 1250

Walcott v. Lynch (13 Ir. Eq. E. 199) - - - 285

Waldron v. Forester (Sugd. 631) - 713

-v. Jacob (5 I. E. Eq. 131) - - 254

— v. Sloper (1 Dr. 193) - 945, 950, 951, 953

Waldy v. Gray (20 Eq. 238 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 394 ; 32 L. T. 531 ; 23

W. E. 676) - - - - 993

Walford v. Beazely (3 Atk. 503 ; 1 V. sen. 6) - 239

— v. Gray (13 W. E. 761 ; 12 L. T. 437 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 473) - 1142
Walhampton Estate, Re (26 Ch. D. 391 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1000 ; 51 L. T.

280 ; 32 W. E. 874) 1002, 1023, 1119

Walker's Case (2 Eq. 554 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 826 ; 14 W. E. 1008) - 333

- Mortgage, Re (3 Ch. D. 209) - - - 664

Walker and Hughes, Re (24 Ch. D. 698) - - 1273

— , Exparte (1 Dr. 508 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 888 ; 17 Jur. 706 ; 21 L. T.

O. S. 148 ; 1 W. E. 378 ; 1 Eq. E. 247) 298, 299

-, In re (7 E. C. 129) - - 805

- v. Aston (14 Si. 87) - - 1347

- v. Barnes (3 Mad. 247) 178, 1186, 1194

- v. Barnett (1864) - - 731

— v. Bartlett (18 C. B. 845 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 643 ; 25 L. J. C. P.

263 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 299 ; 4 W. E. 681) - 233, 333, 1108

— v. Beauchamp (Lady) (6 C. & P. 552) 394, 396

— v. Bentley (9 Ha. 629) - - 336, 400, 1274

- v. Broadhurst (21 L. T. O. S. 68 ; 8 Ex. 889) - 894, 1079

— v. Eastern Counties E. Co. (6 Ha. 594; 5 Ey. Ca. 469; 12

Jur. 787) - - - 243

- v. Jeffreys (1 Ha. 348 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 209 ; 6 Jur. 336)- 484,

1214

— v. Moore (10 B. & C. 416) - - 1078, 1080

— v. Eichardson (2 M. & W. 882 ; M. & H. 251) - - - 778

- v. Shore (19 Y. 391) - 63, 64

- v. Smallwood (Amb. 676) - - 64

- v. Taylor (8 Jur. N. S. 681 ; 4 L. T. 845) - - 678, 679

TABLE OF CASES. Cclili

"Wai. PAGE

Walker v. Ware, Hadham, and Buntingford R. Co. (1 Eq. 195; 35 L. J.
Ch. 94 ; 12 Jur. 18 ; 13 L. T. 517 ; 14 W. R. 158) 514, 515, 835, 836,

1221

Wall's Case (15 Eq. 18 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 372) - - 254

Wall v. Bright (1J. & W. 501) - 283, 284, 301

v. City of London Real Property Co. (L. R. 9 Q. B. 249 ; 43

L. J. Q. B. 249 ; 30 L. T. 53) - - - - 1083

v. Stanwick (34 Ch. D. 763; 56 L. J. Ch. 301 ; 56 L. T. 309 ;

35 W. R. 701)- - - 443

v. Stubbs (1 Mad. 80) - - 1207

Wallace v. Attorney-General (1 Ch. 1; 35 L. J. Ch. 124; 11 Jur.

937; 13 L. T. 480; 14 W. R. 116) - - - 317

v. Cook (5Esp. 117) - 642

v. Donegal (Marquis of) (1 D. & Wai. 461) 943, 965, 972

v. Greenwood (16 Ch. D. 362; 50 L. J. Ch. 289; 43 L. T.

720) - - 2, 1307, 1308

v. Kelsall (7 M. & W. 264 ; 8 D. P. C. 841 ; 4 Jur. 1064 ; 10

L. J. N. S. Ex. 12) 747

- v. Wallace (2 D. & War. 452) - 847
Waller v. Barrett (24 B. 413; 27 L. J. Ch. 214; 4 Jur. N. S. 128 ;

30 L. T. 216) - - - 1345

Wallinger v. Hilbert (1 Mer. 104) - - 1201
Wallis v. Bastard (4 D. M. & G. 251 ; 17 Jur. 1107 ; 22 L. T. 162 ;

2 Eq. R. 508 ; 2 W. R. 47) - - - 713

- v. Freestone (10 Sim. 225) - - 69

v. Harrison (4 M. & W. 538) - - - 1043

v. Morris (10 Jur. N. S. 741 ; 10 L. T. 709 ; 12 W. R. 997) - 536,

547

v. Sarel (5 De G. & S. 429 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 717 ; 19 L. T. 0. S.

152) - - 712, 723

— v. Wallis (4 Dr. 458 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 441 ; 7 W. R. 313) - 1268

— v. Woodyear (2 Jur. N. S. 179) - - 500, 502, 1243

Wallop's Trust, In re (1 D. J. & S. 656 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 351; 10 Jur.

N. S. 328 ; 10 L. T. 174 ; 3 N. R. 679 ; 12 W. R. 587)- - 315, 317

Wallwyn v. Coutts (3 Mer. 707) - ' 1004, 1020

- v. Lee (9 V. 24) - 476, 940

Walmsley v. Jowett (23 L. J. Ch. 425; 22 L. T. 279 ; 2 W. R. 179) 1275

v. Milne (7 C. B. N. S. 115 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 973 ; 6 Jur.
N. S. 125; 35 L. T. 0. S. 62 ; 8 W. R. 138) - 607

Walond v. Walond (8 B. 352 ; 9 Jur. 479) - - 1331

Walpole (Lord) v. Cholmondeley (Earl) (7 T. R. 138) - 1092

Walrond v. Hawkins (L. R. 10 C. P. 342 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 116 ; 32

L. T. 119 ; 23 W. R. 390) - - 195

- v. Rosslyn (11 Ch. D. 640 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 602 ; 27 W. R. 723) 301

v. Walrond (John. 18 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 97 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1099 ;

32 L. T. 122 ; 7 W. R. 33)- - 1165, 1208

Walsh's Trusts, Re (7 L. R. Ir. 554) - - 755

Walsh, In re (12 B. 490) - 346, 817

- v. Lonsdale (21 Ch. D. 9 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 2 ; 37 L. T. 379 ; 31

W. R. 109) - - - - - - --229

TABLE OF CASES.

Wai— War.

Walsh v. Lincoln (Bishop of) (L. E. 10 C. P. 518 ; 44 L. J. 0. P.

244 ; 32 L. T. 471 ; 23 W. E. 829) - 281

- v. Secretary of State for India (10 H. L. C. 367 ; 9 Jur. N. S.

757 ; 2 N. E. 339 ; 11 W. E. 823) - - - - 876

- v. Trevanion (15 Si. 577 ; 12 Jur. 344) - 994
-- v. -- (15 Q. B. 733) - - 601

- v. Trimmer (L. E. 2 H. L. 208 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 318 ; 16

L. T. 722 ; 15 W. E. 1150) - 401

Walsham v. Stainton (2 H. & M. 1 ; 9 L. T. 603 ; 12 W. E. 199) - 994
Walsingham (Lord) v. Goodricke (3 Ha. 122) - 996

Walter v. Maunde (1 J. & W. 181) - 105, 147

— v. Selfe (4 De G. & S. 315) - 875, 1045

Walters, In re (9 B. 299) - 818, 819

- v. Jackson (12 Si. 278; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 383) - - 1348

- v. Northern Coal Co. (5 D. M. & G. 629; 2 Jur. N. S. 1 ; 26

L. T. 167 ; 4 W. E. 140)- 1112, 1215

- v. Pyman (19 V. 351) - 1259
- v. Webb (5 Ch. 531 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 677 ; 18 W. E. 587)- - 467

Walton-cum-Trimley (Manor of), Re (21 W. E. 475 ; 28 L. T. 12) - 396
Walton v. Stamford (Earl of) (2 Vern. 279) - - 998

Want v. Stallibrass (L. E. 8 Ex. 175 ; 42 L. J. Ex. 108 ; 29 L. T.

293 ; 21 W. E. 685) - 70, 142, 222, 1181

Warburton v.Farn (16 Si. 625 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 312 ; 13 Jur. 528) - 87
— v. Loveland (2 Dow & C. 480 ; 6 Bli. N. S. 1) 964, 1021

--- v. Sandys (14 Si. 622; 14 L. J. Ch. 431 ; 9 Jur. 503;

5 L. T. 0. S. 262) - - 681

v. Yaughan (4 Y. & C. C. C. 247) - - 1252, 1348

Ward's Estate, Ee (28 Ch. D. 100 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 231 ; 33 W. E, 149) 758
Ward, Ex parte (2 De G. & S. 4) - - 756
and Henry's Case, Re (2 Ch. 431 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 462 ; 16 L. T.

254 ; 15 W. E. 569) - 333

(Lord) v. Oxford, &c. E. Co. (2 D. M. & G. 750 ; 1 W. E. 9) - 747

v. Audland (8 B. 201 ; 14 L. J. N. S. Ch. 145 ; 9 Jur. 384) - 1018

• v. Eyre (15 Ch. D. 130 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 657 ; 43 L. T. 525 ; 28

W. E. 712) - 819

v. Ghrimes (9 Jur. N. S. 1097 ; 8 L. T. 782 ; 11 W. E. 794) - 142

v. Hartpole (3 Bli. 470) - - - 45

v. Moore (4 Mad. 368) - - 307

v. Shakeshaft (1 Dr. & S. 269 ; 2 L. T. 203 ; 8 W. E, 335) 535, 1269

v. Trathen (14 Si. 82 ; 8 Jur. 303; 3 L. T. O. S. 157) 350, 1336,

1337

v. Ward (7 Ex. 838 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 334) - 413

v. (6 Ch. 789) - - 446

v. Wolverhampton Waterworks Co. (13 Eq. 243; 41 L. J. Ch.

308 ; 25 L. T. 487 ; 20 W. E, 85) - - 926

Warde v. Dickson (7 W. E. 148 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 698 ; 28 L. J. Ch.

315; 32 L.T. 349) - - 175, 179, 180, 183, 1234

— v. Jeffery (4 Pr. 294) - 486

v. Warde (3 M. & G. 365) 996

TABLE OF CASES.

War— Wat. PAGE

Warden v. Jones (2 D. & J. 76 ; 27 L. J. Ck. 190 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 269 ;

30 L. T. 206 ; 6 W. R. 180) - 1004, 1141
Wardle v. Brocklehurst (1 E. & E. 1058; 29 L. J. Q. B. 145; 6

Jur. N. S. 319 ; 8 W. B. 241) - - 605

- v. Carter (7 Si. 490) - - 845, 849
Ware v. Cann (10 B. & C. 433 ; 8 L. J. Q. B. 164) - - 22
v. Egmont (Lord) (4 D. M. & G. 460) - - 972, 985

v. Gardner (7 Eq. 317; 38 L. J. Ch. 348; 20 L. T. 71; 17

W. R. 439) - 1029

v. Watson (7 D. M. & G. 739 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 199 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

129; 26 L. T. O. S. 251 ; 4 W. R. 223) - - - 1240
Waring v. Coventry (1 M. & K. 249) - - - 68
v. Hoggart (Ry. & Mo. 39) - - 134

—• v. Manchester R. Co. (7 Ha. 492 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 450 ; 14 Jur.

613) 1164, 1211

- v. Ward (7 V. 332) - 629, 919, 920
— v. Waring (6 Mo. P. C. 341 ; 12 Jur. 947) - - 32

Warlow v. Harrison (1 E. & E/295 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 66 ; 28 L. J. Q. B.

18; 5 Jur. N. S. 313 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 222 ; 7 W. R. 133) - 204, 224
Warn v. Bickford (9 Pr. 43) - - 887

Warneford v. Thompson (3 V. 513) - - 1272

Warner's Case (Cro. Jac. 532) - 25

Settled Estates, He (17 Ch. D. 711 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 542; 45

L. T. 37 ; 29 W. R. 726) - 316, 669

Warner v. Jacob (20 Ch. D. 220; 51 L. J. Ch. 642 ; 46 L. T. 656;

30 W. R. 731) - - - - - 35, 81

— v. Willington (3 Dr. 523 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 662 ; 2 Jur. N. S.
433 ; 27 L. T. 194 ; 4 W. R. 531) 253, 263, 266, 267

Warr v. Jones (24 W. R, 695) - - - 1139

Warren, Re (52 L. J. Ch. 928 ; 49 L. T. 696) 11, 391

- v. Bateman (Fl. & K. 455) - 196, 367
v. Davies (2 M. & K. 49 ; 2 L. J. N. S. Ch. 203) - - 693

- v. Howe (2 B. & C. 281 ; 3 D. & B. 494 ; 2 L. J. Q. B. 8) - 599

- v. Richardson (You. 1) - - 497, 1244
Warrender v. Foster (Seton, 538) - - 663
Warwick v. Bruce (2 M. & S. 205) - 235, 1161
Warwicke v. Noakes (Pea. 67) 220
Wason v. Waring (15 B. 151) - - - 973
Wasse v. Heslington (3 M. & K. 495 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 221) - 693
Waterer v. Waterer (15 Eq. 402 ; 21 W. R. 508) 1051, 1052
Waterford (Marquis of) v. Knight (11 C. & F. 653 ; 9 Jur. 335) - 402
Waterhouse v. StansHeld (9 Ha. 234 ; 10 Ha. 254 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 881 ;

16 Jur. 1006) - - - 1107

v. Wilkinson (1 H. & M. 636 ; 9 L. T. 799 ; 3 N. R.

369 ; 12 W. B, 336) - - - 1313, 1331

Waterpark (Lord) v. Fennell (7 H. L. C. 650; 5 Jur. N. S. 1135;

33 L. T. 0. S. 374 ; 7 W. R. 634) - - - 377

Waters v. Groom (11 C. & F. 684) - - 41

v. Thorn (22 B. 547) 45, 46, 849

v. Towers (8 Ex. 401) - -1079

TABLE OF CASES.

Wat— Web. PAGE

Waters v. Waters (15 W. E. 191 ; 15 L. T. 406 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 195) - 1325

Watkins, Ex parte (8 Oh. 529 ; 42 L. J. Bank. 50 ; 28 L. T. 793 ; 21

W. E. 530) - - - - - - 955

Re : see Ex parte Evans.

— v. Cheek (2 S. & S. 199) - 678, 679

v. Nash (20 Eq. 262 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 505 ; 23 W. E. 647) - 639

v. Williams (21 L. J. Ch. 601 ; 16 Jur. 181 ; 19 L. T.

0. S. 13) - - 72

Watlingv. Horwood(12 Jur. 48) - - 276

Watlington v. Waldron (23 L. J. Ch. 713 ; 4 D. M. & G. 259 ; 18

Jur. 317 ; 22 L. T. O. S. 207 ; 2 W. E. 120) - 76

Watson v. Birch (15 Si. 523; 16 L. J. Ch. 188) - - - 454

v. Cox (15 Eq. 219 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 279 ; 27 L. T. 814 ; 21

W. E. 310) - - - - 1354

v. Eales (23 B. 294 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 361 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 53 ; 28

L. T. 0. S. 243) 333

v. England (14 Si. 28 ; 2 L. T. 0. S. 455) 386, 389

v. Lyon (7 D. M. & G. 288 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 754 ; 25 L. T. 0. S.

230 ; 3 W. E. 543) - 477

• v. Marston (4 D. M. & G. 230) - -1113,1171,1187

v. Poulson (15 Jur. 1111 ; 18 L. T. 0. S. 126) - 114

v. Eeid (1 E. & M. 236) - - - 1214

v. Eodwell (11 Ch. D. 150 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 209 ; 39 L. T. 614 ;

27 W. E. 265) - - 817

• v. Spratley (10 Ex. 222; 24 L. J. Ex. 53; 22 L. T. 0. S. 227;

2 W. E. 627) - ... 233

• v. Toone (6 Mad. 153) - 40

— v. Troughton (48 L. T. 508) 409, 608, 609

. v. Woodman (20 Eq. 721 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 57 ; 24 W. E. 47) - 437,

456

Watt v. Evans (4 Y. & C. 579) - - - 1138

v. Leach (26 W. E. 475) - 1307

Watters v. Jones (6 Jur. N. S. 530 ; 2 L. T. 205) - - 1352

Watts v. Creswell (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 515) - 947

v. Girdlestone (6 B. 188 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 363 ; 7 Jur. 501) 67

v. Jeffereyes (3 M. & G. 372; 20 L. J. Ch. 659; 15 Jur. 783;

17 L. T. 0. S. 281) - - 542

v. Kelson (6 Ch. 166 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 126 ; 24 L. T. 209 ; 19

W. E. 338) - 414, 415, 520, 608, 609, 611

v. Porter (3 E. & B. 743 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 345 ; 1 Jur. N. S.

133; 20. L. E. 1553) - 522,549

v. Symes (16 Si. 640 ; 1 D. M. & G. 240 ; 13 Jur. 245 ; 21

L. J. Ch. 713 ; 16 Jur. 114 ; 18 L. T. 0. S. 216) 576, 1040

v. Watts (17 Eq. 217 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 77 ; 29 L. T. 671 ; 22

W. E. 105) - 243, 298, 302, 1112

Waugh, In re (8 D. M. & G. 279) - - 655

- v. Wyche (2 Dr. 326 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 833 ; 2 W. E. 485) - 743

Way's Trusts, In re (2 D. J. & S. 365; 34 L. J. Ch. 49; 10 Jur. N. S.
466; 11 L. T. 495; 13 W. E. 149) - - -1018

Wayn v. Lewis (1 Dr. 487 ; 1 W. E. 344) - - 1316

Webb's Estate, Re (5 I. E. Eq. 235) - 386, 390

TABLE OF CASES. Cclvil

Web— Wei. PAGE

Webb v. Austin (7 Man. & G. 701 ; 8 Sc. N. R. 419 ; 13 L. J. C. P.

203) - - - - - - - 323

v. Bird (13 C. B. N. S. 841 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 335 ; 8 Jur. N. S.

G21) - - 404, 410

v. Byng (1 K & J. 580 ; 2 K. & J. 669 ; 10 H. L. C. 171 ; 1

Jur. N. S. 696; 4 W. R. 657 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 470 ; 10 W. R.
633) - - 308, 335

v. Direct London & Portsmouth R. Co. (9 Ha. 129; 1 D. M. &

G. 521; 21 L. J. Ch. 337; 16 Jur. 323; 19 L. T. O. S. 2) - 219,

1108, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1211

v. Haycock (19 B. 342) - - - 393

v. Hughes (10 Eq. 281 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 606 ; 18 W. R. 749) - 484,

486, 487, 490

v. Kirby (7 D. M. & G. 376 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 3 Jur. N. S.

73 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 314 ; 5 W. R. 189) - 165, 222, 642, 1277
v. Ledsam (1 K. & J. 388 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 775) 685, 743, 744

v. Manchester, &c. R. Co. (4 M. & C. 118 ; 1 Ry. Ca. 576) - 248

v. Rorke (2 Sch. & L. 661) - - 41

v. Russell (3 T. R. 393) - 865

Webber v. Jones (6 Ir. Eq. R, 142) - - 1346

v. Lee (9 Q. B. D. 315 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 485 ; 47 L. T. 215 ;

30 W. R. 866 ; 47 J. P. 4) - - - 234, 425

Webster v. Birchmore (13 V. 362) - - 387

— v. Cecil (36 B. 62) - -1154

— v. Cook (2 Ch. 542 ; 16 L. T. 821 ; 15 W. R. 1001) - - 845

— v. Dillon (5 W. R. 867 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 432) - - 1167

v. Donaldson (34 B. 451 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 404 ; 12 L. T. 69 ;

13 W. R. 515) - 286, 507

. v. S. E. R. Co. (1 Si. N. S. 272; 6 Ry. Ca. 698; 20 L. J. Ch.

194) - - 512

v. Southey (36 Ch. D. 9 ; 35 W. R. 622 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 785 ;

56 L. T. 879) - - - - - - 21

v. Webster (31 B. 393 ; 6 L. T. 11 ; 10 W. R. 503) - 944
Weddall, Re (W. N. (1884) 217) - - 822
v. Nixon (17 B. 160 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 939 ; 17 Jur. 642 ; 21

L. T. 0. S. 147) - - 363, 712, 1130, 1265

Wedderburn v. Wedderburn (3 Jur. 596 ; 4 M. & C. 41 ; 8 L. J. N. S.

Ch. 177) - - - - - 55

Wedgwood v. Adams (6 B. 600 ; 8 B. 105) - 1172, 1185, 1256, 1267

Weeding, In re (4 Jur. N. S. 707 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 11) - - - 669

v. Weeding (1 J. & H. 424 ; 4 L. T. 616 ; 9 W. R. 431) - 296,

302

Weedon v. Woodbridge (13 Q. B. 462) - - - 1088

Weekes v. Gallard (18 W. R. 331 ; 21 L. T. 655) - - 1212

Weeks v. Stourton (11 Jur. N. S. 278; 12 L. T. 71; 13 W. R, 489) - 764
Weir v. Chamley (1 Ir. Ch. R. 298 ; 2 Ir. Ch. R, 566) - 2, 1234,

1277, 1337, 1350

Welchman, In re (11 B. 319) - - 816, 817

Welcome r. Upton (5 M. & W. 398 ; 6 M. & W. 536 ; 7 D. P. C.

475) - 368, 378, 425, 429

Welford v. Beazely (3 Atk. 504 ; 1 V. sen. 6) - - 271, 985-

D. r

cclviii

TABLE OF CASES.

Wei— Wet. PAGE

Wellesley v. Wollesley (4 M. & C. 561 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 21 ; 4 Jur. 2) 1069

Wells, In re (8 B. 416) - - 816, 818

-, Re (31 W. E. 764 ; 48 L. T. 859) - 4

- v. Chelmsford Local Board (15 Ch. D. 108; 49 L. J. Ch. 827;

43 L. T. 378 ; 29 W. E. 381) - 92, 750

- v. Kilpin (18 Eq. 298 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 184 ; 22 W. E. 675) - 548
v. Kingston-upon Hull (The Mayor, &c. of) (L. E. 10 C. P.

402 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 287 ; 32 L. T. 615 ; 23 W. E. 562) - 273

v. Maxwell (32 B. 408 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 565, 1021 ; 8 L. T. 591 ;

11 W. E. 676) - 485, 486, 488, 1109, 1110

— v. Eow (48 L. J. Ch. 476 ; 40 L. T. 715) - - 692

Welstead v. Colville (28 B. 537) - 681

Wensley, Ex parte (1 D. J. & S. 273 ; 7 L. T. 548 ; 32 L. J. Bkcy.

23 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 315 ; 1 N. E, 383 ; 11 W. E. 241) - - - 785

West v. Berney (1 E. & M. 451) - 1275

— v. Davidson (W. N. (1882) 28) - - 1318

v. Jones (1 Si. N. S. 205 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 362) - 118, 746, 825, 948

v. Eeid (2 Ha. 260 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 245 ; 7 Jur. 147) - 365,

375, 972, 973, 986
West Cumberland Iron & Steel Co. v. Kenyon (11 Ch. D. 782; 40

L. T. 703 ; 28 W. E. 23) - - 416

West London Commercial Bank v. Eeliance Society (27 Ch. D. 187 ;

29 Ch. D. 954 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 860 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1081 ; 51 L. T. 325 ;

53 L. T. 442 ; 32 W. E. 913 ; 33 W. E. 916) - 95, 469, 1023

West Midland E. Co. v. Nixon (1 H. & M. 176) 1128, 1129

West of England Bank v. Murch (23 Ch. D. 138 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 650 ;

48 L. T. 417 ; 31 W. E. 467) 679, 694, 1273

Westbrook v. Blythe (3 E. & B. 737; 23 L. J. Q. B. 386; 1 Jur. N. S.

85 ; 2 C. L. E, 1660 ; 2 W. E. 490) - 525, 528, 555, 961

- - 442

- 848
36 L. J. Ch. 76; 15

- 864, 868, 873
35 L. J. Ch. 190) 873, 875

- 1261
262, 269, 270, 1190, 1207

- 1165

• v. Kerrick (3 F. & F. 59)

Westby v. Westby (2 D. & War. 502)

Western v. McDermott (2 Ch. 72 ; 15 L. T. 64

W. E. 265)

(lEq. 499; 12 Jur. 366:

v.

v. Pirn (3 Y. & B. 197)
v. Eussell (3 Y. & B. 187)

Westmeath v. Westmeath (1 Dow. & C. 519)

Westminster (Dean of), Exparte (18 Jur. 1113)- - - 756

, Re (26 B. 214 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 144; 5 Jur. N. S.

232 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 115 ; 7 W. E. 81) - 756

Weston's Case (5 Ch. 614 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 753 ; 23 L. T. 287 ; 18 W. E.

957) - 1057

Weston v. Bird (2 W. E. 145) - - - 136

v. Collins (11 Jur. N. S. 190; 34 L. J. Ch. 353; 12 L. T. 4;

13 W. E. 510) - - - 241

v. Savage (10 Ch. D. 736 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 239 ; 27 W. E. 654) 156,

1179, 1200
Wetenhallv. Dennis (33 B. 285; 9 L. T. 361; 9 Jur. N. S. 1216;

12 W. E. 66) - . - 1340

Wethered v. Wethered (2 Si. 183) - - - - - 911

TABLE OF CASES. CcllX

Wet— Whi. PAGE

Wetherell v. Weighill (3 Y. & C. 243) - - - - 400

Whaley v. Bagnel (1 Br. P. C. 345) - 250, 1138

Whalley v. Whalley (3 Bli. 1) - - - 849

Wharton, In re (5 D. M. & G. 33; 23 L. J. Ch. 522; 18 Jur. 299;

22 L. T. 0. S. 298 ; 2 W. E. 248)- - 1351

Whatman v, Gibson (9 Si. 196) - - - - 864, 868

Wheate v. Hall (17 V. 80) - - 1235, 1276

Wheatley v. Purr (1 Ke. 551) - - - 1018

-v. Slade(4Si. 126) - 1193

v. Westminster Brymbo Co. (9 Eq. 538 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 175 ;

22 L. T. 7 ; 18 W. E. 162)- .... -1108

Wheeldon v. Burrows (12 Ch. D. 31 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 853 ; 41 L. T. 327;

28 W. E. 196) - 137, 409, 412, 608

Wheeler, In re (1 D. M. & G. 436 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 759) - 656

- v. Collier (1 M. & M. 123) - 224, 252

- v. D'Esterre (2 Dow. 359) - - 1147

- v. Howell (3 K. & J. 198) - 460, 692

- v. Wright (7 M. & W. 359 ; 9 D. P. C. 729) - 164
Wheelwright v. Walker (23 Ch. D. 752 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 274 ; 48 L. T.

705 ; 31 W. E. 363) ... 72, 90

Whichcote v. Bramston .(4 Si. 202) - - 845

- v. Lawrence (3 V. 740) - 36, 54
Whidborne v. Ecclesiastical Commissioners (7 Ch. D. 375 ; 47 L. J.

Ch. 129 ; 37 L. T. 346) - - - - 21

Whistler, Re (35 Ch. D. 561 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 827 ; 57 L. T. 79 ; 35

W. E. 662) 67, 695

Whitaker v. Wisbey (12 C. B. 44 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 116 ; 16 Jur. 411)- 16
Whitbread v. Jordan (1 Y. & C. 303; 4 Y. & C. 563; 1 Ph. 255;

4 L. J. Ex. Eq. 38) - - 352, 479, 766, 952, 970, 979

- v. Smith (3 D. M. & G. 727) - 1004,1019
Whitchurch v. Bevis (2 B. C. C. 565) 1133, 1138, 1148

- v. Whitchurch (2 P. W. 236) - - 310

Whitcomb v. Minchin (5 Madd. 91) 39, 42

Whitcombe, In re (8 B. 121) - - 816, 817

White's Case (3 Eq. 86 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 121) - - 333

- Mortgage, Be (51 L. J. Ch. 856 ; 29 W. E. 820) - - 18, 665
White & Hindle, Re (7 Ch. D. 201 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 85 ; 26 W. E. 124) - 1273

— , Re (6 Jur. N. S. 808) - 481

- v. Bartlett (9 Bing. 378 ; 2 L. J. N. S. C. P. 43) - - 206
. v. Bass (7 H. & N. 722 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 283 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 312 ;

5 L. T. 843) - 409

- v. Baylor (4 D. & War. 297 ; 5 Ir. Eq. E. 400) - - - 529

v. Beck (6 Ir. E. Eq. 63) - 1262

v. Boby (26 W. E, 133 ; 37 L. T. 652) - - - 1164

. v. Bradshaw (16 Jur. 738 ; 18 L. T. 0. S. 183) - 152

v. Cuddon (8 C. & F. 786; 6 Jur. 471) - 123, 127, 132, 151, 157,

158, 200, 1118, 1165, 1192, 1207, 1226

v. Damon (7 V. 30) - 1114, 1178, 1209

v. Foljambe (11 V. 343) - 94, 368, 622, 1260

TABLE OF CASES.

Whi— Wic.

White v. Garden (10 C. B. 919; 20 L. J. C. P. 166; 15 Jur. 630) 855, 1096

- v. Hill (6 Q. B. 487 ; 14 L. J. Q. B. 79 ; 9 Jur. 129) - 379

- v. James (26 B. 191 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 179 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1214 ;

7 W. E. 35) ...... 1316

- v. Lisle (4 Mad. 214) - - 378

- v. McMahon (18 L. E. Ir. 460) - 263
-- v. Nutt (1 P. W. 61 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 687, pi. 3) - - - 286
-- v. Proctor (4 Taun. 209) 209, 270

- v. Wakefield (7 Si. 401) - - 833, 984
- v. Wakley (4 Jur. N. S. 988 ; 26 B. 17 ; 6 W. E. 791) - 188

- v. Wilson (14 V. 151) - 1331
Whiteacre, Ex parte (cited 1 Sand. Uses, 421, n.) - - 376
Whitehead v. Parks (2 H. & N. 870 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 169) - 416
Whitehouse, Ex parte (32 Ch. D. 512 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 608 ; 54 L. T.

898 ; 34 W. E. 681) - - - 550

Whiteley v. Taylor (35 L. T. 187) - - 170

Whitfield (Incumbent of), In re (1 J. & H. 610 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 816 ;

7 Jur. N. S. 909 ; 9 W. E. 764) - - 752, 806

- v. Lequestre (3 De G. & S. 464) - - 1335

-- v. Eoberts (5 Jur. N. S. 113 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 431 ; 33 L. T.
O. S. 24; 7 W. E. 216) - - 1317

Whiting to Loomes (14 Ch. D. 822 ; 17 Ch. D. 10 ; 43 L. T. 83 ; 44

L. T. 718 ; 28 W. E. 822 ; 29 W. E. 435 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 463) - 190, 480

Whitlow v. Dilworth (2 S. & G. 35 ; 18 Jur. 445 ; 2 W. E. 150) - 386

Whitmel v. Earrel (1 Yen. sen. 256) - 1183

Whitmore v. Drake (19 L. T. O. S. 243) - - 1275

— v. Farley (43 L. T. 192 ; 28 W. E. 908) - 231, 1139

- v. Humphries (L. E. 7 C. P. 1 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 43 ; 25 L. T.

496 ; 20 W. E. 79) - - 188, 443

- v. Mackeson (16 B. 126) - - 108

Whittaker v. Whittaker (cited 10 Y. 599 a) - - 1242

- v. -- (4 Br. C. C. 31) - 304

Whittemore v. Whittemore (8 Eq. 603) - - 159, 732, 737, 740, 1200

Whittingham v. Cusack (6 Ir. E. Eq. 451) - - 474

Whittington v. Corder (16 Jur. 1034 ; 20 L. T. 0. S. 175 ; 1 W. E. 30) 129,

130, 133

Whittle v. Henning (2 Ph. 731) - - - 1122

Whitwell's Estate, Re(W L. E. Ir. 45) - - 1300

Whitworth v. Davies (1 Y. & B. 545) - - - 291

-- .v. Gaugain (1 Ph. 728 ; 8 L. T. 0. S. 85 ; 9 L. T. 0. S.

213 ; 10 Jur. 531) - 549, 957

Wick v. Parker (22 B. 59 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 582 ; 27 L. T. 163 ; 4 W. E.

452) - - 1030

Wickenden v. Eayson (6 D. M. & G. 210 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 162 ; 26 L. T.

O. S. 192; 4 W. E. 39) - - - 1315

-- v. Webster (5 E. & B. 387 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 264 ; 2 Jur.

N. S. 590)- . 875

Wickens v. Windus (14 Jur. 836 ; 9 C. B. 711 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 329) - 957
Wlckham v. Bath (Marquis of) (1 Eq. 17 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 5 ; 11 Jur.

N. S. 988; 13 L. T. 313; 14 W. E, 21) - - - - 777

TABLE OF CASES. Cclxi

Wic -Wil. PAQB

Wickham v. Evered (4 Mad. 53) - - 1219

- v. Hawker (7 M. & W. 63 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ex. 153) - 425, 612

- v. Nicholson (19 B. 38) - 1315, 1317, 1320

Widdow's Trusts, In re (11 Eq. 408 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 380 ; 24 L. T. 87 ;
19 W. E. 468) - ... 391

Wigan Glebe Act, In re (3 W. E. 41) - 752

Wigg v. Wigg (1 Atk. 384) 285, 928, 935
Wiggins v. Lord (4 B. 30) - - 205

Wigglesworth v. Dallison (1 Sm. L. C. ; Dougl. 201) - - - 1091
Wight's Mortgage (16 Eq. 41 ; 28 L. T. 491 ; 21 W. E. 667)- - 768

Wigmore v. Joyce (13 Ir. L. E, 164) - - - 790
Wigram v. Fryer (36 Ch. D. 87) - 404

Wilberforce v.'llearfield (5 Ch. D. 709 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 584 ; 25 W. E.
861) - 378,1094

Wilbraham v. Livesay (18 B. 206 ; 2 W. E. 281) - 105, 518, 519, 984
Wilcock v. Purchase (9 Jur. 890, n.) - 388

Wilcocks v. Wilcocks (2 Vern. 558 ; 2 Wh. & T. L. C.) - - - 1068

Wilcox v. Bellaers (T. & E. 491) 1232, 1260, 1273

v. Smith (4 Dr. 40 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 604 ; 29 L. T. 0. S. 235 ; 5

W. E, 667) - - - 314, 318

Wild v. Hillas (4 Jur. N. S. 1166 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 170 ; 32 L. T. 0. S.

186 ; 7 W. E. 82) - - - - - - 885

v. Lockhart (10 B. 320) - - - 1341

Wilde v. Gibson (1 H. L. C. 615 ; 12 Jur. 527 ; 2 Y. & C. C. C. 542) - 104,

114, 116, 842, 900, 901, 902, 903, 988, 1075, 1151

-v.Wilde (4 D. F. & J. 348 ; 10 W. E. 368, 503; 6 L. T. 275) 1268

Wildgoose v. Wayland (Gould. 147) - 967

Wilding v. Andrews (1 Coop. t. Cott. 380) . - - - 1339

v. Eichards (1 Coll. 655) - - 1004

Wiles v. Gresham (2 Dr. 258 ; 2 Eq. E. 560 ; 2 W. E. 355) - 86, 1067,

1070

v. Woodward (5 Ex. 557 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 261) - 595, 911

Wilford's Estate, Re (11 Ch. D. 267; 48 L. J. Ch. 243; 27 W. E.

455) - - - 1049

Wilkes' Estate, Re (16 Ch. D. 597 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 199) - 755

Wilkes v. Bodington (2 Vern. 599) - - 935

Wilkins v. Birmingham (The Mayor of) (25 Ch. D. 78 ; 53 L. J.

Ch. 93 ; 49 L. T. 468 ; 32 W. E. 118 ; 48 J. P. 231) - 61

- v. Fry (1 Mer. 244) - - 630

— v. Sibley (9 Jur. N. S. 888 ; 11 W. E. 897) - - 988

Wilkinson's Estate, Re (13 Eq. 634; 41 L. J. Ch. 392) - - - 1297

Wilkinson, Ex parte (3 De G. & S. 633) - 756

— , Ex parte (2 Coll. 92) - - 816

-, In re (12 W. E. 522 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 716 ; 10 L. T. 89) - 664

- v. Alston (48 L. J. Q. B. 733 ; 41 L. T. 794) - - - 215

v. Cha^esworth (10 B. 324; 16 L. J. Ch. 387; 11 Jur.

644) - - 649.

v. Collyer (13 Q. B. D. 1 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 278 ; 51 L. T.

299 ; 32 W. E. 614 ; 48 J. P. 791) ... - - 192.

Cclxii TABLE OF CASES.

Wil. PAGE

Wilkinson v. Duncan (23 B. 471 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 495; 3 Jur. N. S.

530 ; 5 W. E. 398) - - 63

— v. Fowkes (9 Ha. 592) - 853, 854

- v. Hartley (15 B. 183) 201, 1226, 1264
v. Joberns (16 Eq. 14 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 663 ; 28 L. T. 724 ; 21

W. E. 644) 1300, 1302, 1311

— v. Nelson (7 Jur. N. S. 480 ; 9 W. E. 393) - 839

• v. Proud (11 M. & W. 33 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 227 ; 7 Jur. 284) - 423,

428, 612

v. Eogers (2 D. J. & S. 62 ; 9 L. J. N. S. 696 ; 10 Jur.

N. S. 162 ; 3 N. E. 347 ; 12 W. E. 284) - - - 872

v. Torkington (2 Y. & C. 726) - 1247

Wilks v. Groom (3 Dr. 584 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 681, 1077 ; 27 L. T. 0. S.

270 ; 4 W. E. 697, 828) - 657, 745

v. Smith (10 M. & W. 355; 2 D. N. S. 215; 11 L. J. Ex.

365) - - 1088

Willan, Re (9 W. E. 689) - - 656

- v. Willan (16 V. 72 ; 2 Dow, 274) - 849, 1174

Willats v. Bushby (5 B. 193) - - - 1117

Willes v. Greenhill (29 B. 387 ; 4 D. F. & J. 147) - 966, 967, 991

— v. Levett (1 De G. & S. 392) - 311

Willet v. Winnell (1 Vern. 488 ; Eq. Ca. Ab. 313, pi. 14) - - 282

Willey v. South Eastern E. Co. (1 M. & G. 58) 508, 509

Williams's Estate, In re (5 De G. & S. 515 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 437) 294, 1346

— Settled Estate, Re (20 W. E. 967) - - 1282
Trusts, Re (36 Ch. D. 231 ; 56 L. T. 884) - 184

Williams, Ex parte (2 So. N. E. 120) - - -. 650

— , Ex parte (U Sim. 54) - 662

— , In re (15 B. 417) - - 816

- v. Ashton (1 J. & H. 115 ; 3 L. T. 177) - - 481

- v. Attenborough (T. & E. 76) - 1322, 1343
v. Aylesbury & Bucks E. Co. (21 W. E, 819; 28 L. T. 547) 515,

836, 1221

v. Aylesbury E, Co. (9 Ch. 684 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 825 ; 31 L. T.

521) - - 752

- v. Bailey (2 Eq. 731) - 1165

- v. Bayley (L. E. 1 H. L. 200; 14 L. T. 802) - 1162, 1175

v. Bland (2 Coll. 575 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 331 ; 10 Jur. 404 ; 7

L. T. 0. S. 108) - 364, 1187, 1276

- v. Brisco (22 Ch. D. 441 ; 48 L. T. 198 ; 31 W. E. 907) 1150, 1181

— v. Burrell (1 C. B. 402 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 98 ; 9 Jur. 282) - 882

- v. Byrne (1 Mo. P. C. N. S. 154 ; 8 L. T. 69 ; 2 N. E, 47 ;

11 W. E. 487) - - 252

- v. Carter (Sug. 217) - - - 1178

— v. : see Carter v. Williams.

- v. Chester and Holyhead E. Co. (15 Jur. 828) - 273

- v. Craddock (4 Si. 313) - - 527

- v. Earle (3 Q. B. 739 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 231 ; 19 L. T. 238 ;

16 W. E. 1041 ; 9 B. & S. 740) - 1083
v. Edwards (2 Si. 78) - 181, 223, 1191, 1258, 1266, 1270

TABLE OF CASES. Cclxiii

Wil. PAOB

Williams v. Evans (L. R, 1 Q. B. 352 ; 35 L. J. Q, B. Ill ; 14 W. R.

330) - 205, 221
v. - - (23 B. 239) - 608

- v. Games (10 Ch. 204) - 1300, 1302, 1311

— v. Glenton (33 B. 528 ; 1 Ch. 200 ; 13 W. R. 1030 ; 14

W. R. 294 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 801 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 175; 13
L. T. 727) - 144, 486, 491, 712, 717, 722, 726, 727, 800,

1082, 1262
v. Higden (C. P. Coop. 500) - 1104, 1191

- v. James (L. R. 2 C. P. 577 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 256 ; 16 L. T.

664 ; 15 W. R. 928) - - 414

- v. Jordan (6 Ch. D. 517 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 681 ; 26 W. R. 230) 252

- v. Lake (2 E. & E. 349 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 1 ; 6 Jur. N. S.

45 ; 1 L. T. 56) - 252

- v. Lambe (3 Br. C. C. 263) - 940, 1359

- v. Lomas (16 Jur. pt. 2, 94) - 1269

- v. Millington (1 H. Bl. 81) - - - 205

- v. Morgan (15 Q. B. 782) - - 603

- v. Moriarty (19 W. R. 818) - - - 46
v. Owen (5 M. & C. 203) - - 926

- v. Phillips (8 Q. B. D. 437 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 102 ; 46 L. T.

184 ; 30 W. R. 354) 130, 139, 187

- v. Pott (12 Eq. 149 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 775) - 435, 447

- v. Prothero (5 Bing. 309 ; 3 Y. & J. 129 ; 2 M . & P. 779) 279

- v. St. George's Harbour Co. (24 B. 339; 3 Jur. N. S. 1014;

30 L. T. 0. S. 84 ; 5 W. R. 725) - - - 62

- v. Shaw (3 Rus. 178, n.) - 290, 1151

— v. Sorrell (4 V. 389) - - - 959

— v. S. Wales R. Co. (3 De G. & S. 354 ; 13 Jur. 443 ; 13

L. T. O. S. 6) - - 511
v. Teale (6 Ha. 254) - 1249

— v. Thomas (8 Jur. N. S. 250 ; 10 W. R. 417) - - - 1066

- v. Wace (C. P. Coop. 42) - - 1337

- v. Wentworth (5 B. 325) 7

- v. Williams, Ee (9 W. R. 888) - 1282

- v. - - (17 B. 213) - 268, 269
v. (2 Dr. & S. 378 ; 2 Ch. 294 ; 16 L. T. 42 ; 36

L. J. Ch. 200, 419 ; 15 W. R. 657) 848, 1144

Vt (33 B. 306) - - 1131

v. (17 Ch. D. 437 ; 44 L. T. 573) - 985, 986, 987

v. — - (32 B. 370) 1059, 1060

Williamson v. Advocate-General (10 C. & F. 1) - - - 314

— v. Barbour (9 Ch. D. 529 ; 37 L. T. 698) - 217

Vt Barton (2 F. & F. 544 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 341 ; 7 H. & N.

899 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 170 ; 5 L. T. 800 ; 10 W. R. 321) - 212,

1073

v. Seaber(3 Y. & C. 717) - 53

v. Wootton (3 Dr. 210) » - 256, 1164-

Cclxiv TABLE OF CASES.

Wil.

Willis v. Howe (Earl) (50 L. J. Ch. 4 ; 43 L. T. 375 ; 29 W. E. 70) - 440,

455

v. Brown (10 Si. 127 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 321) - - 776

v. Hiscox (4 M. & Cr. 201) - 22, 653

v. Willis (2 Atk. 71) - - 1057

Willmott v. Barber (15 Ch. D. 96 ; 43 L. T. 95 ; 28 W. E, 911) 949, 1164,

1171

Willock v. Dargan (1 Ir. Ch. E. 39) - - 529

Willoughby v. Backhouse (2 B. & C. 821) - - 1097

v. Bridecake (11 Jur. N. S. 706 ; 13 W. E. 1056) - - 855

v. Middleton (2 J. & H. 344 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 683 ; 8 Jur.

N. S. 1055 ; 6 L. T. 814 ; 10 W. E, 460) - 594

Vm Willoughby (1 T. E. 763) 928, 932, 935

Wills v. Bridge (4 Ex. 193 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 384) - 795

v. Stradling (3 V. 381) - 1136, 1137, 1139, 1142

Willson v. Leonard (3 B. 373) - 634

Willway's Trusts, In re (1 N. E. 469 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 226) - - 1298

Wilmot v. Pike (5 Ha. 14 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 469 ; 9 Jur. 839) - 518, 943
— v. Wilkinson (6 B. & C. 506 ; 9 D. & E. 620) - - 169, 277

Wilson's Estate, In re (3 D. J. & S. 410 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 191 ; 7 L. T.

772 ; 1 N. E. 301 ; 11 W. E. 295) - - 802

- Bill, He (1 L. T. 25) - - 1287

Wilson, In re (29 Ch. D. 790 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 627 ; 53 L. T. 406) 204, 700,

822

v. Allen (1 J. & W. 614) - 367, 1264

v. Bennett (5 De G. &S. 475 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 741 ; 16 Jur. 966;

19 L. T. O, S. 243) 682, 686, 1274

- v. Clapham (1 J. & W. 37) - 709, 732, 1260

v. Eden (5 Ex. 752 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 73 ; 16 L. T. 0. S. 152) - 308

v. Finch-Hatton (2 Ex. D. 336 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 489 ; 36 L. T.

473 ; 25 W. E. 537) - - - 103

• v. Foreman (cited 10 V. 519) - 1068

v. Foster (26 B. 398 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 410 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 113 ; 32

L. T. O. S. 250; 7 W. E. 172)- 810, 811

v. Fuller (3 Q. B. 68; 3 G. & D. 570) - 103, 104, 113, 902, 1095

v. Furness E. Co. (9 Eq. 28) - - 1111

v. Greenwood (10 Si. 101, n.) - - 1322

v. Hart (7 Taun. 296) - - 211

v. (1 Ch. 463 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 569 ; 12 Jur. 460 ; 14 L. T.

499 ; 14 W. E. 748) 520, 865, 869, 981

v. Kearse (2 Pea. N. P. 196) - 31

v. Keating (5 Jur. N. S. 815 ; 7 W. E. 484) - - - 832

v. Knubley (7 Ea. 128) - 895

v. Northampton & Banbury Junct. E. Co. (9 Ch. 279 ; 43

L. J. Ch. 503 ; 30 L. T. 147 ; 22 W. E. 380) 1110, 1111

v. Eastall (4 T. E. 753) - - - - - 994

v. Sewell (4 Burr. 1979) - - - - 47

v. Short (6 Ha. 366 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 289 ; 12 Jur. 301) - - 279

TABLE OF CASES. CC'lxV

Wil— Wis. PAGE

Wilson v. Tumman (6 Sc. N. R. 894 ; 6 Man. & G. 236 ; 1 D. & S.

513; 12 L. J. C. P. 307) 216, 217

Vt Waddell (2 Ap. Ca. 95 ; 4 Ret. (H. L.) 29 ; 35 L. T. 639) - 422

v. Wallani (5 Ex. D. 155 ; 49 L. J. Ex. 437 ; 42 L. T. 275 ;

28 W. R. 597) - - 630
Vm West Hartlepool R. Co. (2 D. J. & S. 475 ; 34 L. J. Ch.

241 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 124 ; 11 L. T. 692; 13 W. R. 361) - 219,

1136, 1139, 1145

v. Whateley (1 J. & II. 436 ; 3 L. T. 617; 9 W. R. 331) - 606

v. Williams (3 Jur. N. S. 810) 313, 585, 1117, 1125, 1186, 1188,

1189, 1192, 1197, 1264

v. Wilson (14 C. B. 616 ; 2 C. L. R. 818 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 137 ;

18 Jur. 581) 195, 269, 1072

Vt _ _ (14 Si. 405 ; 1 H. L. C. 538 ; 5 H. L. C. 40) 1005, 1165

Wilts & Somerset R. Co., Re (3 Ex. 728 ; 13 L. T O. S. 73) - - 707
Wiltshear v. Cottrell (1*E. & B. 674; 22 L. J. Q. B. 177 ; 17 Jur.

758) - 149

Wiltshire r. Rabbits (14 Si. 76 ; 8 Jur. 769) - 518, 947

- v. Sims (1 Camp. 258) - 205

Wimbledon Common Conservators v. Dixon (1 Ch. D. 362 ; 45 L. J.

Ch. 353 ; 33 L. T. 679 ; 24 W. R, 466) - - - 414

Wimbush, Export* (3 C. L. 340) - - 650

Winch v. Winchester (1 V. & B. 375) - - 736, 1156, 1261

Winchelsea (Earl of) v. Norcliffe (1 Yern. 434; 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 262,

pi. 4) - - 96

Winchester (Bishop of), Ex parte (10 Ha. 137 ; 16 Jur. 649) - - 756

v. Mid Hants R. Co. (5 Eq. 17 ; 37 L. J. Ch.

64; 17 L. T. 161; 16 W. R. 72) - 515,836,1116,1128,

1221
- College (Warden of), Ex parte (14 W. R. 788 ; 14 L. T.

543) - - 757

v. Paine (11 V. 194) - - 1274

Winder, Ex parte (6 Ch. D. 696 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 572 ; 25 W. R. 768) 58,

463, 750

Windsor, &c. Ry. Act, In re (12 B. 522) - 719, 808

Wing v. Angrave (8 H. L. C. 183 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 65) - 390

v. Tottenham & Hainpstead Junction R. Co. (3 Ch. 740 ; 37

L. J. Ch. 654 ; 16 W. R. 1098) - 514, 836, 1221

Winged v. Lefebury (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 32) - 291

Winn v. Bull (7 Ch. D. 32 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 139 ; 26 W. R. 230) 265, 266
Winship v. Hudspeth (10 Ex. 5 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 268 ; 2 C. L. R. 1042) 430
Winter v. Anson (Lord) (3 Russ. 488 ; 6 L. J. Ch. 7 ; 1 Si. & St.

445) 742, 825, 829, 830, 831, 832

v. Blades (2 S. & S. 393 ; 4 L. J. Ch. 81) - - 717

- v. Brockwell (8 Ea. 308) - 232

Winterbottom, In re (15 B. 80) - - - 817

— v. Ingham (7 Q. B. 611 ; 14 L. J. Q. B. 298 ; 10 Jur. 4) 290,

504, 505, 1085

Wise, Re (5 De G. & S. 415) - 694
v. Beresford (3 D. & War. 276) - ... 541

TABLE OF CASES.

Wis— Woo. PAGE

Wise v. Piper (13 Ch. D. 848 ; 49 L. J. Oh. 611 ; 41 L. T. 794 ; 28

W. E. 442) - - 1235

v. Wise (2 J. & L. 412) - 966, 988

Wiseman v.Beake (2 Vern. 121 ;Eq. Ca. Ab.91,pl. 4; 2Freem. Ill) 56,846

— v. Westland (1 Y. & J. 117) 959, 981

Wishart v. Wylie (1 Macq. 389 ; 1 W. E, 538) - - 419, 426

Witchcot v. Nine (Brownl. 81) - 882

Witham v. Vane (32 W. E. 617) - - 366

-v. Vane (cited Challis' E. P. 341) - - 876

WithiDgton v. Tate (4 Oh. 288 ; 20 L. T. 637 ; 17 W. E, 559) - 987

Withy v. Cottle (T. & E, 78 ; 1 S. & S. 174) 484, 1106, 1108, 1225

Wodehouse v. Farebrother (5 E. & B. 277; 25 L. J. Q. B. 18; 1

Jur. N. S. 798) - - - 1102

Wollaston v. Berkeley (2 Ch. D. 213; 34 L. T. 171 ; 24 W. E. 360) 390

v. Hakewill (3 Man. & G. 297 ; 3 Sc. N. E. 593) - - 354

. v. Tribe (9 Eq. 44) - 1011, 1016, 1022

Wolley v. Jenkins (23 B. 53 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 321 ; 28 L. T. 362 ; 5

W. E. 281) - 69, 1276

Wolseley v. Cox (2 Q. B. 321 ; 11 L. J. Q. B. 9 ; 6 Jur. 599) - 797

Wolverhampton Banking Co. v. George (24 Ch. D. 707) - - 1347

Wolverhampton E. Co. v. London & North Western E. Co. (16 Eq.

433 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 131) ' - - 1168

Wolveridge v. Steward (1 Cr. & M. 644 ; 3 M. & Sc. 561) - - 629

Wombwell v. Layer (2 Si. 360) - - - 1064

Wonham v. Machin (10 Eq. 447 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 789 ; 23 L. T. 479 ; 18

W. E. 1098) - - 1341

Wood's Estate, Re (31 Ch. D. 607 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 488 ; 54 L. T. 145 ;

34 W. E. 375) - - 813

, Ee (10 Eq. 572; 40 L. J. Ch. 59; 23 L. T. 430; 19

W. E. 59) - - 755

Wood, In re (3 D. F. & J. 125 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 453 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 323 ;

4 L. T. 104) - - - 655
, Ee (3 M. & C. 266; 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 144 ; 2 Jur. 201) - 779

v. Abrey (3 Mad. 417) - - 841, 844, 854

v. Aylward (57 L. T. 54) - - - 263

v. Baxter (49 L. T. 45) - - 203

v. Beetlestone (1 K. & J. 213 ; 3 Eq. E. 238) 1276, 1347

v. Bernal (19 Y. 220) - 491, 1205

• v. Birch (Sugd. 698) - 1048, 1050, 1055

v. Calvert (34 W. E. 732 ; 55 L. T. 53) - 822

v. Cooper (1 C. & K. 645) - - - 109

v. Copper Miners' Co. (7 C. B. 906 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 34) - 615

v. (14 C. B. 428 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 209 ; 1 Jur.

N. S. 65) - 1088

• v. • (17 C. B. 561; 25 L. J. C. P. 166) - - 1102

v. Court (2 S. Atk. Conv. 463) - 319

- v. Dixie (7 Q. B. 892 ; 9 Jur. 796)- . - - - 1024

v. Downes (18 Y. 128) - 56, 278

v. Edwards (W. N. (1876) 15) - - 1219

v. EpsomE,Co.(8C.B.N.S. 731; 30 L, J. C. P. 83; 2L.T.487) 248

TABLE OF CASKS. Cclxvii

PAGE

Woodv. Griffith (1 Sw. 56) - - 278

- v. Lake (Say. 3) - - - 230

- v. Lambirth (1 Ph. 8; 5 Jur. 741) - 648

- v. Leadbitter (13 M. & W. 840; 14 L. J. Ex. 161 ; 9 Jur. 187) 230,

1043

- v. Londonderry (Marquis of) (10 B. 465 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 460 ; 12

Jur. 735) ' -999, 1000

- v. Machu (5 Ha. 158 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 21 ; 10 Jur. 1001) - 489, 1225,

1227, 1228

- v. Manley (11 A. & E. 34 ; 3 P. & D. 5 ; 3 Jur. 1028) - 127

- v. Midgley (5 D. M. & G. 41 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 553 ; 23 L. T. 0. S.

59 ; 2 W. E. 301) - 257, 264, 1134, 1148

-- v. Patteson (10 B. 541) - 2

- v. Bichardson (4 B. 174; 5 Jur. 623) - - 1165, 1273

- v. Eowcliffe (6 Ex. 407 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 285) - - 603

- - v. Saunders (10 Ch. 582) - 414

- v. Scarth (2 K. & J. 33 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1107 ; 26 L. T. 0. S. 87;

4 W. E. 31) - - 254, 263, 1077, 1153, 1154

- v. Waud (3 Ex. 748 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 305 ; 13 Jur. 472 ; 13 L. T.

O. S. 212) - - 415, 418

- v. Wheater (22 Ch. D. 281 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 144 ; 47 L. T. 440 ;

31 W. E. 117) - - 81, 455
-- v, White (4 M. & C. 460 ; 2 Ke. 664 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 203 ;

8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 209 ; 3 Jur. 117) 68, 69, 1127, 1246

Woodall In re (3 C. B. 639) - 650, 651

Woodcock's Trusts, In re (3 Ch. 230; 16 W. E. 532) - 1290, 1292, 1351

Woodcock, In re (1 C. B. 437) - - - 651

- v. Titterton (12 W. E. 865) - 467
Woodford v. Brooking (17 Eq. 425 ; 22 W. E. 683) - - 1317
Woodhouse v. Jenkins (9 Bing. 431 ; 2 M. & Sc. 599) - 885
Woodman v. Higgins (14 Jur. 846) - - - 478

- v. Morrel (Freem. 32) - 1059
Woodroff v. Greenwood (Cro. Eliz. 518) - - 883
Woodroffe v. Allen (1 Hay. & J. 73 ; Sug. 277) - 845
Woods v. Huntingford (3 V. 128) - - 919
Woodward v. Miller (2 Coll. 279; 15 L. J. Ch. 6; 16 L. J. Ch. 16;

9 Jur. 1003 ; 6 L. T. O. S. 167) - 124, 224, 1268

Woof v. Barren (W. N. (1873), 71) - - 1321

Woolfe v. Home (2 Q. B. D. 355 ; 46 L. J. Q, B. 534 ; 36 L. T. 705;

25 W. E. 728) - - 203

Woollam v. Hearne (2 Wh. & T. L. C. ; 7 V. 211) - 121, 124, 125, 1149

1153, 1198

Woolley's Estate, Re (17 Jur. 850) - 805, 807

WooUey v. Colman (21 Ch. D. 169 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 854 ; 46 L. T. 737 ;

30 W. E. 769) 1318, 1324

Woolstencroft v. Woolstencroft (2 D. F. & J. 347 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 22 ;

6 Jur. N. S. 1170 ; 3 L. T. 388 ; 9 W. E. 42) - 923

Wootton v. Steffanoni (12 M. & W. 129 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 72) - - 27
Worcester Banking Co. v. Blick (22 Ch. D. 255 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 228 ;

48 L. T. 516; 31 W. E, 195) ..... 1066

Cclxviii TABLE OF CASES.

Wor — Wri . PAGE

Worley v. Frampton (5 Ha. 560; 16 L. J. Ch. 102; 10 Jur. 1092) - 94,

146, 197, 622, 623

Wormald v. Maitland (35 L. J. Ch. 69) 960, 980

Wormsley's Estate, Re (4 Ch. D. 665; 46 L. J. Ch. 102; 25 W. E. 141) 921
Worrall v. Jacob (3 Mer. 256) - 1005

Worsley v. S. Devon E. Co. (16 Q. B. 539 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 254; 15

Jur. 970) - - 61, 509, 514

Wortham v. Dacre (Lord) (2 K. & J. 437 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 63 ; 4 W. E.

451) - - 799, 800, 1262

v. Pemberton (1 De G. & S. 644) - 10, 649

Worthington v. Gimson (2 E. & E. 618 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 116 ; 6 Jur.

N. S. 1053) - - - 609

v. Morgan (16 Si. 547 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 233) 479, 766, 826

952, 977, 980, 985, 987

v. Warrington (5 C. B. 636 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 117) - 163,

168, 276

-v.- - (8 C. B. 134 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 350) 1077, 1079

Wootton's Estate, In re (1 Eq. 589 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 305 ; 14 L. T. 125 ;

14 W. E. 469) - - 755

Wray v. Steele (2 Y. & B. 388) - 1055

Wren v. Kirton (8 V. 502) - - 1343

- v. Weild (L. E. 4 Q. B. 730 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 88 ; 20 L. T. 277) 121

Wright's Trustees to Marshall (28 Ch. D. 93 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 60 ; 51

L. T. 781 ; 33 W. E. 304) - - 87, 1235

- Trusts, Re (24 Ch. D. 662 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 139) - 758

Wright, Exparte (19 Y. 257) - - - 909

— v. Bigg (15 B. 592) - - 210
v. Burroughs (4 D. & L. 438 ; 3 C. B. 685 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 6) 916
v. Colls (8 C. B. 158 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 60) - - 1072

• v. Commissioners of Inland Eeyenue (11 Ex. 458; 25 L. J.

Ex. 49) - 798

— v. Dannah (2 Camp. 203) - 209, 210
v. Davies (1 C. P. D. 638 ; 35 L. T. 181 ; 24 W. E. 841) - 281

v. Goff (22 B. 207 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 481 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 179 ; 4

W. E. 522) -839,1153

— v. Howard (1 S. & S. 190 ; 1 L. J. Ch. 94) - 415, 484, 602, 1199,

1266
v. Kirby (23 B. 463 ; 29 L. T. 46 ; 5 W. E. 391) - - 1341

— v. Lambert (6 Ch. D. 649 ; 26 W. E. 206) - - - 63
v. Pitt (12 Eq. 408 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 558 ; 25 L. T. 13) - 312, 631
v. Proud (13 V. 136) - 7, 24

v. Eobotham (33 Ch. D. 106 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 791 ; 55 L. T.

241 ; 34 W. E. 668) - - 473

— v. Smythies (10 Ea. 409) - ... 370
v. Snowe (2 De G. & S. 321) - - - 5, 947

v. Stanfield (27 B. 8 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 183 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 5 ; 32 '

L. T. 171) - - - 768

v. Stavart (2 E. & E. 721 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 161 ; 8 W. E. 413) 236

v. Vanderplank (8 D. M. & G. 133 ; 2 K. & J. 1 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

599 ; 27 L. T. 0. S. 91 ; 3 W. E. 637 ; 4 W. E. 410) - 23,

45, 54, 848, 855

TABLE OF CASES. Cclxix

Wri— Yea.

Wright v. Vornon (1 Dr. 344 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 447 ; 1 W. R. 138) - - 996

v. Williams (1 M. & W. 77 ; 1 Tyr. & G. 375 ; 1 Gale, 410) - 418
— v. Wilson (1 M. & R. 207) - - 151

Wrightson r. Hudson (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 609, pi. 7) 784, 959

Wrigley v. Sykes (21 B. 337 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 458 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 78 ; 26

L. T. 0. S. 252 ; 4 W. R. 228) - - - 65, 695, 697, 700

Wrixon v. Vize (3 D. & War. 104) - - 434, 453, 455

Wrout v. Dawes (25 B. 369 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 397 ; 31 L. T. 0. S. 261) 746, 832
Wyatt v. Barwell (19 V. 435) 960, 965

Wycherley v. Barnard (Johns. 41 ; 32 L. T. 0. S. 370) - - - 1240

Wy combe R. Co. v. Donnington Hospital (1 Ch. 268 ; 12 Jur. 347 ;

14 L. T. 179; 14 W. R. 359) - - 705

Wyllie v. Ellice (6 Ha. 505) - - 1034

Wylson v. Dunn (34 Ch. D. 569 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 855 ; 56 L. T. 192 ; 35

W. R. 405) - - - 1179, 1180

Wyman v. Carter (12 Eq. 315 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 559) - - 1337

Wynn's Estate, Re (16 Eq. 237 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 95 ; 21 W. R. 695) - 1298
Wynn v. Morgan (7 V. 202) - - 1178

Wynne v. Griffith (1 Russ. 283) - - - 322

-- v. Price (3 De G. & S. 310 ; 13 Jur. 295 ; 12 L. T. 0. S. 531) 332,

333, 1106, 1108

- v. Styan (2 Ph. 303) - 451, 454

- v. Tyrwhitt (4 B. & Aid. 376) - - - 351
Wynterv. Bold (1 S. & S. 507) - 691
Wyse v. Russell (11 L. R. Ir. 173) 263, 1095
Wythe v. Henniker (2 M. & K. 635 ; 3 Jur. N. S. Ch. 24) - - 829
Wythes v. Lee (3 Dr. 396 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 177 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 7 ; 26 L. T.

O. S. 192 ; 4 W. R. 184) - 223, 506

Wyvill v. Bishop of Exeter (1 Pr. 292) 287, 484, 1265

Xenos v. Wickham (L. R. 2 II. L. 296 ; 16 L. T. 800 ; 16 W. R. 38) 639

Yallop, Ex parte (15 V. 68) - - 1055

Yardley v. Holland (20 Eq. 428 ; 33 L. T. 301) - - - 437

Yarnall, Ex parte (17 C. B. 189) - 650

Yarnold v. Wallis (4 Y. & C. 160 ; 4 Jur. 1156) - - 308

Yates v. Farebrother (4 Mad. 239) - - 205

v. Gardiner (20 L. J. Ch. 327) - - - 1088

v. Hoppe (9 C. B. 541 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 180 ; 14 Jur. 372) - 214

v. Jack (1 Ch. 295 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 539 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 305 ; 14

L. T. 151 ; 14 W. R. 618) - - 404, 408

v. Plurnbe (2 S. & G. 174 ; 22 L. T. 270 ; 2 W. R. 242) - 766

Yea v. Field (2 T. R. 708 ; 6 Q. B. 446) - - - 826
Yearwood's Trusts, Re (5 Ch. D. 545 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 478 ; 25 W. R. 461) 383

Yeates, In re (12 Jur. 279) - - 759, 808

Cclxx TABLE OF CASES.

Yem— Zou. PAGE
Yem v. Edwards (1 D. & J. 599 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 23 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 647 ;

6W. E. 20) - - - 188
Yescombe v. Lander (28 B. 80; 28 L. J. Ch. 876; 33 L. T. 0. S.

376 ; 7 W. B. 534) - - - 542

Yonge v. Furse (24 L. J. Ch. 643 ; 25 L. T. 0. S. 113 ; 3 W. E. 383) 920

v. Eeynell (9 Ha. 809) - 1175

York Buildings Co. v. Mackenzie (8 Bro. P. C. 56) -52, 53, 54

Union Banking Co. v. Astley (11 Ch. D. 205 ; 27 W. E 704) - 1321

v. Eeg. (1 E. & B. 858) - 1101

Young and Harston, Re (31 Ch. D. 168 ; 53 L. T. 837 ; 34 W. E,

84 ; 50 J. P. 245) - - 723, 724

- v. English (7 B. 10 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 76) - 638

- v. Guy (8 B. 149 ; 3 L. T. O. S. 260) - - 220, 746, 1253

— v. Leamington (Mayor of) (8 Ap. Ca. 517; 49 L. T. 1; 31

W. E. 925) - - - 218, 220, 273

v. Eaincock (7 C. B. 310 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 193 ; 13 Jur. 539 - 595,

890

- v. Eoberts (15 B. 558) - - - 1273
v. Schuler (11 Q. B. D. 651 ; 49 L. T. 546) - 269, 271, 1092

- v. Smith (1 Eq. 180; 11 Jur. N. S. 963) 594, 595
v. Tregear (21 W. E. 215) - - 583

— v. Waterpark (Lord) (13 Si. 204; 10 Jur. 1) 437, 439, 443, 453

- v. "White (7 B. 506 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 419 ; 8 Jur. 654) 221, 746

— v. Young (3 Eq. 801) - 930, 933, 1306

Younge v. Clare Hall (17 Q. B. 529 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 12 ; 16 Jur. 81) 402

- v. Buncombe (You. 275) - - 1219

- v. Shaper (27 L. T. 643 ; 21 W. E. 135) - 408
Younghusband v. Gisborne (1 D. G. & S. 209) - 537
Ystalfera Iron Co. v. Neath, &c. E. Co. (17 Eq. 142; 43 L. J. Ch.

476 ; 29 L. T. 662 ; 22 W. E. 149) - - - 248

Zetland (Earl of) v. Hislop (7 Ap. Ca. 427) - 865, 1169

Zincraft's Will Trusts, Re (33 Ch. D. 414 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 272 ; 55

L. T. 498 ; 35 W. E. 172) - 656

Zouch v. Parsons (3 Burr. 1794 ; 1 Sir W. Bl. 575) - - 2, 9

— v. Swaine (1 Yern. 320) - 897

Zouche (Lord) v. Dalbiac (L. E, 10 Ex. 172 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 109; 33

L. T. 221 ; 23 W. E. 564) - ... 434

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

PAGE

9 Hen. III. c. 16 (Magna Charta) - 426

16 Bic. II. c. 5 (Prsemunire) - - 15

21 Hen. VIII. c. 4 (Disclaimer by Executors) - 686, 1275

27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 (Statute of Uses) - - 584

32 Hen. VIII.

c. 9 (Sale of Pretenced Titles) 277 et seq.

c. 16 (Aliens) - 27

c. 24 (Landlord and Tenant) - - 916

33 Hen. VIII. c. 39 (Crown Debts) - - - 562
13Eliz.

c. 4 (Crown Debts) - - 562

c. 5 (Fraudulent Deeds against Creditors) 1006, 1024 et

seq., 1063, 1064

27 Eliz. c. 4 (Voluntary Conveyances) - 540, 1002 et seq., 1023,

1063, 1119

s. 5 1002, 1021

29 Eliz. c. 5 (Perpetuating 13 Eliz. c. 5) - 1024

39 Eliz. c. 18 (Perpetuating 27 Eliz. c. 4), s. 31 - 1002

1 Jac. I. c. 15 (Purchase by Bankrupt Trader), s. 5 - 1064

21 Jac. I. c. 2 (Adverse Possession against Crown) - - 467

15 Car. II. c. 17 (Bedford Level Act) - - 776

18 & 19 Car. II. c. 6 (Kuff. 19 Car. II. c. 1) (Proof of Death of

Cestuique Vie] - - - 387

29 Car. II.

c. 3 (Statute of Frauds) - 307, 1090, 1094, 1117, 1133, 1134 et

seq., 1147, 1148, 1330

s. 1 - - - 229

s. 2 - 228

s. 4 - 227, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 250 et

seq., 425

s. 7 - - - 1054

s. 8 - - 1055

s. 10 - - 526, 541

s. 16 - - 527

s. 17 - 233

3 & 4 W. & M. c. 14 (Fraudulent Devises) - - 702

4 & 5 W. & M. c. 20 (Docketing Judgments) - - 527, 544

Cclxxii TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

7 & 8 Will. III. PAGE

c. 25 (Conveyances for Splitting Votes) - - 280

c. 36 (Perpetuating 4 & 5 W. & M. c. 20) - - 527
4 & 5 Anne, c. 3 (Ruff. 4 Ann. c. 16) (Attornments),

s. 9 - 916, 1044

s. 10 - - - 914

6 Anne,

c. 20 (Ruff. 5 Ann. c. 18) (West Riding Registry Act) - 555, 767,

769

c. 62 (Ruff. c. 35) (East Riding Registry Act) 767, 769

s. 15 - - 771

s. 30 - 635

s. 34 - 635

c. 72 (Ruff. c. 18) (Production of Cestui que Vie} - - 387

7 Anne,

c. 5 (British Subject) - 27

c. 20 (Middlesex Registry Act) - 555, 767, 769, 770, 771,

958, 961

10 Anne,

c. 28 (Ruff. c. 18) (Inrolment of Crown Leases), s. 3 - - 355
c. 31 (Ruff. c. 23) (Conveyances for multiplying Votes) - 280

13 Anne,

c. 11 (Ruff. 12 An. c. 12) (Simony) - - - 281

c. 18 (Ruff. 12 An. st. 2, c. 9) (Stamps), s. 24 - 796

9 Geo. I. c. 7 (Poor Law) - 25

4 Geo. II. c. 21 (Naturalization, &c.) - - - - 27

7 Geo. II. c. 20 (Foreclosure, &c.) - - - - - 311

8 Geo. II. c. 6 (North Riding Registry) - - 767, 769, 771, 958

s. 35 - - - _ - 635

9 Geo. II.

c. 5 (Ireland : Proof of Lease for a Year) - - 356

c. 36 (Mortmain Act) - - 303, 370, 777, 828, 1163

14 Geo. II. c. 20 (Common Recoveries) - 358, 957
1 Geo. III. c. 3 (Proof of Lease for a Year (Ireland) ) - 356
9 Geo. III. c. 16 (Nullum Tempus Act) - - - - 468

11 & 12 Geo. III. c. 10 (Irish Mortgage Act) - - - 457

13 Geo. III. c. 21 (Alien Act) ----- 27

14 Geo. III. c. 78 (Metropolitan Building Act), s. 83 - - 197
25 Geo. III. c. 35 (Sale of Land of Crown Debtors) - - 1337

37 Geo. III.

c. 97 (Naturalization of United States' Subjects) - - 28

c. 136 (Stamp Duties), s. 2 - - - - - 785

38 Geo. III. c. 60 (Land Tax) - - 393, 422, 1039

s. 40 - . .' 781

s. 78 . . 1125

41 Geo. III. c. 109 (General Inclosure Act) - - - 42

s. 1 _ . 370

s- 9 - - 380

s- n - - 380

" s. 35 - 351

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. Cclxxili

44 Geo. HI. c. 98 (Stamps). PAGE

s. 14 - - - - 823

s. 24 - - - - - 785

47 Geo. in. c. 74 (Real Estate Assets), s. 2 - - - 702

48 Geo. III.

c. 47 (Title against Crown) - 468, 958

c. 149 (Stamps) - - - 597

s. 22 787

s. 24 - - 787

s. 33 - - 795

s. 34 - 795

52 Geo. in. c. 101 (Charitable Trusts (Sir S. Romilly's Act)) 19, 1351

53 Geo. III.

c. 102 (Insolvent Debtors), s. 24 - 359

c. 127 (Account for Tithes), s. 5 - - 433

c. 141 (Sale of Annuity by Infant) - - 5, 30

54 Geo. III.

c. 70 (Land Tax Redemption) - - 17

c. 145 (Corruption of Blood) - - - 15

c. 173 (Land Tax Redemption) - 17

s. 12 - - 957

55 Geo. III.

c. 147 (Exchange of Ecclesiastical Property) - - - 327

c. 184 (Stamp Duties) 597, 787, 796

Sched. - - 598, 795

56 Geo. III. c. 52 (Ecclesiastical Property) - 327

57 Geo. III. c. 100 (Land Tax Redemption) - 17, 958
1 Geo. IV. c. 6 (Ecclesiastical Property) - 327
1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 92 (Charity Lands Exchange) - - - 328
3 Geo. IV. c. 126 (General Turnpike Act), s. 67 - - 1118

5 Geo. IV.

c. 74 (Weights and Measures Uniformity),

s. 1 - - 727

s.2 727

s. 15 - - 728

c. 84 (Pardon of Felons) - 15

6 Geo. IV.

c. 8 (Ecclesiastical Property) - - 327

c. 16 (Bankruptcy) - - 292

s. 73 - - 1064

s. 97 - - 359

s. 108 - - 529

c. 104 (Crown Debtors), s. 7 - 562

c. 105 (Crown Debtors), s. 13 - - - 562

7 Geo. IV.

c. 57 (Insolvent Debtors), s. 76 - 359

c. 66 (Church and Clergy) - - 327
9 Geo. IV.

c. 14 (Guarantee of Promises) - - - - 115

D. S

CclxxiV TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

9 Geo. IV. PAGE

c. 31 (Treason and Felony) - - - 15

c. 61 (General Licensing Act) - 483

10 Geo. IV.

c. 7 (Catholic Emancipation) - - - 33

c. 50 (Woods and Forests),

s. 46 - - 958

s. 73 - 958

1 Will. IV.

c. 36 (Execution of Conveyance by Master), s. 15 - - 1252

c. 38 (Insolvent Debtors), s. 6 - - - 957

c. 47 (Payment of Debts out of Eealty) - 896

s. 11 - - 1347

s. 12 - - 1347

c. 60 (Trustees and Mortgagees) - 655, 1251

s. 8 - 1252

s. 17 - - 799

c. 65 (Lunatics and Persons under Disability) - 1351

s.27 7

1 & 2 Will. IV.

c. 56 (Bankruptcy), s. 29 - 359

c. 58 (Interpleader) - 205, 206

2 & 3 Will. IV.

c. 71 (Prescription Act) - 368, 403, 418, 427, 429, 468

s. 1 -425, 430, 431

s. 2 - 410, 430

s. 3 404, 407

s. 4 404, 431, 432

s. 7 - 431

s. 8 405, 429, 430

c. 80 (Identification of Ecclesiastical Lands) - - 378

c. 100 (Limitations of Actions for Tithes) - - 401

s. 1 - - 402

s. 4 - - 402

s. 5 - - 402

s. 6 - - 402

c. 110 (Metropolitan Cemetery), s. 90 - 575

c. 115 (Eoman Catholic Charities) 33

3 & 4 Will. IV.

c. 27 (Statute of Limitations) 278, 403, 468, 560, 710, 881, 944

s. 1 - 403, 433

s. 2 - 403, 432, 435, 449, 464

s. 3 - 435, 446

- s. 4 - 446

s. 5 - 446

s. 6 - 436

s. 7 - - 442

s. 8 - - - - - - 444

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. CclxXV

3 & 4 Will. IV. PAGE
c. 27 (Statute of Limitations),

8. 9 - 444, 447

s. 10 - - 441

s. 12 .... 446

s. 13 - ... 446

s. 14 444, 445, 458

s. 15 - - 433

s. 16 - 433

s. 17 - - 433

s. 18 - 433, 435

s. 19 - - 433

s. 20 - .... 447

s. 21 - - 448

s. 22 ... 449

s. 23 - - - - - - 450

s. 24 432, 441, 455

s. 25 - 437, 438, 441, 828, 1034

s. 26 - 440, 1035

s. 27 - - 440

s. 28 445, 451, 458

8. 29 - - 452

s. 30 - 334, 452

s. 31 - - 452

s. 32 ..... 453

s. 33 - - 453

s. 34 452, 463, 464

s. 35 - - 446

s. 36 ... 450

s. 40 - 446, 454, 455, 458, 828

s. 41 - 459

s. 42 - 446, 454, 458, 459, 461

c. 42 (Eeal Estate Assets) - - 461

c. 74 (Fines and Eecoveries Act) - 9, 356, 450, 569

ss. 4—12 - - 957

s. 13 - - - 358

s. 21 - - 580

s. 38 - 779, 912

s. 41 - - 778

s. 42 - - 779

s. 46 - - 779

s. 47 - 322, 325, 946, 1117, 1186

s. 50 - - 779

s. 51 - 780, 781

s. 52 - - 780

s. 53 - 779, 781

s. 54 - - 780

s. 60 - - 913

s. 61 - - 913

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

3 & 4 Will. IV. PAGE

c. 74 (Fines and Eecoveries Act),

s. 62 - - - 912

s. 65 - - - 913

s. 74 - - 779

s. 77 - - 10, 643, 648, 1119

s. 78 9

s. 79 - - 645

s. 83 - - 645

s. 90 - - 648

s. 91 - 649, 651, 1119

c. 87 (Non-Enrolment of Award) - - 958

s. 2 - - 351

c. 104 (Freeholds and Copyholds Assets) - 549, 702, 1316, 1347

c. 105 (Dower Act) - 313, 584, 586, 613, 614

s.4 - - 1117

s. 5 - - 1117

c. 106 (Inheritance Act)

s.2 - - 380

s. 3 - - 306

4 & 5 Will. IV.

c. 22 (Apportionment Act) - - 914

c. 23 (Escheat of Trust Property) - 293, 655, 1251

s. 3 - 661

s. 5 - 661

c. 29 (Investment on Land in Ireland) - 97

c. 30 (Exchange and Inclosure) - - 327

5 & 6 Will. IV.

c. 54 (Marriage Law Amendment Act) - - - 1058

c. 63 (Customary and Local Measures), s. 6 - - 728
c. 76 (Municipal Corporations),

s. 94 93

s. 97 - 22

6 Will. IV.

c. 20 (Ecclesiastical Leases),

e. 2 - - - - 356

s. 9 - - - 356

c. 75 (Local and Personal), s. 218 - - 860
6 & 7 Will. IV.

c. 32 (Benefit Building Societies), - - 24

s. 5 _ 936

c. 71 (Tithe Commutation) - - 398

s. 2 - 399

B. 30 - . 329

s. 40 - . 401

s. 42 . 401

s. 45 - _ 400

s. 46 - - - . _ - - 400

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. Cclxxvii

6 & 7 Will. IV. PAGE
c. 71 (Tithe Commutation),

e. 47 - - 400

8. 52 - - 400

s. 58 - - 400

s. 67 - - 400

s. 71 - 336, 399

s. 91 - - 275

c. 90 (Conveyance of Land for Charity) 3

c. 115 (General Inclosure Act) - 187, 189, 327, 399

s. 46 - - - 17

1 Viet.

c. 22 (General Parochial Register) - - 392

c. 26 (Wills Act) 295, 303, 308, 310, 481, 701, 918

s. 3 - 785

e. 10 - - 947

s. 24 - - 309

8. 27 - - 293

c. 28 (Limitation of Actions) 436, 456

c. 69 (Tithe Commutation Act) - - 399

s. 9 - 378

s. 12 - - 275

1 & 2 Viet,

c. 23 (Residences of Beneficed Clergy) - 17, 25, 327

c. 29 (Benefices) - - 327

c. 43 (Forest of Dean) - 133

c. 58 (Land Tax Redemption) - - - 17

c. 64 (Merger of Tithes in Land) 336, 399

s. 1 - - 399

8. 3 - 399

s. 4. - - 399

c. 69 (Conveyances of Lands vested in Heirs) - - 655

c. 94 (Certified Copies of Records) - - 361

c. 106 (Benefices) - - 327

c. 110 (Judgments Act) - 523, 524, 525, 527, 536, 542, 545, 554,

555, 956, 1064

s. 11 - 521, 531, 541, 1025, 1026

s. 12 1025, 1026

s. 13 - 521, 536, 537, 541, 542, 543, 549, 1248

s. 14 - - 549

s. 18 - 521, 534

s. 19 - 521, 551

s. 21 - - 551

s. 22 - 521, 534

s. 105 - - 359

c. 116 (Advances of County Moneys), s. 12 - 1026

2 & 3 Viet.

c. 11 (Judgments Registration) 524, 525, 531, 533, 555, 564, 565,

566, 956, 958

€clxxviii TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

2 & 3 Viet. PAGE

c. 11 (Judgments Registration),

s. 1 - 551

s. 2 - 527, 551

s. 3 - 533

s. 4 521, 551, 554

s. 5 521, 527, 531

s. 7 521, 972, 981

s. 8 - - . - - 289, 563

s. 9 . - ... 289

s. 10 - 289, 670

s. 11 - - 289

c. 37 (Usury) - 146

c. 49 (Assignment of Ecclesiastical District) - - 17, 327

c. 60 (Payment of Debts out of Kealty) - 1347

c. 62 (Tithe Commutation) - 336, ?99

s. 1 - 399

s. 6 - - 399

s. 7 399

s. 8 - - 400

s. 20 - - 329

3 & 4 Viet.

c. 15 (Tithe Commutation) - - 399

s. 10 - - 275

c. 31 (Inclosure Acts Extension) - - 186,327

c. 82 (Arrest on Mesne Process) 531, 956

s. 2 - - - - - 528

c. 92 (Non-Parochial Registers Evidence),

s. 11 - - 393

s. 13 - - 393

c. 113 - 327

4 & 5 Viet.

c. 21 (Statutory Release Act), s. 2 - - 356

c. 35 (Copyholds Act),

s. 21 - - 378

s. 64 - 189, 330

s. 88 - - 782

s. 89 ... 782

s. 102 - - 189

c. 38 (School Sites Act) - - 3, 18, 25

5 Viet.

c. 7 (Continuance of Expiring Acts) - 399

c. 32 (Fines Enrolment in Wales and Cheshire) - - 358

s. 2 - 957

s. 3 - - 957

5 & 6 Viet.

c. 18 (Parish Property) - 21

c. 54 (Tithe Commutation Amendment)- 17, 327, 399

s. 6 - - - - - - 329

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

5 & 6 Viet. PAGE

c. 54 (Tithe Commutation Amendment), s. 7 - - 327, 329

c. 94 (Defence Act) - 18, 812

c. 116 (Insolvent Debtors' Relief), s. 11- - - 359

6 & 7 Viet.

c. 23 (Copyhold Enfranchisement) - 189, 249

c. 54 (Limitation of Suits (Ireland) ) - - 452
c. 73 (Attornies and Solicitors Act),

8. 26 - - 815

s. 36 - - 815

s. 38 - - 818

s. 39 - - 819

8. 74 - - 288

7 & 8 Viet.

c. 27 (Limitation of Actions, &c.) - - 452

c. 55 (Copyhold Enfranchisement) - 189, 249

c. 65 (Enrolment of Deeds in Duchy of Cornwall), s. 34 - 355

c. 66 (Naturalisation of Aliens) 26, 29

s. 3 - - 27

s. 5 - 27

e. 16 - - 29

c. 96 (Insolvency, Bankruptcy, &c.), s. 37 - - - 359

c. 105 (Adverse Possession in Cornwall) - - 468

c. 110 (Joint Stock Companies), s. 23 - 282

8 & 9 Viet.

c. 16 (Companies Clauses Consolidation), s. 97 - - 273

c. 18 (Lands Clauses Consolidation) - 61, 130, 249, 298, 461, 599,

727, 1087, 1110, 1222

B. 6 - 17, 423

s. 7 - 8, 17, 1098

s. 9 - 92, 705

s. 10 - - 90

s. 11 - - 90

s. 12 - - 618

s. 13 - - 618

s. 15 - - 93

s. 23 ... 706

s. 25 - 705, 706

s. 26 - - 706

s. 27 - - 706

s. 28 - - 706

s. 29 - - 706

s. 30 - - 706

s. 33 - - *, 706

s. 34 - - 707

s. 49 - - - - - - - 1087

CclxXX TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

8 & 9 Viet. PAGE

c. 18 (Lands Clauses Consolidation),

s. 50 - - 1087

s. 68 - - 130, 404, 515, 707

s. 69 - 750, 758, 761, 804

s. 73 - - 750

s. 74 - - 754

s. 75 - - 653

s. 76 - -58, 92, 463, 653, 750, 809

s. 77 - 92, 238, 653, 750

s. 78 - 508

s. 79 - 58, 757

s. 80 - 92, 802, 803, 804, 806, 809, 1263

s.81 - -130,508,575

s. 83 - - 803

ss. 84—92 - 508

s. 85 - -244, 245, 508, 509, 511, 514, 515, 706, 803,

835, 1098, 1099

s. 87 - - 510

s. 91 - - 512

s. 92 - -244, 245, 247

s. 95 - 783, 802

s. 96 - - 783

s. 108 - - 670

s. 115 - - 670

s. 119 - - 244

s. 123 - 61, 1098

s. 124 - - 1039

s. 127 - 20, 857, 858, 861

s. 128 - 857, 862

s. 131 - - 703

s. 132 - - 635

c. 20 (Eailways Clauses Consolidation) - - 1113

s. 16 - 242, 414

s. 45 - - 20

s. 77 - 77, 130, 423, 604

s. 78 - - 423

s. 80 - 424, 604

s. 81 - 424, 604

c. 106 (Law of Eeal Property Amendment) - 278, 600

s. 3 - 4, 228

s. 4 - 327, 635

s. 5 - 615, 1002

s. 6 278, 281, 651, 782

s. 7 - - 651

s. 9 - - 917

c. 112 (Satisfied Terms) - 310, 329, 368, 576, 578, 584

s. 1 - - 577

s. 2 577, 578

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

8 & 9 Viet. PAGE

c. 112 (Satisfied Terms), s. 3 - - 330, 577

c. 113 (Evidence) - - 359

s. 3 - - 351

c. 118 (Inclosures and Improvements) 17, 42, 187, 328

s. 84 - - 130

B. 147 - - 328

c. 119 (Conveyance of Eeal Property (Short Forms) ), s. 4 - 820

9 & 10 Viet.

c. 70 (Commons Inclosure) - 17, 328

c. 73 (Tithe Commutation Amendment) - 17, 327, 399

s. 18 - - 336

s. 19 - 336, 399

c. 101 (Land Drainage and Improvements) 17

10 Viet.

c. 17 (Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847) - 77

s. 6 - - 510

s. 18 - 77, 130, 238, 604

10 & 11 Viet.

c. 15 (Gasworks Clauses Act) - - 424

c. 38 (Land Drainage Act) - - * - 17

c. 83 (Naturalization in Colonies) - - 28

c. 96 (Trustees' Belief Act) - - 690, 749

c. 104 (Tithe Commutation) - - 399

c. Ill (Commons Inclosure and Improvement) 17, 328

11 & 12 Viet.

c. 48 (Irish Incuinbered Estates), s. .72 - - - 551

c. 63 (Public Health Act, 1848) - 25

c. 70 (Evidence as to levying Fines) - - 359, 957

c. 87 (Payment of Debts out of Eealty) - 1347

c. 99 (Commons Inclosure and Improvement) - 17, 328
c. 112 (Metropolitan Sewers),

e. 38 - - - 424

s. 66 - 424

12 & 13 Viet.

c. 26 (Defects in Leases) - -. - 999

c, 49 (School Sites) - 3, 18, 25

c. 74 (Further Belief of Trustees) - - 749

c. 83 (Commons Inclosure and Improvement) 17, 328

c. 95 (Irish Judgments Act), s. 6 - 540

c. 100 (Facilitating Drainage) - - - - 17

c. 106 (Bankruptcy Act, 1849) - 41, 292, 359

s. 126 - 1064

s. 146 - - 1H4

s. 184 - 529

s. 232 - - 359

s. 236 359, 360

CclxXXll TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

12 & 13 Yict. PAGE

c. 109 (Chancery Enrolment),

8. 18 - 357

s. 19 - ... 357

13 & 14 Viet.

c. 21 (Construction of Acts of Parliament),

s. 4 -336, 433, 492

s. 7 - 492

c. 31 (Land Drainage) - 17

c. 35 (Act to dimmish Delay in Chancery), s. 17 - - 972

c. 43 (Palatinate Chancery Act), s. 24 534, 554

c. 60 (Trustee Act, 1850) 293, 655, 799, 1251

s. 2 - 1347

s. 3 - - 656

s. 4 - 656

s. 7 - - - - - - 656

s. 8 - 656

s. 9 - - 656

e. 10 - 656

s. 11 - 656

s. 12 - - 656

s. 13 - - 657

s. 14 - - 657

s. 15 - - 657

s. 16 - - 657

s. 17 - - 657

e. 18 - - 657

e. 19 - 658, 659

s. 20 - - 659

8.21 - 655

s. 28 - - 659

s. 29 1347, 1348

s. 30 - - 660, 1251, 1252, 1302, 1347, 1348

s. 32 - 660

s. 34 - 657

s.44 - 661

s.46 - - 661

8.48 - - 749
c. 83 (Eailway Abandonment),

s. 20 - - 243

s. 27 - 860

c. 97 (Stamp Duties Act) - 599, 626, 789, 794

s. 10 - 597, 791

s. 12 - - 786

s. 13 - - 786

s. 14 - 792

s. 15 ... 792

s. 16 - - - - - - - 792

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. CclxXXlil

14 & 15 Viet. PAGE

c. 24 (School Sites) - - 3, 25

c. 53 (Inclosure Consolidation) - 399

c. 94 (High Peak Mining Customs) - - 133

c. 97 (Church Buildings Act Amendment), s. 25 - 392

c. 99 (Law of Evidence Amendment) - - - 270

s. 6 - 473

s. 7 - 359, 393

s. 10 - - 359

s. 14 352, 361, 363, 392

s. 17 - - 392

c. 104 (Episcopal and Capitular Estates) - - 21

15 & 16 Viet.

c. 49 (School Sites Extension) - - - 3

c. 51 (Copyhold Enfranchisement Act, 1852) - 249

8. 11 - 189, 330, 1201

s. 20 - - - 478

s. 21 - - 478

s. 22 - - - 330

s. 24 - - 378

s. 27 - - 131

e. 33 - - - 330

s. 34 - - 330

s. 47 - - 330

s. 48 - - 131

s. 49 - - 360

e. 52 - - 189

c. 55 (Trustee Extension Act, 1852) - 655, 1302

s. 1 - 1347

s. 2 - - - - - - 657

s. 8 - 661

e. 11 - - 655

s. 13 - 661, 793

c. 62 (Woods and Forests), e. 8 - - 357

c. 79 (Inclosure Act, 1852) - 17, 328

c. 86 (Chancery Improvement Act),

e. 22 - - 361

s. 47 - - 63

B. 48 - 1315, 1316, 1317, 1321

s. 55 - - 1314

c. 87 (Chancery Officers Procedure Act), s. 15 - - 655
16 & 17 Viet.

c. 51 (Succession Duty) - - - 314

s. 1 - - 315

s. 2 - 315, 668, 669

s. 3 - - - - 669

s. 4 - 315

s. 5 - - - - - - 318, 668

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

16 & 17 Viet. PAGE

c. 51 (Succession Duty),

s. 14 - - 668

8. 15 - - 668

s. 20 - - 316

s. 23 - - 669

s. 29 - - 316

s. 30 ., - - - 316

e. 41 - - 317, 629
s. 42 87, 314, 316, 667, 668, 669

s. 44 - 314, 629

s. 52 - 315, 958

c. 56 (Crown Lands Management), s. 6 - 770

c. 57 (Copyhold Acts Amendment) - - 189

c. 59 (Stamp Duties Act, 1853),

s. 10 - 597, 788

s. 11 - - 789

s. 13 - - 792

c. 63 (Stamp Duties) - - - 789

c. 70 (Lunacy Eegulation, 1853) - - 1251

s. 100 - - 361

s. 116 - 8, 1351
s. 122 7, 291, 656, 662, 1114, 1252
8. 124 - 7, 93, 1348, 1351

s. 125 7, 93, 1351

a. 134 - - 642

e. 136 86, 93, 656

s. 137 - 86, 93
s. 139 - 1252, 1348, 1351

c. 74 (Land Tax Eedemption),

s. 2 ... 398

s. 117 - - 17

c. 113 (Irish. Common Law Procedure), s. 144 - 556

c. 134 (Metropolitan Burial) - 25

s. 8 - - - - 392

c. 137 (Charitable Trusts, 1853)- - - 329
s. 24 - - 19, 135, 329

s. 25 - - 329

s. 26 - - 329

s. 27 - - 3, 24

17 & 18 Viet.

c. 14 (New Churches), s. 5 - 3

c. 36 (Bills of Sale Act, 1854) - - - 234

c. 67 (Defence Act) - - 812

c. 83 (Stamp Duties Act) - - 789

s. 16 - - 791

s. 17 - - 787

s. 18 - - 785

s. 19 - - - - - - 788

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. CclxXXV

17 & 18 Viet. PAGE

c. 90 (Usury Laws Repeal) - 5, 30, 145, 568

s. 3 - - 708

c. 97 (Commons) - 17, 147, 328

s. 7 - - 187

c. 104 (Merchant Shipping) - - 1055, 1163

c. 112 (Literary and Scientific Societies) - - 778

c. 113 (Locke King's Act, 1854) - 304, 539, 827, 828, 919, 920

c. 116 (Ecclesiastical Corporations) - - 21

c. 125 (Common Law Procedure, 1854) - 62

s. 5 - 705

s. 12 - - 259

s. 13 - - 260

s. 16 - - 786

s. 17 - - 260

s. 26 - - 353

s. 68 - - 1101

s. 69 - - 1102

s. 70 - - 1102

B. 71 - - 1102

s. 78 - - 1106

18 & 19 Viet.

c. 15 (Judgments Registration, 1855) - 524, 525, 533, 957

s. 2 - 535

s. 3 - 554

s. 4 - 521, 555

s. 5 - 521, 555

s. 6 521, 553, 565

s. 7 521, 534

s. 11 - 521, 538, 539, 560, 958

s. 12 - 521, 568, 959

s. 15 - 828

c. 42 (Administration of Oaths Abroad) - - - 361

c. 43 (Infants' Settlements) - 3

c. 117 (Defence Act)- - 18

c. 120 (Metropolis Management),

s. 135 - - 424

s. 150 - - 424

s. 151 - - 424

c. 124 (Conveyance for Charity) - 329

e. 29 - - 20

s. 35 - - 24

s. 38 - 19, 1351

s. 41 - - 3, 24

c. 128 (Burial Boards) - - - 25

19 & 20 Viet.

c. 9 (Drainage Advances Amendment Act) - - 17, 523

Cclxxxvi TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

19 & 20 Viet. PAGE

c. 47 (Joint Stock Companies Act, 1856),

s. 41 - - 273

s. 46 - - 635

c. 55 (Ecclesiastical Commission) - - 3

c. 80 (Land and Income Tax (Scotland) ), s. 3 - 398

c. 97 (Mercantile Law Amendment), s. 3 - 115

c. 108 (County Courts), s. 23 - 645

c. 120 (Leases and Sales of Settled Estates) - - 1278

s. 23 - 299, 1278, 1302

s. 24 - 299, 1278, 1302

s. 25 - 299, 1278, 1302

20 & 21 Yict.

c. 13 (Workhouse Sites) - - - 21

c. 31 (Inclosure Amendment Act) - - 17, 328

c. 35 (Metropolitan Burial Act Amendment) - 25

c. 57 (Malms' Act) - - 651
c. 77 (Probate Act)

s. 23 - 364

s. 61 - - - - - 363, 364

s. 62 - - 363

s. 63 - - - - - 363, 364

s. 64 - - 363

c. 81 (Burial Acts Amendment) - 25

c. 85 (Divorce Act) - - 586

s. 21 - 12, 32

s. 25 - 12, 32

s. 26 - - 32

21 & 22 Viet.

c. 27 (Lord Cairns' Act) - - 116, 871, 904, 909, 1082, 1256

s. 2 869, 1104

c. 44 (Universities' Estates) - 21

c. 57 (Ecclesiastical Leases) - 21

c. 77 (Settled Estates Amendment) - - 1278

c. 93 (Legitimacy Declaration) - - - 28, 384

c. 94 (Copyhold Acts Amendment) - - 249

s. 2 * 189, 1201

s. 10 - 189, 330

c. 108 (Divorce Amendment) - 32

s. 6 - - 12

22 & 23 Viet.

c. 21 (Ee-entry by Crown) - 26

c. 35 (Lord St. Leonards' Act) - - 147

s. 1 - 917

s. 2 - - 917

8.3 -148,916,917

ss. 4—9 - - 195

s. 10 - 551, 1044

s. 11 - - - - - - 521, 550

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. Cclxxxvii

22 & 23 Viet. PAGE

c. 35 (Lord St. Leonards' Act),

s. 12 - - 946

s. 13 - - - - - - 946

e. 14 - - 696

s. 15 - - 697

s. 16 - - 695

s. 18 - - 700

s. 22 - 521, 563

s. 23 - - 670

s. 24 - 108, 344

8. 27 - - 631

s. 28 - - 631

s. 32 - - 97

c. 43 (Inclosure Acts Amendment) - 17, 328

c. 46 (Episcopal and Capitular Estates) - 21

c. 61 (Divorce Settlements), s. 5 - 857

23 Viet.

c. 15 (Stamp Duties)- - 275

c. 16 (Mortgages by Municipal Corporations) - 93
23 & 24 Viet.

c. 38 (Law of Property Amendment)- 523, 524, 532, 551, 552, 560,

957

s. 1 521, 551

s. 2 -521, 533, 552, 554

s. 3 521, 527

s. 4 521, 527, 533

s. 5 521, 535

s. 6 - - 917

8. 8 - 108

s. 13 - - 455

c. 53 (Duchy of Cornwall Limitation) - - 468

c. 59 (Universities Estates) - - 21

c. 64 (Local Boards) - - 25

c. 81 (Copyhold and Inclosure Commission) - - 399

c. 93 (Tithe Commutation) - - 17, 327, 399

c. 106 (L. C. C. Acts Amendment),

s. 1 - - 90

s. 2 - - - 90

c. 112 (Defence Act) - - 3, 18, 812

c. 115 (Crown Debts Satisfaction) - 521, 670

s. 2- - - - - - 555, 565

c. 124 (Episcopal and Capitular Estates), s. 28 - - 21

c. 126 (Common Law Procedure) - - - 205

c. 136 (Endowed Charities Administration) - - 3, 329, 1351

c. 145 (Lord Cranworth's Act) - -59, 76, 89

s. 1 - 74, 85

s. 2- - - - - -.85

s. 29 670

Cclxxxviii TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

23 & 24 Viet. PAGE

c. 145 (Lord Cran worth's Act),

s. 32 - - 74

s. 34 - - 74

24 & 25 Viet.

c. 9 (Charitable Uses) 3
c. 62 (Crown Suits Limitation),

s. 1 - 468

8. 2 - - 468

s. 3 - - 468

c. 92 (Probate (Stamp Duties) Act) - - 318

c. 94 (Forest of Dean) - 133

c. 101 (Statute Law Keyision, 1861) 25

c. 133 (Land Drainage Act, 1861) - - 523

c. 134 (Bankruptcy Act, 1861) - 41, 292, 359, 475, 529, 568

ss. 203 et seq. - 359, 360

25 Viet. c. 17 (Enrolment of Charity Conveyances) - 777

25 & 26 Viet.

c. 53 (Land Eegistry, 1862) - - 347

s. 104 567, 770

c. 63 (Merchant Shipping Amendment Act) - - 1055

c. 73 (Copyhold, &c. Commission Act) - 399

c. 86 (Lunacy Eegulation Act, 1862),

s. 1 7

s. 13 - 8

c. 89 (Companies Act, 1862) - - 1163

s. 15 - - 333

s. 18 - - 25

s. 21 - - 25

s. 114 - 566, 972

s. 115 - 475, 479

s. 153 - - 566

c. 108 (Confirmation of Sales) 77, 78, 1279, 1296, 1297, 1298

s. 2 - - 1296

c. 112 (Charity Commissioners' Jurisdiction) 329, 1351

26 & 27 Viet.

c. 43 (Post Office Lands) - - 958

c. 49 (Duchy of Cornwall Management) - - 778

s. 19 - 958

27 Viet. c. 13 (Enrolment of Charitable Assurances) - 777
27 & 28 Viet.

c. 19 (Companies Seals Act, 1864) - - 219

c. 45 (Settled Estates Amendment Act) - - - 1278

c. 89 (Defence Act) - 18

c. 112 (Judgments Law Amendment) - 289, 524, 533, 536, 543,

550, 551,552, 559, 560, 564, 580, 834, 957, 1312

s. 1 - 533, 544

s. 2 - 535, 545

s. 3 - - - - - 521, 533, 545, 558

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. Cclxxxix

27 & 28 Viet. PAGE

c. 112 (Judgments Law Amendment),

s. 4 521, 544, 545, 546, 548, 558, 1321

s. 5 - 544, 545

s. 6 - - 544

c. 114 (Land Improvement Act, 1864) - 17, 523, 569

s. 24 - - - 97

28 & 29 Viet.

c. 69 (Queen Anne's Bounty) - 21, 25

c. 78 (Mortgage Debenture Act, 1865) 523, 569

c. 99 (County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction), s. 1 - - 749

c. 104 (Crown Suits Act, 1865) - - - 318

s. 48 - -521, 524, 563

s. 49 - 521, 563

s. 52 - - 467

29 & 30 Viet. c. 57 (Charitable Trust Deeds Enrolment) - - 777

30 & 31 Viet.

c. 47 (Lis Pendens),

s. 1 - 566, 972

s. 2 - - - - - 566

c. 48 (Sale by Auction Act, 1867) -126, 140, 224, 225

s. 4 - 126

s. 5 - - 126

s. 7 - 1330, 1332

c. 60 (Locke King's Amendment Act, 1867) - 303, 827, 919, 922

s. 1 - 923

s. 2 - 304, 923

c. 127 (Eailway Companies Act, 1867),

s. 4 - 541, 836
s. 36 - 508, 509, 706, 1098, 1100

P. 37 - - 814
c. 131 (Companies Act, 1867),

s. 37 - 220, 273

s. 38 - 282

c. 133 (Churchyard Site Act) - - - - 3, 18
c. 142 (County Courts Amendment Act),

s. 9 - - 1272

s. 24 - - 690, 749

31 Viet. c. 4 (Sale of Eeversionary Interests), 196, 844, 850, 851, 1208

31 & 32 Viet.

c. 20 (Legitimacy Declaration Act (Ireland)- - - 384

c. 40 (Partition Act, 1868) - 2, 299
s. 3 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301

s. 4 - 1299, 1300

s. 5 - 1299, 1301

s. 6 - - 665, 1302, 1306

s. 7 - 660, 1302

s. 8 - - - - - -- 1303

D. t

CCXC TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

31 & 32 Viet. PAGE

c. 40 (Partition Act, 1868),

8. 9 - 1303, 1309

8. 10 - - 1311

c. 44 (Eeligious Sites) - 778

c. 54 (Judgments Extension, 1868),

e. 1 - 521, 556

e. 2 521, 556

s. 3 - 521, 556

s. 4 - 556

c. 89 (Tithe Commutation) - 328, 399

32 & 33 Viet.

c. 18 (Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1869), s. 1 - - 814

c. 27 (Licensing Act), s. 9 - 484

c. 68 (Evidence of Legitimacy), s. 3 - - - 383

c. 71 (Bankruptcy Act, 1869) - - - 41

s. 15 - -34, 955, 1114

s. 18 - - 360

s. 22 - - - - - - 780

B. 23 - 292, 1126

s. 24 - 292, 1126

s. 25 75, 748, 780

s. 31 - - 185

e. 48 - - 34

e. 49 - - 34

s. 91 1006, 1030

s. 92 - - 1032

s. 95 - 529, 568

e. 107 - - 359

s. 108 - - 359

s. 109 - - 359

s. 113 - - 790

c. 110 (Charitable Trusts, 1869) - - 329

s. 12 - - 1351

c. 1 14 (Eailways Abandonment, 1869) - - 243, 860

33 Viet.

c. 14 (Naturalization Act, 1870) 26, 27

s. 2- 27

s. 3 - 28

s. 4 - - 28

s. 7 27, 29
s. 9 ... 29

s. 10 - 28, 29

s. 13 - - 28
33 & 34 Viet.

c. 23 (Abolition of Forfeiture) 16, 33

c. 28 (Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870) - 278, 280

s. 4 - 820

B. 6 - - 821

s. 7 821

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. CCXC1

33 & 34 Viet. PAGE
c. 28 (Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870),

s. 8 - - - 821

s. 9 - - 821

s. 10 - - 821

s. 15 - - 821

s. 16 - - - 821

s. 17 - - 821

s. 18 - - 821

c. 34 (Investment of Trust Funds) - 19, 97

c. 35 (Apportionment Act, 1870), s. 4 - - 915

c. 44 (Stamp Duty on Leases) - - 701

c. 56 (Limited Owners' Residences) - - 18, 523, 569

c. 93 (Married Women's Property Act, 1870) 10, 13, 14, 1122

s. 7 - 1123, 1124

s. 8 - 13, 644

s. 12 - - 57

c. 97 (Stamp Act, 1870) - 275, 773

s. 4 - - 792

s. 8 - - - 792, 797

s. 9 - - 797

s. 10 597, 787, 791

s. 11 - - 789

e. 12 - - 789

s. 13 - - 789

s. 15 - 275, 786

e. 16 - - 276

s. 18 - - 792

s. 20 - - 787

s. 23 - - 797

s. 28 - - - - - - - 786

s. 29 - - - 786

s. 36 - - - - - 275

s. 70 - 598, 785, 793

s. 71 - 598, 789

s. 72 - 599, 789

s. 73 - 597, 788

s. 74 598, 791, 793

s. 76 - - 794

s. 77 - 598, 794

8. 78 598, 792, 793

s. 81 - - 795

s. 82 - 795, 801

e. 84 - - 598

e. 85 795

s. 86 795

s. 98 - - - - - - 792

Schedule - 275, 626, 794

c. 102 (Naturalization Oath Act, 1870) - - - 27

CCXcii TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

34 & 35 Viet.

c. 43 (Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act) - - - 281

c. 84 (Limited Owners' Eesidences Amendment) - - 18

c. 85 (Forest of Dean) - - 133

35 & 36 Viet.

c. 24 (Charitable Trustees Incorporation) - - 20, 777

s. 13 - - 777

c. 79 (Public Health Act, 1872) - 25

c. 81 (Attorneys and Solicitors Amendment) - - 820

c. 94 (Licensing Act, 1872),

s.40 - - 484

s. 75 - - 483

36 & 37 Viet.

c. 42 (Tithes : Market Garden) - 401

c. 50 (Churches, &c. Sites) - - - 3, 18

c. 66 (Judicature Act, 1873)- 542, 940, 1076, 1082, 1097, 1151

s. 24 - - 223

s. 25, sub-s. 2 - - 438

sub-s. 7 - 143, 323, 347, 482, 1149, 1152, 1255, 1256

sub-s. 8 - - 547

sub-s. 11 - - - 229

s. 32 - - 645

c. 72 (Defence Act) - - 18

c. 91 (Statute Law Kevision, 1873) - - 329

37 & 38 Viet.

c. 33 (Leases and Sales of Settled Estates, 1874) 1278, 1283

c. 42 (Building Societies) - 24

s. 13 - - 791

s. 25 - - 791

s. 41 - - 791

s. 42 - - 937

c. 50 (Married Women's Property Act, 1874) - 13

c. 57 (Seal Property Limitation Act, 1874) 461, 468, 710

s. 2 - - 447

s. 3 - - 434

s. 5 - 435

s. 6 - 450

s. 7 - 451

e. 8 67, 436, 453, 454, 455, 456, 458, 460

s. 9 - - 403, 433, 450, 454

s. 10 - - 438

c. 62 (Infants' Eelief Act) - - 6, 30

c. 78 (Vendor and Purchaser Act) - 161, 163, 330, 501, 635

s. 1 99, 105, 321, 334, 336

s. 2 - 84, 99, 160, 162, 164, 166, 191, 238, 322, 331, 340, 354,

371, 397, 470, 591, 627, 762, 765, 799, 869, 880, 981, 1349

s. 3 - 84, 99, 201

s. 4 - 18, 582

8. 5 - - - - - - - 665

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. CCXC111

37 & 38 Viet. PAGE

c. 78 (Vendor and Purchaser Act),

s. 6 12, 587, 645

s. 7 - 784
s. 8 - 67, 772, 826, 965

s. 9 - 1226, 1238

c. 94 (Conveyancing Act (Scotland)), s. 22 - - 570

38 & 39 Viet.

c. 36 (Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings) - 61, 404, 711, 811

c. 55 (Public Health) - 21, 192, 424

s. 4 - - 411

s. 7 ... 25

s. 149 - - 411

s. 174 - - 218

e. 175 - - 25

s. 257 - - 524

c. 60 (Friendly Societies), s. 15 - 790

c. 68 (Science and Art Department) - - - 778

c. 77 (Judicature Act, 1875), s. 7 - 655

c. 87 (Land Transfer Act),

s. 48 18, 294, 665

s. 93 - - 1238

s. 94 - - 1238

s. 129 - - 784

39 & 40 Viet.

c. 17 (Partition Act, 1876),

s. 3 - 1284, 1302, 1304, 1309

s. 4 - 1304

s. 6 2, 1306, 1307

s. 7 - 1308

c. 18 (Treasury Solicitor) - - 16

c. 39 (Leases and Sales of Settled Estates) - 79, 1278

c. 56 (Commons) - - 328

40 & 41 Viet.

c. 18 (Settled Estates Act, 1877) 8, 1278, 1344

s. 2 - - 1281

s. 3 - 1278

ss. 4—13 - - - 1280

s. 14 - - 1280, 1344

s. 15 1280, 1344

s. 16 - - 1278

s. 18 1279, 1295

s. 19 - 77, 1279
s. 20 - 79, 1280, 1295

s. 21 - - 79, 80, 1280

s. 22 669, 1280
s. 23 - 1282, 1287, 1295

s. 24 1282, 1287

s. 25 - - - - - - - 1283

CCXC1V TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

40 & 41 Viet. PAGE

c. 18 (Settled Estates Act, 1877),

s. 26 1284, 1292

s. 27 - - 1284, 1287

s. 28 - - 1285

s. 29 - - 1286

s. 30 1286, 1287

s. 31 - - 1286

s. 32 - - 1287

8. 33 - - 1287

s. 34 1288, 1303

s. 35 - - 1288, 1303

s. 36 - - 1288, 1303

s. 37 - - 754

s. 38 - - 1289

s. 39 - - 1289

s. 40 - - 1290, 1350

s. 41 - - 1289

8. 49 - 1291, 1292, 1295

s. 50 - 11, 17, 1121, 1292, 1293, 1295

8. 51 - 1293, 1294, 1295

s. 52 - - 1292

e. 57 - - 1289

s. 58 - 1278

e. 61 - - 1289

c. 31 (Limited Owners Act, 1877) 18

c. 34 (Locke King's Amendment Act, 1877) - 304, 827, 923, 925

41 Viet. c. 19 (Protection Order by Justices), s. 4 - - - 12

41 & 42 Viet.

c. 31 (Bills of Sale Act, 1878),

e. 4 . 234

s. 7 - - 234

c. 42 (Tithes Commutation Amendment) - 327, 399

42 & 43 Viet.

c. 59 (Civil Procedure Outlawry) - - - - 16

c. 78 (Judicature (Officers) Act, 1879) - - - 564

s. 14 - - - - - - 777

s. 27 - - 777

44 & 45 Viet.

c. 41 (Conveyancing Act, 1831) - 284, 293, 501, 521

s. 2 - 606, 988, 1321

s. 3 - 141, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 172, 183, 189, 191, 193,

198, 238, 326, 330, 331, 337, 339, 340, 352, 371,

470, 471, 765, 869, 981

s. 4 - 18, 294, 302, 663, 664, 681, 801, 1130, 1131, 1263
s. 5 165, 176, 177, 181, 666, 749, 1316

s. 6 - 139, 149, 605, 606, 611

s. 7 94, 146, 615, 616, 617, 620, 621, 876

s. 8 . 741

s. 9 - - - - 160, 615, 627, 766, 876

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. CCXCV

44 & 45 Viet. PAGE

c. 41 (Conveyancing Act, 1881),

s. 10 - - - 282, 1002

B. 12 - - - - - 148

8. 14 - - - - 135, 195

s. 15 ..... 654

e. 16 - - 476

s. 17 - 324, 574, 654, 784, 1037, 1048

s.18 - -47,164,1002

s. 19 - 59, 60, 76, 84, 89, 664

8. 20 ----- 60, 83

s. 21 60, 73, 80, 664, 1276

s. 22 - - - - 80

s. 25 - 543, 1301, 1312, 1317, 1318, 1321, 1324

s. 30 - 18, 294, 375, 582, 657, 659, 665, 683, 684, 1130,

1131, 1263

s. 31 - - 660

s. 33 - - - - - - 687

s. 35 - - - - - 74, 76, 84

s. 36 - - - 671

s. 39 - - 11, 121

s. 40 - 12, 642

s. 46 - - - 642, 748

s. 47 - - 748

s. 48 - - - 352, 748

s. 49 4

s. 50 - - - 12, 49

s. 54 - - 480, 825

s. 55 - - - - - - - 73

s. 56 - - - 685, 743, 745

s. 58 - - - - - - 876

s. 63 - - 613, 824

s. 66 - - - - 83, 84, 198, 201

s. 70 73, 1290, 1310, 1335, 1352

s. 71 - - 59

c. 44 (Solicitors' Kemuneration Act) - 204, 320, 346

s. 7 - - - 822

s. 8 - - 821

s. 9 - - 822

c. 47 (Presumption of Death Act : Scotland),

s. 8 - 385

45 & 46 Viet.

c. 14 (Metropolis Building Act), s. 18 - - - - 524

c. 21 (Places of Worship Sites Amendment) - 3

c. 38 (Settled Land Act, 1882) - 17, 18, 37, 47, 58, 86, 620, 750

s. 2 - 1281, 1295

s. 4 - - 90

s. 10 1279, 1295

CCXCV1 TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

45 & 46 Viet. PAGE

c. 38 (Settled Land Act, 1882),

s. 11 - - 71

s. 16 - 80, 1280, 1295

s. 17 - 77, 1279

s. 20 - 332, 336, 669

e. 21 - 97, 701, 754, 758, 1288

s. 22 - - 96, 754, 1288

s. 23 - 754

s. 24 - - 754

e. 25 97, 754, 1279, 1280

s. 26 - - 754

e. 30 - - 97

e. 31 - - 1114, 1125

s. 32 - 754, 1288, 1293

e. 33 - - 97

s. 34 - - 754

s. 35 - - 71

s. 40 - 758

s. 45 - - 1295

s. 46 - 42

e. 47 - - 1289

s. 50 88, 332, 1282, 1295

s. 53 - 37, 42, 71

s. 54 - 73

s. 56 - - 86, 700, 701

s. 59 4

s. 60 - ... 4

s. 61 11, 587, 1121, 1292, 1295

s. 62- - - - - -8

s. 63 ... 566

s. 64 - 59, 74

c. 39 (Conveyancing Act, 1882),

s. 2 - 521, 522, 524, 560

s. 3 - 971, 988

s. 4 - 331

s. 6 - - - 686, 697, 699

s. 7 9, 645, 646, 647, 1124

s. 8 352, 642, 748

s. 9 - 352, 748

s. 12 - - 654

c. 50 (Municipal Corporation) - - - 21

c. 75 (Married Women's Property Act, 1882) 9, 14, 49, 620, 621,

642, 647, 652, 758, 1162, 1293, 1308

s. 1 588, 1123

s. 2 - 587, 588, 1123

s. 5 - 587,588,652,1124,1237

s. 18 588, 589

s. 19 57

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. CCXCV11

45 & 46 Viet. PAGE

c. 75 (Married Women's Property Act, 1882) s. 24 - - 588

c. 80 (Allotments Extension) - - - - 19

46 & 47 Viet.

c. 49 (Judicature Act, 1883) 871, 1102, 1104, 1106, 1315

c. 52 (Bankruptcy Act, 1883),

s. 6 - - - - - - 568

s. 21 - - 75

s. 22 - - 815

s. 24 - - 583

s. 30 - - 34, 745

8. 37 - - 185

s. 44 - 34, 954, 1114

e. 45 - 529, 954

s. 46 - - 954

s. 47 954, 1006, 1030, 1031, 1065

s. 48 - - 954, 1031

s. 49 - 567, 954, 1032

s. 50 - - 956

s. 54 - 75, 360

s.55 - 292,629,630,877,1114,1126

s. 56 75, 583, 748, 780, 913

s. 57 - - - 815

s. 133 - - 360

s. 134 - - 359, 360

s. 136 - - - 360

s. 137 - - 359

s. 144 - 275, 790

s. 147 - - 660

47 & 48 Viet.

c. 18 (Settled Land Act, 1884 ) - - - 86

s. 7 - 522, 524, 566

c. 54 (Yorkshire Eegistries Act) 767, 774, 961

s. 3 - - 774

s. 4 - - 774

s. 5 - - - 776

8. 6 et seq. - - - 776

s. 7 - 775

s. 10 - - 775

s. 11 - - 775

s. 12 - - 775

s. 13 - - 775

s. 14 774, 776, 961, 973

8. 15 - - 775, 962, 963, 981

s. 16 775, 776, 784, 963

s. 17 - 776, 965

s. 19 et seq. - - 776

s. 20 - - 567

s. 21 - - - - - - 567

CCXCV111

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.

47 & 48 Viet.

c. 54 (Yorkshire Kegistries Act),

s. 22 -

s. 23

s. 28 -

s. 51

c. 61 (Judicature Act, 1884), s. 14 -
c. 71 (Intestates' Estates Act, 1884)

s. 4

48 & 49 Viet.

c. 26 (Yorkshire Eegistries Amendment)

s. 3 -

s. 5

c. 32 (Tithes)
50 & 51 Viet.

c. 23 (Ecclesiastical Pensions), s. 6
c. 30 (Settled Land Act, 1887)
c. 43 (Stannaries Act)

PAGE

- 567

- - 567

- 776

- 767, 958
660, 663, 1253, 1348

- - 289

- 661

- 767, 961

- 775
775, 962, 973, 981

- 399

Addenda, 281

- 751
Addenda, 133

c. 73 (Copyholds), s. 45 - Addenda, 18,294,657,659,665,684,1131

INDEX OF REFERENCES TO R. S. C.

PAGE

Order XVI. r. 8 - 1131, 1204

XVI. r. 11 1126

XVI. r. 16 - 758

XVI. r. 48 - - - 1133

XIX. r. 3 - 1133

XIX. r. 15 -250, 1148

XX. r. 6 - 1152
XXL r. 11 - - 1133

XXI. r. 12 - 1133

XXV. 1148

XX VIII. r. 1 - - 1152

XXXI. - - - 478

XXXI. r. 19 - - 478

XXXII. r. 6 1224, 1310

XXXIII. r. 2 - - 1224
XLII. r. 3 - - - 1254
XLII. r. 5 - 455
XLII. r. 7 - - - 1252
XLVII. r. 1 - - 1256
L. r. 10 - - 1323
LI. r. 1 - - 1315
LI. r. 1A - - - 1314
LI. r. 2 - - - 1325
LI. r. 3 - 1279, 1345, 1346
LI. r. 3A '- 1333
LI. r. 6 - - 1328
LI. r. 6A - 1328
LII. r. 18 - - - 757
LHI. r. 1 - 62
LV. r. 1 - - - 813
LV. r. 2 (14) - 1315, 1323
LV. r. 2 (15) - - 815
LV. r. 3 - 690
LV. r. 5A - - - 1319
LV. r. 65 - 1329
LV. r. 70 - 1228, 1329
LV. r. 71 - 1240,1329
LXV.r. 27(19) - - - 811
LXVI. r. 7, (A), (t), (/), (m) - - 1287
LXXII. r. 2 - - 1324

SUPREME COURT FUNDS RULES, 1886.

R. 41 749

R, 61 758

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA.

PAGE

Ixxx. — Re Cameron and Wells is referred to at p. 1014, not p. 631

18. — Sect. 30 of the Conv. Act, 1881, has been repealed, as to
copyholds, by 50 & 51 Viet. c. 73, s. 45, the effect being
to overthrow the decision in Re Hughes, W. N. (1884),
p. 53, and to revive the old law of descent of trust and
mortgage estates in copyholds as it existed prior to 1882.

23, n. (/).— Of. Allcard v. Skinner, 36 Ch. D. 145.

42, n. (h). — For sect. 46 read sect. 48.

214, n. (/).— For Bailey v. Chadwick, 29 L. T., read Bayley v.

Chadwick, 39 L. T.

215, n. (</). — And see Beningfield v. Kynaston, 3 Times L. E. 279.
222, n. (e). — Soper v. Arnold has been affirmed by the C. A., and

is reported 36 W. E. 207.

263, n. (/). — Woodv. Aylicard was reversed by the C. A. on the
25th Nov., 1887.

272, n. (q). — The reference to Foligno v. Martin should be to 22
L. J. Ch. 502. The report of the case in 16 B. 586
relates to another point on a further hearing.

281, n. (q). — The amount due for dilapidations may now be set off
against the parson's retiring pension. See 50 & 51 Yict.
c. 23, s. 6.

294— See Addenda to p. 18.

295, n. (e}. — The reference to Knotty* v. Akock should be 5 V.

648 ; 7 Y. 558.
308, n. (g). — For Corbie v. Byng read Webby. Byng.

314, n. (s). — A.-G. v. Marquis of Ailesbury, in the H. L., is now
reported 12 Ap. Ca. 672.

325, n. (a). — Bankes v. Small, in the C. A., is now reported 36 Ch.

D. 716.
389, n. (ni).—Re Rhodes is now reported 36 Ch. D. 586.

CCC11 ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA.

PAGE

415, n. (*). — The reference to Miner v. Gilmour should be 12 Mo.

P. C. 131.
425, n. (p) . — For Webber v. Scott, read Webber v. Lee.

427 ', n. (/) . — For Teniel v. Harsfop, read Leniel v. Harslop.
443, n. (a?).— And see Ee Hobbs, 36 Ch. D. 553.
455, n. (*).— The reference to Re Forcers should be 30 Ch. D. 291.
520, n. (b.) — And see Brown v. Alabaster, 36 W. B>. 155.

599. — The statement in the last paragraph is not inconsistent with
the very recent decision of the li. L. in Commissioners of
I. R. v. Glasgow $ S. W. R. Co., 12 Ap. Ca. 315, viz.,
that the whole sum assessed by the jury as the price of
land, inclusive of any sum awarded for loss or damage, is
liable to ad valorem stamp duty. There is a clear dis-
tinction between the case where the compensation has
been assessed only in respect of the land, and that where
it has been awarded in respect of injury done to other
land held with the land taken.

610, n. (i). — And see Brown v. Alabaster, 36 W. E. 155.
651, n. (q). — The reference to Re Martin should be erased.
655, n. (r}.—Re Platt is now reported 36 Ch. D. 410.
657, n. (a). — See Addenda to p. 18.

659. — The second paragraph must be modified by reference to the
Addenda to p. 18.

665. — The first sentence must be modified by reference to the
Addenda to p. 18.

684. — The second paragraph must be modified as stated in the two
preceding notes.

754, n. (p)— And see Re Hotchkin's 8. E., 35 Ch. D. 41.

702, n. (x). — For The Hedgly, read Re Hcdglij.

767, line 26. — For Swnton, read Sumpter.

806, n. (»).— For Re Steicart's Tr., read Re Seicart's Tr.

806, n. (q). — For Ex p. Mihcard's Devisees, read Ex p. Melward's
Devisees.

819, n. (s). — It would seem that the country solicitor cannot obtain
taxation of a part of his town agent's bill separately from
the bill as a whole ; Re Johnson and Wctherall, W. N.
(1887), 211.

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA. CCC111

PAGE

819, n. (u). — Allowance of interest under the Solicitors' Remunera-
tion Act, 1881, is regulated by Gren. Ord. VII., as to the
construction of which see Blair v. Gardner, 19 Q,. B. D.
516.

822, nn. (s) and (t). — As to the allowance of auctioneer's costs, see
Re Faulkner, 36 Ch. D. 566, and the comments thereon
in Re Ncicbould, 36 W. R 161.

822, n. (s).— After Re Wcddall, add reference to Re Eky, 37 Oh. D.
40 ; and at the end of the note add reference to Re Harris,
Powell and Goodale, W. N. (1887), 29, 74.

855. — The distinction drawn in the second paragraph has been
since taken in Allcard v. Skinner, 36 Ch. D. 145 ; see
especially the judgment of Bowen, L. J., at p. 189 et seq.

858, n. (s). — For Lord Beauchamp v. G. W. R. Co., read Lord
Carrington v. Wycombe R. Co.

888, n. (ft). — Bankes v. Small, in the C. A., is now reported 36
Ch. D. 716.

911, n. (A*). — Bankes v. Small, in the C. A., is now reported 36
Ch. D. 716.

935, n. (o). — For Wilker v. Bodington, 2 Yern. 559, read Wilkes v.
Bodington, 2 Yern. 599.

944, n. (I). — The reference to A.-G. v. Christ's Hosp. should be
3 M. & K. 344.

946, n. (y). — Bankes v. Small, in the C. A., is now reported 36
Ch. D. 716.

1018, n. (ss). — Re Cameron and Wells is now reported 37 Ch.

D. 32.

1024, n. (h). — Ex p. Burnie, read Ex p. McBurnie.
1030, n. (0).— For Wych, read Wich.
1064, n. (x). — The reference should be to Emly v. Guy, 3 Mer. 702.

1066, n. (A).— The reference to Birt v. Burt should be 11 Ch. D.
773, n.

1083, n. (Hi). — Roive v. London School Board is now reported
36 Ch. D. 619.

1089, n. (/). — Soper v. Arnold has since been affirmed on appeal,
and is reported 36 W. E. 207.

1111, n. (b). — Davics v. Davies is now reported 36 Ch. D. 359.

CCC1V ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA.

PAGE

1118, n. (e). — Bankes v. Small, in the C. A., is now reported 36

Oh. D. 716.

1119, n. (r). — Where the settlement was valid db imtio, but was

avoided by the settlor's bankruptcy, the trustees were
allowed, as against the settlor's trustee in bankruptcy, a
lien on the trust property for their costs of defending an
action previously brought by the settlor to set the settle-
ment aside ; Re Holden, 20 Q. B. D. 43.

1125. — The conclusion arrived at in the first paragraph of this
page has now received judicial sanction ; Scott v. Morlcy,
20 Q. B. D. 120.

1163, n. (m). — Strick v. Swansea Tin Plate Co. is now reported
36 Ch. D. 558.

1181, n. (t). — For NichollsTe&d Micholls.

1210. — In connection with the second paragraph, a reference
should be made to Union Bank v. Minister, 37 Ch. 51,
where the fact that unknown to the vendors a fictitious
bid was made, and that in consequence the purchaser
gave more than he had previously bid, was held to be no
defence to an action brought by the vendors for specific
performance.

1238, n. (aa). — Re Jackson and Woodburn is now reported 37 Ch.
D.44.

1348, n. (s). — For In re Blackwcll, read Blackiccll v. Blackicell.
1348, n. (u). — Bankes v. Small is now reported 36 Ch. D. 716.
1352, n. (b).— For Walters, read Waiters.

VENDORS AND PURCHASERS OF REAL

ESTATE.

CHAPTER I. Chapter!.

AS TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE GENERAL CAPACITY TO BUY OR

SELL REAL ESTATE.

1. Who are generally }

n -rrr, 7,. 7 {incompetent to sell.

2. Who are relatively )

3. Who are generally }

A Trr/ , ,. , \incompetenttopurchase.

4. Who are relatively )

T

JL HE questions who may sell, and who may buy, real estate,
may be conveniently discussed, by assuming the existence
of a general capacity to enter into the relation of vendor or
purchaser ; and by then treating of the exceptions from the
general rule.

Incapacities to sell or buy may be considered as being of incapacities
two descriptions: 1st, such as depend on some circumstance a°ese
personal to the proposed vendor or purchaser, and affecting
his general capacity to buy or sell any real estate whatso- general
ever ; and, 2ndly, such as depend on the relation in which Or relative,
he stands to the particular property about to be sold or
bought ; or to the party with whom he intends to deal.

(1.) Who are generally incompetent to sell. Section l.

A proposed vendor, although having a good title to, and "Who are
being the absolute owner of property, and standing in no incompetent

I). VOL. I. B t0 Sel1'

Chap. I.
Sect. 1.

Infants.

Estates of,
cannot
generally
be sold by
Court.

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

fiduciary relation towards the proposed purchaser, may yet
be under some personal incapacity, which may prevent a
sale ; that is to say, he may be, 1st, An infant; if so, he can,
as a general rule, execute no conveyance which will bind,
either himself when he comes of age, or his heirs in the event
of his dying, either under age, or of full age, but without
having confirmed the transaction : — supposing it to be capable
of confirmation (a) .

Nor has a Court of Equity any authority to sell the real
estate of an infant (b) , under the mere notion that a sale will
be beneficial (c) . In some cases, however, where an infant
has been entitled to an undivided share of realty of small
value, the shares in which have been minute or numerous, a
sale instead of a partition has been decreed, as being more
advantageous to the infant ; but, in order to create the juris-
diction, the infant's costs already incurred in the suit have,
by the adoption of an expedient of somewhat doubtful
validity, been first declared to be a charge on his share (d) •
and under the Partition Act, 1868(e), the Court has power
to order a sale, instead of a partition, notwithstanding the
disability of any of the parties.

(a) Any deed which takes effect by
delivery, is, if executed by an infant,
voidable only ; but letters of attorney,
and deeds which delegate a mere
power, and convey no interest, are
absolutely void. Zonchv. Parsons, 3
Burr. 1794 ; Anon. v. Handcock, 17V.
383; Allen v. Allen, 2 D. & "War.
307 ; Paget v. Paget, 11 L. B. IP. 26.
(b} Or to sell an estate freed from
a rent -charge to which an infant is
entitled. Wcirv. Chamley, 1 Ir. Ch.
R. 298.

(c} Calvert v. Godfrey, 6 B. 97 ; and
see Srookjield v. Bradley, Jac. 634 ;
Woodv. Patteson, 10 B. 541 ; Field v.
Moore, 7 D. M. & G. 691. As to
sale under special circumstances, see
Garmstone v. Gaunt, 1 Coll. 577;
infra, Ch. XX. s. 1. As to mort-
gage of an infant's estate under
special circumstances, see Frith v.

Cameron, 12 Eq. 169 ; but see Hib-
bert v. Cookc, 1 S. & S. 552; Har-
broc v. Combes, 43 L. J. Ch. 336. As
to the power of the Court to order a
sale of an infant's reversionary inte-
rest in personal estate, see Nunn v.
Hancock, 6 Ch. 850.

(d) Thackeray v. Parker, 1 N. R.
567 ; Davis v. Turvey, 32 B. 554 ;
Rubbard v. Hubbard, 2 H. & M. 38 ;
Jackson v. Talbot, 21 Ch. D. 786 ; but
cf. Steed v. Precce, 18 Eq. 192.

(e) 31 & 32 V. c. 40, amended by
the Partition Act, 1876 (39 & 40 V.
c. 17). As to whether the Court
could direct a sale on the request of
an infant under the Act of 1868, s. 3,
see France v. France, 13 Eq. 173;
Davey v. Wietlisbach, 15 Eq. 269 ;
Grove v. Corny n, 18 Eq. 387 ; and see
now sect. 6 of the Act of 1876, and
Wallace v. Greenwood, 16 Ch. D. 362.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE.

3

And, by statute, in particular cases, infants holding land in Sect.'i'
trust, or subject to the debts of their ancestor or testator, are rr~

May convey

enabled to convey, under the authority of the Chancery under special

fll" Q 4" IT "j"PS

Division (/); so, too, by the Infants' Settlement Act (r/), an
infant may, with the sanction of the Court, make a valid and
binding settlement of his or her real or personal estate in
contemplation of marriage ; and, in various special cases,
infants, or their guardians, are enabled, by statute, to sell
and convey land for purposes connected with religion (ti),
charity (i), instruction (k), literature, science, and the fine
arts (/), or works of a public nature (m).

So, an infant can convey under a power simply col- May exercise
lateral (»), or even under a power in gross or appendant or powers,
appurtenant, where an intention appears that it should be
exercisable during minority (o) ; but he cannot be empowered,
at least as against himself, to contract for the sale of land, or
to do any other act which requires an exercise of discretion :
and if he enter into a contract for the sale of lands, he
cannot, during infancy, enforce it ; as otherwise there would
be no mutuality of remedy (p).

By sect. 41 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, where a Under Con«

veyancing

(/) Vide post, pp. 656, 1346, n. (k). c. 49 ; 14 & 15 V. c. 24 ; 15 & 16 V. Act' * 81"

(g) 18 & 19 V. c. 43. c. 49 ; and 6 & 7 Will. IV. o. 90.

(A) See, for a list of the Church (I) 17 & 18 V. c. 112, a. 5.
Building Acts, the preamble to 17 (m) See 23 & 24 V. c. 112.
& 18V. c. 14 (now repealed). The (n) Sug. Pow. 177. As to whether
powers of the Church Building Com- an infant can exercise a power in
missioners are now transferred to the gross over real estate, where no in-
Ecclesiastical Commissioners. 19&20 tention appears that it should be
V. c. 53. As to sites for churchyards, exercisable during infancy, see Re
see 30 & 31 V. c. 133. As to sites for D'Angibem, 15 Ch. D. 228 ; Jessel,
churches, &c., ministers' residences, M. R., there held that he could, and
and burial places, see 36 & 37 V. on appeal James, L. J., apparently
o. 50, under which an infant, with assented ; but Cotton and Brett,
the consent of his guardian, is em- L.JJ., were of a contrary opinion,
powered to convey; extended by 45 (o) Re Cardross's Settlement, 7 Ch.
& 46 V. o. 21. D. 728 ; Re V Angibau, supra.

(i) See 16 & 17V. c. 137, s. 27; (p) Flight v. Bolland, 4 Russ. 298;

18 & 19 V. c. 124, s. 41 ; 23 & 24 V. and see this subject discussed post,

c. 136: 24V. c. 9. p. 1161.

(*) See 4 & 5 V. c. 38 ; 12 & 13 V.

B2

Chap. I.
Sect. 1.

Under

Settled Land
Act.

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

person in his own right seised of, or entitled to, land for an
estate in fee simple, or for any leasehold interest at a rent, is
an infant, the land shall be deemed to be a settled estate
within the Settled Estates Act, 1877 ; and his guardian may
on his behalf execute the statutory powers subject to the
restriction mentioned in the Act (q).

By the Settled Land Act, 1882 (r), where a person, in
his own right seised of, or entitled in possession to, land, is
an infant, then, for the purposes of that Act, the land is settled
land, and the infant is to be deemed to be tenant for life
thereof ; and the trustees of the settlement, or such person as
the Court orders, may exercise on his behalf the powers con-
ferred by the Act («).

And may sell But, by the custom of gavelkind, an heir at the age of

of gavelkind. fifteen may, for valuable consideration, sell, and convey for

an estate in possession, lands which he took by descent ; the

conveyance being by feoffment, and livery of seisin being

delivered by him in person (t).

Fraudulent
sal^ by,
relieved
ag-aiDst, in
Equity :
semlle.

An infant, however, has no privilege to commit a fraud («) ;
if, therefore, he were to sell and convey, asserting that he had
attained his majority, the purchaser, it is conceived, would, if
he had acquired the legal estate, be in Equity entitled to its
protection (?) : so, if the infant, having the legal estate, were
to proceed at Law to recover the property, Equity would

(q) See sect. 49.

(r) See sects. 59 and 60.

(s) As to the construction of the
words ' ' entitled in possession to
land" in sect. 59, see He Wells, 31
W. R. 764 ; Re Morgan, 24 Ch. D.
114 ; and compare Liddellv. Liddell,
52 L. J. Ch. 207. As to the general
principle to be adopted in construing1
the Act, see Re Duke of Newcastle'' s
Settled Estates, 24 Ch. D. 129.

(t} 4 Bac. Ab. pp. 49, 50. Quaere,
whether the custom is not more com-

prehensive? see Consuetudines Kan-
cise, 165 ; it extends to females, ib.t
and is not affected by the 8 & 9 V.
c. 106, s. 3. Elton's Tenures of
Kent, pp. 82 et scq., and see p. 168.

(M) Chambers on Infancy, 412 ;
and see Ovcrton v. Banister, 3 Ha.
503 ; Campbell v. Ingleby, 21 B. 573 ;
and at Law, Briatoiv v. Eastman, 1
Esp. 172.

(v} See the judgment in Hannah v.
Hodson, 9 W. R. 729, 733.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE.

restrain the action, except upon the terms of his refunding $££' i '
the purchase-money ; for instance, where an infant received a
premium for a lease of his lands, upon his false assertion that
the lessor was his guardian, Lord King decreed a return of
the premium with interest (w). But, in the absence of any
false assertion by the infant, relief in Equity will not be
granted against him upon the ground that the other contract-
ing party believed him to be of full age (a) . The mere fact of
an infant • entering into a transaction which must necessarily
be invalid unless entered into by an adult, is not such a fraud

as entitles the other party to relief (y) . There must be an If there be

,. , , . , ,, ,, express mis-

express misrepresentation, and one which would naturally representa-

deceive the person to whom it is made (2) : and where the
false statement is made to a person who knows it to be false,
there is no fraud committed which will take away the privilege
of infancy. While on the one hand it is a legal indulgence
which is not to be used by the infant for the purposes of
fraud, so on the other hand it is not to be infringed upon by
persons who, knowing of the infancy, must be taken also to
know the legal consequences which attach to it (a). At Law,
it has been held that even his fraudulent representation that
he is of full age does not render him liable to an action by
the party who has been thereby induced to contract with
him (b).

By the 53 Geo. III. c. 141, s. 8, all contracts for the sale Could not sell
of any annuity or rent-charge by an infant were declared
utterly void, notwithstanding any attempted confirmation
after majority ; and the intending purchaser was made guilty
of a misdemeanor : but this Act is now repealed by the 17 &
18 Viet. c. 90. Before the repealing Act, the joint and

(w] Esron v. Nicholas, 1 De G. & S. misrepresentation as to age seems to

US. have been implied, not express.

(#) Stikeman v. Dawson, ibid. 90. (a] Nelson v. Stacker, 4 D. & J.

(y} Stikeman v. Dawson, ibid. ; 458 ; and see Inman v. Inman, 15

Wright v. Snowe, 2 ibid. 321. Eq. 260.

(z) Ex parte Jones, 18 Ch. D. 109; (b) Johnson v. Pye, 1 Sid. 258;

with which compare Lempricre v. Liverpool Association v. Fairhurst, 9

Lange, 12 Ch. D. 675, where the Ex. 422.

6 RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

several contract of an infant and an adult for sale of an
— annuity to a third party was valid as against the adult (c).

Relief Act ^ ^e ^n^ail^s' Relief Act, 1874 (d), no action can now be

1874. brought " upon any ratification made after full age of any

promise or contract made during infancy, whether there shall
or shall not be any new consideration for such ratification
after full age." And it would seem that this enactment is to
be construed literally as applying to all contracts, and not
merely to contracts for the repayment of money lent, or for
the payment of the value of goods supplied (e).

Lunatics, Or, 2ndly, The proposed vendor may be a lunatic or idiot :

sales by, how .... _ . . .

far void or in which case, according to the early authorities, his conveyance
may be set aside by his committee during his life, or by his
heirs after his death, and probably by himself if he recovers,
at all events, as against a purchaser who had knowingly
dealt with him as such. And it is now decided that the lunatic
himself, as well as his representatives, may establish his
lunacy in order to impeach a deed which he has executed (/) .
On the other hand, it has been held, at Law, that where a
person, apparently of sound mind and not known to be other-
wise, enters into a contract which is fair and bond fide, and is
executed and completed, and the property forming its subject-
matter cannot be restored so as to put the parties in statu quo,
such contract cannot afterwards be set aside, either by the
alleged lunatic or his representatives (g) : and, in Equity, the
result of the authorities seems to be, that sale-transactions
with a person apparently sane, though afterwards found to be
of unsound mind, will not be set aside against those who
have dealt with him in the bond fide belief that he was of
competent understanding (h) . Nor will a sale or contract be

(c) Haw v. Ogle, 4 Taunt. 10; L. R. Ir. 124, and. vide post, p. 30.
Gilkw v. Lillie, 1 So. 597. (/) Molton v. Camroux, 2 Ex. 487,

(d) 37 &38 V. c. 62, s. 2. 501.

(e) Ex parte Kibble, 10 Ch. 373; (g} Molton v. Camroux, supra;
Coxhead v. Mullis, 3 C. P D. 439 ; Bcavan v. M'Donnell, 9 Ex. 309.
Ditchamv. Worrall, 5 C. P. D. 410 ; (h) See, particularly, Elliott v.
Belfast Banking Co. v. Doherty, 4 Ince, 1 D. M. & Gr. 475 ; and see

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE.

Chap. I.
Sect. 1.

invalidated, merely on proof that the person making it was
subject to insane delusions, even though connected with the
subject-matter, unless the delusions are found to be such as
render him incompetent to deal with his property (/). But
the above statement relates only to sale transactions ; and it
is the better opinion that a voluntary conveyance or a settle-
ment by a lunatic will be treated as void, and not voidable,
both at law and in equity (./).

Until the statute 1 Will. IV. c. 65, s. 27, there was no statutory-
mode of obtaining a conveyance from a vendor who became committees,
lunatic after entering into the contract (k) . This statute was
superseded by the Lunacy Regulation Act (<?), which contains UnderLunacy
ample provisions enabling the committee, under an order of AC£S.
the Chancellor, to convey lands in performance of the lunatic's
contracts (m), and to make sale, partition, or exchange of his
undivided share in any land (n)9 and to sell for building pur-
poses any land of or to which he is seised or entitled in fee
simple (o). It seems doubtful whether this last provision
will include land over which the lunatic has an absolute

also Niell v. Morleij, 9 V. 478 ; Wil-
liams v. Went worth, 5 B. 325 ; Selby
v. Jackson, 6 B. 192; affd. 204;
Sentance v. Poole, 3 C. & P. 1 ;
Price v. Berrington, 3 M. & Gr. 486,
497, 498 ; Campbell v. Hooper, 3 S. &
Gr. 153. In Frost v. Beavan, 17 Jur.
369, the Court on a purchase by a
lunatic rescinded the contract, and
ordered the deposit to be returned
(the vendor's expenses being- first
deducted) ; but this, as the author is
informed, was by arrangement, it
being understood that the vendor
sold with notice of the insanity.
And as to relief against a purchaser
on the ground of the vendor's in-
sanity, see Price v. Berrington, supra;
Wright v. Proud, 13 V. 136. As to
partial insanity and lucid intervals,
see Sdby v. Jackson, supra; Creagh
v. Blood, 2 J. & L. 509 ; Steed v.
Galley, 1 Ke. 620; and Frank v.
Mainwaring, 2 B. 115. A pur-
chaser who has contracted with a

lunatic before he became insane may
obtain specific performance in the
form of a declaration, Halt v. War-
ren, 9 V. 605, and a vesting order.
See Mason v. Mason, 7 Ch. D. 707.

(t) Jenkins v. Morris, 14 Ch. D.
674. As to the distinction in this
respect between executed and exe-
cutory contracts, see Matthews v.
Baxter, L. R. 8 Ex. 132.

(J) Elliott v. Ince, supra.

(k) As to the effect of a fine levied
or a recovery suffered by a lunatic,
see Pope on Lunacy, p. 232.

(f) 16 & 17 V. c. 70 ; see, too, 25 &
26 V. c. 86, s. 1 ; and Lunacy Or-
ders, 1883.

(m) Sect. 122.

(») Sect. 124.

(o) Sect. 125. As to what is a
sale under this Act, see Re Smith, 10
Ch. 79. Under sect. 124 an ex-
change may be made, reserving the
minerals under the land of the lu-
natic; Ro Dicconsen, lo Ch. D. 316.

8

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Sec? i power of appointment, or land conveyed to him to uses to
• bar dower ; but in the latter ease the dower trustee might of
course release his estate (0) . By the Lands Clauses Consoli-
dation Act, 1845 (p), committees of lunatics are empowered
Under Leases to sell and convey ; and by the Leases and Sales of Settled
Estates Act (q) , they may, by the special direction of the
Court, exercise the powers given by that Act for the leasing
and sale of settled lands. Committees must be careful not
to exercise their statutory powers without the consent of the
Chancellor (r).

Settled
Estates Act.

Under Settled
Land Act.

As to acknow-
ledgment
by lunatic
feme covert.

By sect. 62 of the Settled Land Act, where a tenant for
life, or a person having the powers of a tenant for life under
the Act, is a lunatic so found by inquisition, the committee of
his estate may, under an order to be obtained by petition,
exercise the powers of a tenant for life (*).

It is now decided that the Lord Chancellor, in directing a
sale of the real estate of a lunatic married woman, under the
Lunacy [Regulation Act, 1862 (t), has no power to dispense
with her acknowledgment of the deed, and can only vest in
the purchaser an equitable fee binding on herself and her
heir (u).

(o) This provision does not extend
to land of which the lunatic is tenant
for life only ; Re Corbett, 1 Ch. 516.
The original jurisdiction in lunacy
is superseded by the Act; ibid. Where
a lunatic was tenant in tail of an un-
divided share of an estate, and an ac-
tion was brought for partition, the
committee was authorized to join in
requesting a sale under sect. 4 of the
Partition Act, 1868, and in conveying
to the purchaser ; Lillingston v. Pares,
12 Ch. D. 333 ; and see Re Bleomar, 2
D. & J. 88, and Re Barker, 17 Ch.
D. 241. The Court has jurisdiction
to bar the estate tail of a lunatic,
but in doing so it will have regard
to the interests of the remaindermen.
He Sherard, 1 D. J. & S. 421.

(p) 8 & 9 V. c. 18, s. 7. Where
a vendor is a lunatic, and no com-
mittee has been appointed, the pur-

chase cannot safely be completed
without the intervention of a Court
of Equity ; M. R. Co. v. Os win, 1
Coll. 74 ; and see Re Tugwell, 27 Ch.
D. 309.

(q) 40 & 41 V. c. 18, which con-
solidated and amended the Acts of
1856, 1858, 1864, 1874 and 1876;
see post, p. 1278.

(r) In re Wade, 1 H. & Tw. 202.
An action cannot be brought by a
next friend on behalf of a person of
unsound mind not so found by in-
quisition, for the purpose of dealing
with his real estate ; see Halfhide v.
Robinson, 9 Ch. 373.

(*) Where there are no trustees of
the settlement, trustees must be ap-
pointed ; Re Taylor, 31 W. R. 596.

(t) 25 & 26 V. c. 86, s. 13.

(u) Re Stables, 4 D. J. & S. 257 ;
see also 16 & 17 V. c. 70, s. 116.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE.

Or, 3rdly, The proposed vendor may be a married woman,
in which case her capacity to contract will depend on whether ~ TT~

she was married before or after the 1st of January, 1883, on women:—

Estates of
which date the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (#), came how con- '

into operation ; and further, in the former alternative, whether veyed*
the property of which she seeks to dispose is property the title
to which, whether vested or contingent, and whether in pos-
session, reversion or remainder, has accrued before or after
that date. In such cases she is subject to the old law, and
may, with her husband, convey her freehold estates under the
3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74 (y) ; but any other conveyance by her
is, at Common Law, absolutely void (z) . And where a ward
of Court married without consent, and, after attaining twenty-
one, executed, by the direction of the Court, a settlement of
real estate to which she was equitably entitled, but did not
acknowledge the deed, it was held that her heir was not
bound (a).

Before the Fines and Recoveries Abolition Act, in many Customary
places a married woman had a customary power, with her aUeimtion.
husband's concurrence, to dispose of land by deed acknow-
leged before the local authorities (6), and this power, it would
seem, was unaffected by the Act (c) . Her copyhold estates As to copy-
would pass by her surrender, with her husband's concurrence ;
or, if her interest were merely equitable, either by such a
surrender or by deed acknowledged under the Act ; and her
legal terms for years, as well reversionary (d) as in possession,
would pass by the sole assignment of her husband (c) ;
though whether they would have been bound by his contract,
in the event of his death in her lifetime and before convey-
ance, seems to be doubtful (/) ; and in order that a rever-
sionary term might pass by his assignment, it must have been

(x) 45 & 46 V. c. 75. (4) See t Rop. H. & W. 140.

(y) As amended by the Convey- (c) See sect. 78.

ancing- Act, 1882, s. 7. (<*) Duberley v. Day, 16 B. 33 ; Re

(z) Burton's Comp. pi. 206; see Bellamy, 25 Ch. D. 620.

judgment in Zouch v. Parsons, 3 (e) Burton's Comp. pi. 895 ; Hill

Burr. 1805. v. Edmonds, 5 De G. & S. 603.

(a) Field v. Moore, 7 D. M. & G. (/) Post, p. 1122.
691.

10

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Chap. I.
Sect. 1.

Their power
to contract
as to real
estate.

May be re •
strained from
alienation.

such an one as could possibly vest in possession during the
coverture (g). As respects her equitable terms for years, in
order to perfect the title, it was necessary for her to join in
and acknowledge the assignment ; for although the husband's
sole assignment would bind her right by survivorship (/*), it
would not displace her equity to a settlement (i) .

The principle of the disability of coverture was that, in the
eye of the law, until it was altered by the recent Act, a man
and his wife were but one person ; she was disabled to con-
tract with anyone, without the consent of her husband ; omma
quce sunt uxoris sunt ipsius viri (£). Under the 77th section of
the 3 & 4 Will. IY. c. 74, she became capable, with her hus-
band's concurrence, of contracting in Equity, if not at Law,
so as to bind her real estate, though not so as to render
herself personally liable for breach of contract (/).

And although the legal and equitable fee simple be vested
in a married woman, she and her husband may, nevertheless,
be unable effectually to assure it to a purchaser : as where
the property is held under a will or settlement which forbids
alienation during coverture ; for such a restriction is binding,
although no trustee be interposed (m) : nor had the Court any
power before the recent Act to dispense with it (n) : nor,
except in the case of a partition action (0), can trustees, during

(g] Dubcrley v. Dai/, 16 B. 33.

(k) Donne v. Hart, 2 R. & M. 360 ;
Duberley v. Day, 16 B. 33, 41.

(i) Hanson v. Keating, 4 Ha. 1 ;
Wortham v. Pemberton, 1 De G. & S.
644.

(k) Cahitt v. Cahill, 8 Ap. Ca. 420,
425.

(1} Crofts v. Middlcton, 8 D. M. &
G. 192, 219 ; see judgment of L.-J.
K. Bruce.

(m) Baggctt v. Mcux, 1 Ph. 627 ;
Steedman v. Poole, 6 Ha. 193 ; Re
GasMl's Trusts, 11 Jur. N. S. 780;
and Re Ellis' Trusts, 17 Eq. 409.
And see now this subject considered
in Re Bourn, 27 Ch. D. 411, where
Re Clarke's Trusts, 21 Ch. D. 748,

and Re Croughton's Trusts, 8 Ch. D.
460, are discussed ; see also Re Spencer,
30 Ch. D. 183, as to the effect of a
restraint on anticipation where there
is an absolute gift of a fund producing
income ; and see Re Grey's Settle-
ments, 34 Ch. D. 712.

(«) Robinson v. Wheelwright, 6 D.
M. & G. 535 ; see, however, Sanger
v. Sanger, 11 Eq. 470, a case under
the Married Women's Property Act,
1870.

(0) Fleming v. Armstrong, 34 B.
109, where her costs of action were
made a charge on her share, in order
to give the Court jurisdiction to direct
a sale.

TO BUY OB SELL REAL ESTATE.

coverture, safely part with a fund which is affected by such sect'i.'
restraint (p). And even where the wife was guilty of gross "
fraud, by which an innocent purchaser was led to believe that
there was no such restraint, it was held that by no device
could it be evaded (7).

A restraint on anticipation does not prevent a married Effect of
woman from exercising the powers conferred on her by the the restraint.
Settled Estates Act, 1877 (r), and the Settled Land Act,
1882 (s). And by sect. 39 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881,
the Court may, notwithstanding that a married woman is
restrained from anticipation, if it thinks fit, where it appears
to the Court to be for her benefit, by judgment or order, with
her consent, bind her interest in any property. It has been
held, that where a married woman has contracted debts to a
considerable amount, and these debts and the pressure of
creditors annoy her, an application under this section may be
acceded to (t) ; but the power will not be exercised where the
removal would be simply for the benefit of the husband (M) .

But a married woman might, in exercise of a power, pass May convey
either a legal estate, by limitation of an use, or an equitable r
estate : and a general power of appointment authorized an
appointment during coverture, unless the terms of the instru-
ment creating the power were clearly inconsistent with such
an exercise of it (x) ; and, after considerable conflict of opinion,
the rule in Equity was that a married woman, not restrained May dispose
from alienation, had, as an incident of her separate estate and estate!"
without any express power, as complete a power of disposing
of her equitable fee as if she were a feme sole (y)\ but of

(p) Ee GaskelVs Trusts, 11 Jur. Thomas, 48 L. T. 100; Musgravev.

N. S. 780 ; Kenrick v. Wood, 9 Eq. Sandeman, 48 L. T. 215 ; Be Flood'*

333. Trusts, 11 L. B. Ir. 355; Ee Warren,

(q) Stanley v. Stanley, 7 Ch. D. 52 L. J. Ch. 928; He Currey, 66

589 ; see also Jackson v. Hobhouse, 2 L. T. 80 ; Re C.'s Settlement, ib. 299 ;

Mer. 488, per Lord Eldon. Be Scgravc's Timts, 17 L. K. Ir. 373.

(r) 40 & 41 V. c. 18, s. 50. (x) Gouldv. Gould, 2 Jur. N. S.484.

(s) 45 & 46V. c. 38, s. 61, sub-s. 6. (y) Taylor v. Meads, 4 D. J. & S.

(t) Hodffesy.Hodffcs,2QCh.D.74:9. 597; in which case Lord Westbury

(u) Tamplin v. Miller, 30 W. R. reviewed the earlier decisions and

422 ; and see generally Sedgwick v. overruled Buckell v. Blenkhorn, 5 Ha.

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Under the

Conveyancing

Act.

Sec? i course a married woman would not have been regarded as a
feme sole in respect of the fee simple, unless it were clear that
the fee simple, and not merely the life estate, was limited to
her separate use (2) ; and, if tenant in tail, with a restraint
on anticipation during her life, she might nevertheless bar
the entail (a).

Under the Conveyancing Act, 1881, a married woman
may now convey freehold land or things in action to her
husband, and a husband may in like manner convey to his
wife (b) ; and she may now, whether an infant or not,
appoint an attorney on her behalf for the purpose of execu-
ting any deed or doing any other act which she might herself
execute or do (c).

When a wife has obtained a sentence of judicial separation
from her husband, she is, as from the date of the sentence,
and during the continuance of the separation, to be considered
as a feme sole in respect of property of every description
which she may acquire, or which may come to or devolve
upon her ; and, if cohabitation is resumed, all property to
which she is then entitled is to be held to her separate use,
subject only to any written agreement which she may have
entered into with her husband, whilst living separate. If she
dies intestate, her property devolves as if her husband were
dead (d) . A protection order, during its continuance, has
the same effect in respect to the wife's power over property
acquired by her since the desertion, as a decree of judicial
separation (e).

Under the By the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 (/), when any

Or when

judicially

separated.

131, and Lechmere v. Brotheridge, 32
B. 353 ; see, too, Hall v. Waterhouse^
5 Griff. 64 ; and Griff fy v. Cox, 1 V.
sen. 518 ; Sug. Pow. 173 ; Pride v.
Bulb, 7 Ch. 64 ; Lewin on Trusts,
759. So also it has been decided in
Ireland, Adams v. Gamble, 12 Ir.
Ch. R. 102. See also post, pp. 643
et seq. ; 1120 et seq.

(z) Troutbeck v. Boughey, 2 Eq.
534.

(a) Cooper v. Macdonald, 7 Ch. D.
288 ; and see He Jakeman's Trusts,
23 Ch. D. 344.

(b) Sect. 50.

(c) Sect. 40.

(d) 20 & 21 V. c. 85, s. 25 ; 21 &
22V. c. 108, s. 6.

(e) 20 & 21 V. c. 85, s. 21 ; 41 V.
c. 19, s. 4.

(/) 37&38 V. c. 78,s. 6; and see
as to trust estates, post, p. 588.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 13

freehold or copyhold hereditament is vested in a married ^ ap ,

•*• * oecc. i.

woman as a bare trustee, she may convey or surrender the ~

V - Mill 1 . . \ ( ' t ,

same as if she were a feme sole. And as to all trust estates 1874, and

Aj '1 T*T* 1 f*f T

devolving on her since the Married Women's Property Act, Women's

1882, she is, it is conceived, in the same position as if she were

& feme sole. trust estates.

The mere ceremony of marriage between a woman and a Case of
man with whom she is incompetent to contract marriage, of riage.
course leaves her merely a feme sole ; and, as such, able to
deal with her property as she thinks fit : but in such a case
a purchaser from her, otherwise than by a deed in which her
quasi-husband concurs, and acknowledged by her pursuant to
the statute, would be entitled to strict proof of the facts
creating the incompetency. Of course, if her marriage be
dissolved, she is remitted to her original status of a, feme sole.

The observations already made (g) upon fraudulent sales Relief agakst
by an infant, apply, it is conceived, to similar transactions by Saie by mar-
a married woman (A), but if the person dealing with her is ned woman-
aware that she is married, he cannot have the benefit of his
contract, unless it is formally ratified in the only way in
which by law a married woman is permitted to contract (i) ;
so if he is aware of her incapacity to confer a good title, he
may, it seems, lose his right to make her estate liable for the
loss which he has sustained by her fraudulent act (k) .

The Married Women's Property Act, 1870, and the Married

amending Act of 1874 (/), are repealed by the Married pr0pertyActs,

1870and 187*1

(y) Ante, pp. 4, 5. 710; distinguish this case from Sa-

(h) See Jones v. Kearney, 1 D. & vage v. Foster, suprd.

War. 134; Savage v. Foster, 9 Mod. (k) Arnold v. Woodhams, 16Eq. 29.

36; Derbishirev. Home, 3 D. M. & G-. (I) 33 & 34 V. c. 93, and 37 & 38

80; Blackie v. Clark, 15 B. 603; V. c. 50; as to which see p. 11 of

Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, 2 Dr. 363, the last edition of this work ; and as

408 ; Liverpool Association y. Fair- to whether the words " rents and

hurst, 9 Ex. 422 ; Barrow v. Barroiv, profits" in the 8th section of the Act

4 K. & J. 409 ; Sharpe v. Foy, 4 Ch. of 1870 extend to the corpus, or only

35; Re LusHs Trusts, ib. 591. to the income, of her property, see

(«) Nichott v. Jones, 3 Eq. 696, 709, Re Yoss, King v. Toss, 13 Ch. D. 504.

14

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Chap I.

"Women's Property Act, 1882 (m), except as to any act done,
or right acquired, while either of such Acts was in force, or as
to any right or liability of any husband or wife married
before the 1st of January 1883 to sue or be sued under the
provisions of those Acts for or in respect of any debt, con-
tract, wrong, or other matter or thing whatsoever, for or in
respect of which any such right or liability had accrued to
or against such husband or wife before that date.

Effect of

Married

Women's

The general effect of the Act of 1870 was to create a new
separate property in specified kinds of personalty, and to pro-
vide that in certain cases the real property of a married
woman should be held for her separate use, and also to confer
upon her in respect of her statutory separate property a power
to contract, similar to, but not more extensive than, that
which she had previously possessed, in Equity, over property
settled to her separate use. The Act also gave her certain
legal remedies for the recovery and protection of her wages,
earnings or other separate property, but did not otherwise
alter her position. The policy of the Legislature was simply
to secure for her benefit the separate property wThich the Act
created, not to give her an independent status, or enlarge her
contracting capacity (n).

Married Under the Act of 1882 every woman married on or after

Property Act, the 1st of January, 1883 (and every woman married prior to
that date as to property, whether real or personal, her title
to which, whether vested or contingent, and whether in
possession, reversion or remainder, has accrued after that
date (o) ), is entitled to hold and dispose of any real and per-
sonal property as her separate property, in the same manner
as if she were a feme sole, without the intervention of any
trustee. Whether her property be real or personal, whether
her estate or interest in it be legal or equitable, she is now

(m) 45 & 46 V. c. 75.
(n) Howard v. Sank of England,
19 Eq. 295, 301 ; Ashworth v. Outran,

5 Ch. D. 939.

(o) Reid v. Reid, 31 Ch. D. 402.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 15

absolutely freed from the disability of coverture, subject only secT'i "
to this one restriction, viz., that a restraint on anticipation -
may be still attached to her enjoyment either of the corpus
or the income of her property (p).

Or, lastly ; The proposed vendor may have been guilty of Traitors,
treason, or murder, either as principal or accessory before the
fact (q) ; and have thereby subjected his land to forfeiture,
and escheat, upon his attainder (r), that is, upon sentence of
death being passed upon him (s) ; or of any other felony
punishable with death, attainder upon which involves for-
feiture during life (t) ; or he may have incurred a proemu-
nire («) : and in any of these cases, or at least in any of the
first three, his conveyance, although bond fide, for valuable
consideration, and to a purchaser without notice, was, prior
to the 33 & 34 Yict. c. 23, subject to the inchoate rights of
the Crown, or the lord of the fee (x) . In these cases, how-
ever, that which we have, for convenience, referred to as
an incapacity to sell was, in strictness, a mere want of title
as against the Crown or lord of the fee. The effect of
attainder was not avoided by a subsequent conditional free
pardon in the penal colony (y) ; nor had a pardon under the Effect of
sign manual the efficacy or legal effect of a pardon under the paj
Great Seal (z) ; but property acquired by the convict's own
industry, after an absolute or conditional remission of his
sentence by the governor of the penal colony, was protected
by statute against the claims of the Crown (a). Leaseholds
of traitors and felons were, until the late Act, forfeited to the
Crown upon conviction (b) ; but, of these, a bond fide sale
between the crime and the conviction would, it seems, be

(p) As to whether her personal (x) See Grosse v. Gayer, Cro. Car.

status is altered by the Act, see Si/- 172 ; 6 Bac. Ab. 383; 4 Jann. Conv.

monds v. Hallett, 24 Ch. D. 346. 75.

(q) 64 Geo. III. c. 145; 9 Geo. (y) Re Church, 16 Jur. 517.

IV. c. 31, s. 2. (z) Bulkck v. Dodds, 2 B. & Aid.

(r) 3 Bac. Ab. 738. •' 258.

(») 4 Jarm. Conv. 74. (a) 5 Geo. IV. c. 84, s. 26. Goitgh

(t) 4 Bl. Com. 385 ; and 54 Geo. v. Daviei, 2 K. & J. 623 ; which

III. c. 145. see as to the general effect of pardon.

(«) 16 Ric. II. c. 5. (b) 4 Bl. Com. 387.

16 RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Sec? i * ^e^ g°°d (c) • A felon's share of money, which, was ini-

' pressed with the character of realty, would not, in the absence
of anything to change its character, be treated as personalty
Forfeiture for so as to let in the Crown's claim by forfeiture (d). By the
abolished. 33 & 34 Viet. c. 23, the forfeiture and escheat of lands and
goods for treason and felony is abolished, but the Act does
not affect the law of forfeiture consequent upon outlawry (e) ;
a convict, i. <?., a person against whom, after the passing of
the Act, judgment of death or of penal servitude shall have
been pronounced or recorded by any Court of competent
jurisdiction in England, Wales, or Ireland, upon any charge
of treason or felony (/), is rendered incapable, while he
remains subject to the operation of the Act, of alienating or
charging any property, or of entering into any contract (g) ;
but any property which he may acquire while lawfully at
large, under any licence, is not subject to these disabilities (Ji).
The Crown has power to appoint an administrator, in whom,
upon his appointment, all the real and personal property of
the convict is to vest (i) ; and he has an absolute power to
let, mortgage, sell, convey, and transfer any part of such
property as he thinks fit (k) ; and full directions are given as
to the management of the convict's property, which, subject
to the payments and allowances authorized by the Act, is to
revert to the convict or his representatives on the completion
of his sentence, or on his pardon or death (/). If no adminis-
trator is appointed, an interim curator may be appointed by
a Court of Petty Sessions or by a Justice of the Peace, to
administer and manage the property and affairs of the con-
vict (m) ; his duties are analogous to those of a receiver of
real and personal estate (•#) ; he has, it would seem, no power
to sell or mortgage real estate ; nor can he sell or transfer

(c} 4 Bl. Com. 388. See Whitaber cedure has been abolished.

V. Wlsley, 12 C. B. 44. (/) Sect. 6.

(d) Re Han-op's Estate, 3 Dr. 726; (g} Sect. 8.
Re Thompson's Trusts, 22 B. 506. (A) Sect. 30.

(e) Sect. 1. See now 39 & 40 V. (i) Sects. 9 and 10.
c. 18, which vests all property, fall- (k) Sect. 12.

ing to the Crown under a forfeiture, (I) Sect. 18.

in the Treasury Solicitor. By 42 & (m} Sect. 21.

43 V. c. 59, outlawry in civil pro- («) Sect. 24.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 17

any personal estate, except with the authority of the Court or secT i.'
a Justice (0).

The incapacity of a bankrupt to make a title has no parallel Bankrupts.
in the case of a composition, the theory of which is a pur-
chase of the assets by the debtor from his creditors (p)9
without any divesting of the estate by operation of law.

And, with reference to incapacities to sell both of the 1st Incapacitated

owners may

and of the 2nd description, we may here refer to the general sell under

consolidating Act of the 8 Viet. c. 18, which enables owners ^ct 1345.

of partial estates and incapacitated owners (including tenants

in tail precluded from alienation by Act of Parliament (7),

and tenants for life with a restriction against alienation (r))

to sell land to the promoters of undertakings authorized by

Acts in which the general Act is incorporated (s) : and to the And under

provisions of the Commons' Inclosure (t) , and Land Tax He- and Land

demption (u) Acts, which empower such owners to effect tion

sales for the purpose of meeting the expenses of inclosure,
or of discharging their other settled estates from land tax ;
and to the provisions of the Acts authorizing: leases and And under

* Leases and

sales of settled estates under the direction of the Chancery Sales, &c.,

~

Division (x) ; and to the provisions of the Acts authorizing
the sale and exchange of the residences of the clergy, and of
glebe lands in certain cases (//) ; and to the provisions of the

(o) Sect. 25. Queen, whether under Acts, 10 & 11 V. c. Ill ; 11 & 12 V.

his general powers of management c. 99 ; 12 & 13 V. c. 83 ; 15 & 16 V.

he can let the real estate of the con- c. 79 ; 17 & 18 V. c. 97 ; 20 & 21 V.

vict. c. 31 ; 22 & 23 V. c. 43.

(p) Ex p. Jones, 10 Ch. 663, 665 ; («) 42 Geo. III. c. 116, ss. 14, 53,

He Kearky and Clayton's Contract, 98 ; 54 Geo. III. c. 70, s. 44, c. 173,

7 Ch. D. 615. ss. 6, 8, 12 ; 57 Geo. III. c. 100 ; 1 $

(q) Ex p. Earl of Alergavenny, 19 2 V. c. 68 ; 16 & 17 V. c. 74, s. 117.

B. 153. See Beaden v. King, 9 Ha. 499.

(>•) Devenishv. Brown, 4 W. R. 783. (x) 40 & 41 V. c. 18, s. 50 ; 45 &

(s) See sects. 6, 7 et seq. 46 V. c. 38, as to which, vide post,

(t) 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 115, ss. 46, Ch. XIX., sect. 1.

47 ; 8 & 9 V. c. 118 ; 9 & 10 V. c. 70. (y) 1 & 2 V. c. 23, s. 7 et seq. ; 2

Acts for facilitating drainage, 9 & 10 & 3 V. c. 49, s. 15 et seq. ; 5 & 6 V.

V. c. 101 ; 10 & 11 V. c. 38 ; 12 & 13 c. 54, s. 5 ; 9 & 10 V. c. 73, s. 22 ;

V. c. 100 ; 13 & 14 V. c. 31 ; 19 & 20 and 23 & 24 V. c. 93, s. 41.
V. c. 9. See also the Amendment

1). VOL. I. V

18 RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Chap. I. Improvement of Land Act, 1864 (s) ; and to the provisions of
" the Acts empowering the Secretary of State for War to

And under A c '

Defence Acts, acquire lands for the defence of the realm (a) ; and to the
Acts authorizing the gift or sale by incapacitated owners of
land as a site for schools (/>), or for churchyards (c) , or for
sites for places of religious worship, &c. (d), and generally to
the Acts incorporating the provisions of the Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act,

Personal ^ye mav J^Q also refer to the alteration made in the

representative

of trustee or law by sect. 30 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, which pro-
underConv. vides that where an estate or interest of inheritance, or
c ' ' limited to the heir as special occupant, in any tenements or
hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, is vested, on any
trust or by way of mortgage, in any person solely, the same
shall on his death, notwithstanding any testamentary dispo-
sition, devolve to or become vested in his personal represen-
tatives or representative from time to time, in like manner
(and with the same powers) as if the same were a chattel real
vesting in them or him ; and that for the purposes of the
section the personal representatives for the time being of the
deceased are to deemed in law his heirs and assigns within
the meaning of all trusts and powers. This section, which
applies only in cases of death on or after the 1st January,
1882, repeals sect. 4 of the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874,
and sect. 48 of the Land Transfer Act, 1875, excepting in
cases of death before that date (e).

(z) 27 & 28V. c. 114; see, too, dor is not the less a trustee because he

the Limited Owners' Residences Act, has his lien and right of possession

1870 (33 & 34 V. c. 56), partially re- until payment of the purchase-money.

pealed and amended by 34 & 35 V. Lysaght v. Edwards, 2 Ch. D. 499.

c. 84 ; 40 & 41 V. c. 31 ; and 45 & The section will, therefore, apply to

46V. c. 38. such cases; and see JRe Spradberifs

(a) 5 & 6V. c. 94; 18 & 19 V. Mortgage, HCh.D. 514; Re White's

c. 117; 23 & 24V. c. 112; 27 & 28 Mortgage, 51 L. J. Ch. 856; Re

V. c. 89 ; 36 & 37 V. c. 72. Brook's Mortgage, 25 W. R. 841 ;

(V) 4&6V. c. 38; 12 & 13V. c. 49. Christie v. Ovington, 1 Ch. D. 279;

(c} 30 & 31 V. c. 133. and Morgan v. The Sicansea Urban

(d} 36 & 37 V. c. 50. Authority, 9 Ch. D. 582. See also

(e) Where there is a valid contract sect. 4 of the Conveyancing Act,

for sale, and the title, though defec- 1881 ; and as to the distinction

tive, has been accepted by the pur- between this section and sect. 30, see

chaser, it has been held that the ven- post, p. 294.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 10

There is no positive law that property belonging to a gect
charity shall be absolutely inalienable, but the onus is thrown :

Incapacity of

on the alienee and those claiming under him of showing that charity trus-
the sale was beneficial to the charity (/) ; and, unless this
can be done, the transaction will be set aside (y). There is
naturally a strong presumption that land, once devoted to the
charitable purpose, is intended for ever to remain inalienable ;
but under special circumstances the right to alienate it may be
presumed. Thus where a sale of charity lands had taken place
at a very distant date, and had always been acquiesced in, and
the origin of the charity was lost in obscurity, it was held that
a power in the trustees to sell might be presumed (Ji) . The
Chancery Division has power under its general jurisdiction,
and also under Sir Samuel Romilly's Act (52 Greo. III. c. 101),
to direct a sale of charity property, without the sanction of
the Charity Commissioners (i) ; and, notwithstanding any of
the disabling statutes, sales of charity lands may now be
effected under 16 & 17 Yict. c. 137, s. 24 (k). Nor have the
powers of the Charity Commissioners under this Act been
abridged by the Allotments Extension Act, 1882 (/). So,
where corporations or trustees in the United Kingdom, hold-
ing moneys in trust for any public or charitable purpose, have,
under the 33 & 34 Yict. c. 34, invested their trust funds in
any real security, and the equity of redemption of the pre-
mises comprised therein has become liable to foreclosure, or
has been otherwise barred or released, the same are by the
Act directed to be sold and converted into money. But
without the express authority of Parliament or the Chancery
Division, or unless they are acting under a scheme legally

(/) See*.^. A.-G. V. Brettingham, and cases cited; A.-G. v. Davey, 4

3B. 91. D. &J. 136.

(g) As to the alienation of charity (h) A.-G. v. Magdalen CoL, 6 H.

lands by trustees, see A.-G. v. Green, L. C. 189.

6 V. 452 ; A.-G. v. Corp. of Newark, (i) Re Ashton Charity, 22 B. 288.

1 H. 395; A.-G. v. Brettingham, 3 (k) And see 18 & 19 V. c. 124,

B. 91 ; A.-G. v. South Sea Co., 4 B. s. 38.

453; A.-G. v. Pargeter, 6 B. 150; (/) 45 & 46 V. o. 80; Parish of

A.-G. v. Pilgrim, 2 M. & G. 414 -t Sutton to Church, 26 Ch. D. 173.
A.-G. v. Magdalen College, 18 B. 223,

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Chap. I.
Sect. 1.

Of statutory
corporations.

established, or with the approval of the Commissioners, charity
trustees are now prohibited from selling or charging any
portion of their charity lands (in). By a late Act (n)9 the
trustees of any charity for religious, educational, literary,
scientific, or public charitable purposes, upon obtaining from
the Charity Commissioners a certificate of incorporation, may
in their corporate name hold, acquire, convey, assign, or
demise any present or future property belonging to their
trust, but only in the same way and subject to the same re-
strictions as they might have done without such incorporation.

A statutory corporation is limited as to all its powers by
the purposes of its incorporation, as defined by its memoran-
dum of association or special Act (o) ; and, consequently, a
railway company, having the usual powers under its special
Act to take and use land for the purpose of the railway and
works, cannot, whether for valuable consideration or other-
wise, alienate for any purposes outside the Act any portion of
its land, not being superfluous land within sect. 127 of the
Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, or not being land
taken for extraordinary purposes within sect. 45 of the Rail-
ways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 ; nor can it grant any
easement over the same ( p) . How far such a corporation has,
subject to the above principle, the rights of an ordinary
owner, is a question which cannot be said to be as yet satisfac-
torily settled (q).

(m) 18 & 19 V. c, 124, 8. 29. As
to what accounts are directed in
charity informations, eee A.-G. v.
Drapers Co., 6 B. 382; A.-G. v.
Pretymann 4 B. 466; A.-G. v. Hall,

16 B. 388; A.-G. v. Magdalen College,
18 B. 223; et vide Seton, 550. As
to what are charity lands, see Go-
vernors for Relief, $c. v. Button, 27
B. 651 ; Royal Society v. Thompson,

17 Ch. D. 407; Finnis to Forbes, 24
Ch. D. 587, 591.

(») 35 & 36 V. c. 24.

(o) Ashbury Carriage Co. v. RlcTic,
L. R. 7 H. L. 653 ; Hawkes v. East-
ern Counties]*. Co., 5 H. L. C. 331.

(p) MuUlncrv. Midland R. Co., 11
Ch. D. 611. As to "superfluous
land," see Ch. XIV. sect. 3. It
would seem to follow that easements
cannot be prescribed for against such
a corporation, but the point, though
raised, has never been satisfactorily
decided, see Mason v. Shrewsbury R.
Co. L. R. 6 Q. B. 578 ; Norton v. L.
$ N. W. R. Co., 13 Ch. D. 268.

(q) See Swindon Waterworks Co. v.
Berks and Wilts Canal Co., L. R. 7
H. L. 697 ; Norton v. L. $ N. W. R.
Co., supra; Banner v. G. W. R. Co.,
24 Ch. D. 1.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE.

21

The case of a Common Law corporation is, however, dif- Seot'l.
ferent. Such a corporation when duly created has, as an Of c
incident annexed by Law, the same power to purchase and Law corpora-
alien real estate, and to enter into contracts respecting it, that
is possessed and may he exercised by an individual ; and even
a clause in their charter restraining them from aliening or
demising except in a certain form is deemed to be merely a
precept, and not binding in law (r).

We may here also conveniently refer to the limited powers Of ecclesi-
of alienation which, in respect of corporate property, have corporations,
been conferred by the following statutes : — The 14 & 15 Yict.
c. 104 authorizes ecclesiastical corporations, with the approval
of the Church Estates Commissioners, to sell, enfranchise, and
exchange church lands, or to purchase the interests of their
lessees ; and these powers, at first temporary, have been con-
tinued by later Acts («). The 21 & 22 Yict. c. 44, and 23 &
24 Yict. c. 59, confer limited powers for the sale, enfran-
chisement, and exchange of lands on the universities of
Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, and their several colleges,
and on the colleges of Eton and Winchester. Workhouses,
lands, and other parish property may be sold under 5 & 6
Yict. c. 18 (t). We may also refer to the restrictions imposed Of municipal
by sects. 108-110 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,
on sales by municipal corporations (u) ; to the powers of
alienation given by the Land Tax Redemption Acts ; to the
powers of sale conferred on the Governors of Queen Anne's
Bounty by the 28 & 29 Yict. c. 69, s. 4 ; and to the powers of
sale and leasing conferred on local authorities by the Public
Health Act, 1875.

(r) Button's Hospital Case, 10 Co. (f) Amended by 45 & 46 V. c. 58,

1 ; Riche v. Ashbury Carriage Co., s. 14; see too 20 & 21 V. c. 13. As

L. R. 9 Ex. 224, 262, 292. to dispensing with enrolment, see

(*) 17 & 18 V. c. 116; 21 & 22 V. 7 & 8 V. c. 101, s. 73; Webster v.

c. 57 ; 22 & 23 V. c. 46 ; 23 & 24 V. Southey, 35 W. R. 622.

c. 124, s. 28. The Land Tax Re- (u) 45 & 46 V. c. 50. See also

demption Acts enable ecclesiastical s. 128, as to saving provisions, and

corporations to sell lands for redemp- on the old Act, Rawlinson's Mun.

tion of land tax. See Whidborne v. Corp. Act, 8th ed. 210. And see

Eccl Commissioners, 7 Ch. D. 375. sect. 11 (2) of 48 & 49 V. c. 72.

20

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Chap. I.
Sect. 1.

Of statutory
corporations.

established, or with the approval of the Commissioners, charity
trustees are now prohibited from selling or charging any
portion of their charity lands (in). By a late Act (n)9 the
trustees of any charity for religious, educational, literary,
scientific, or public charitable purposes, upon obtaining from
the Charity Commissioners a certificate of incorporation, may
in their corporate name hold, acquire, convey, assign, or
demise any present or future property belonging to their
trust, but only in the same way and subject to the same re-
strictions as they might have done without such incorporation.

A statutory corporation is limited as to all its powers by
the purposes of its incorporation, as defined by its memoran-
dum of association or special Act (o) ; and, consequently, a
railway company, having the usual powers under its special
Act to take and use land for the purpose of the railway and
works, cannot, whether for valuable consideration or other-
wise, alienate for any purposes outside the Act any portion of
its land, not being superfluous land within sect. 127 of the
Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, or not being land
taken for extraordinary purposes within sect. 45 of the Rail-
ways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 ; nor can it grant any
easement over the same (p) . How far such a corporation has,
subject to the above principle, the rights of an ordinary
owner, is a question which cannot be said to be as yet satisfac-
torily settled (q).

(in) 18 & 19 V. c. 124, B. 29. As
to what accounts are directed in
charity informations, eee A.-G. v.
Drapers Co., 6 B. 382; A.-G. v.
Pretyman, 4 B. 466; A.-G. v. Hall,

16 B. 388; A.-G. v. Magdalen College,
18 B. 223; et vide Seton, 550. As
to what are charity lands, see Go-
vernors for Relief, $c. v. Sutton, 27
B. 651 ; Royal Society v. Thompson,

17 Ch. D. 407 ; linnis to Forbes, 24
Ch. D. 587, 591.

(n) 35 & 36 V. c. 24.

(o) Ashbury Carnage Co. v. Jliche,
L. K. 7 H. L. 653 ; Hawkes v. East-
ern Counties R. Co., 5 H. L. C. 331.

(p) MuUinerv. Midland R. Co., 11
Ch. D. 611. As to "superfluous
land," see Ch. XIV. sect. 3. It
would seem to follow that easements
cannot be prescribed for against such
a corporation, but the point, though
raised, has never been satisfactorily
decided, see Mason v. Shreicsbury R.
Co. L. R. 6 Q. B. 578 ; Norton v. L.
$ N. W. R. Co., 13 Ch. D. 268.

(q) See Swindon Waterworks Co. v.
Berks and Wilts Canal Co., L. R. 7
H. L. 697 ; Norton v. L. $ N. W. R.
Co., supra; Banner v. G. W. R. Co.,
24 Ch. D. 1.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE.

21

The case of a Common Law corporation is, however, dif- SeoC*l.
ferent. Such a corporation when duly created has, as an Q . CQ
incident annexed by Law, the same power to purchase and Law corpora-
alien real estate, and to enter into contracts respecting it, that
is possessed and may be exercised by an individual ; and even
a clause in their charter restraining them from aliening or
demising except in a certain form is deemed to be merely a
precept, and not binding in law (r).

"We may here also conveniently refer to the limited powers Of ecclesi-
of alienation which, in respect of corporate property, have corporations,
been conferred by the following statutes : — The 14 & 15 Yict.
c. 104 authorizes ecclesiastical corporations, with the approval
of the Church Estates Commissioners, to sell, enfranchise, and
exchange church lands, or to purchase the interests of their
lessees ; and these powers, at first temporary, have been con-
tinued by later Acts (*). The 21 & 22 Yict. c. 44, and 23 &
24 Yict. c. 59, confer limited powers for the sale, enfran-
chisement, and exchange of lands on the universities of
Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, and their several colleges,
and on the colleges of Eton and Winchester. Workhouses,
lands, and other parish property may be sold under 5 & 6
Yict. c. 18 (t). We may also refer to the restrictions imposed Of municipal
by sects. 108-110 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,
on sales by municipal corporations (u) ; to the powers of
alienation given by the Land Tax Eedemption Acts ; to the
powers of sale conferred on the Governors of Queen Anne's
Bounty by the 28 & 29 Yict. c. 69, s. 4 ; and to the powers of
sale and leasing conferred on local authorities by the Public
Health Act, 1875.

(?•) Button's Hospital Case, 10 Co. (t) Amended by 45 & 46 V. c. 58,

1 ; Riche v. Ashbury Carriage Co., B. 14; see too 20 & 21 V. c. 13. As

L. R. 9 Ex. 224, 262, 292. to dispensing with enrolment, see

(») 17 & 18 V. c. 116; 21 & 22 V. 7 & 8 V. c. 101, s. 73 ; Webster v.

c. 57 ; 22 & 23 V. c. 46 ; 23 & 24 V. Southey, 35 W. R. 622.
c. 124, s. 28. The Land Tax Re- (u) 45 & 46 V. c. 50. See also

demption Acts enable ecclesiastical s. 128, as to saving provisions, and

corporations to sell lands for redemp- on the old Act, Rawlinson's Mun.

tion of land tax. See Whidborne v. Corp. Act, 8th ed. 210. And see

Eccl. Commissioners, 7 Ch. D. 375. sect. 11 (2) of 48 & 49 V. c. 72.

22

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Chap. I.
Sect. 2.

Who are
relatively
incompetent
to sell.

Persons
having no
transferable
interest.

(2.) Who are relatively incompetent to sell.

Incapacities to sell of the second description may be con-
sidered to consist in, 1st, the want of a transferable (#) title
to the property proposed to he dealt with ; and, 2ndly, the
existence of some relation between the proposed vendor and
the purchaser which prevents a sale, except under special pre-
cautions ; in which cases, however, the transaction is binding
on the vendor and voidable by the purchaser.

Persons
standing in
special influ-
ential relation
towards
proposed
purchaser.

Conditions in
restraint of
alienation : —
how far valid.

Upon the first of these sub-divisions we may remark, that
a right of alienation is generally incidental to and inseparable
from the beneficial ownership of property. Thus a mere
declaration annexed to a gift to A. in fee (y) — or, it is con-
ceived, for any estate (2) — that the property shall not be
aliened, or shall not be charged («), is repugnant and void ;
the estate cannot be preserved to A. despite his own volun-
tary acts or involuntary misfortunes: but, within certain
limits, which do not seem to be very clearly defined by the
authorities (b), the estate limited to him may be made to
determine or go over on the occurrence of any thing which,
in case he were absolute owner, would operate as a voluntary
or involuntary alienation. But though a man may, on
alienation, qualify the interest of his alienee by a condition
to take effect on bankruptcy, he cannot, by contract or other-
wise, qualify his own interest by a condition to take effect

(x) See A.-G. v. Corp. of Plymouth,
9 B. 67 ; where a corporation was
held incapable in Equity of contract -
ing to sell property, by reason of a
duty which it owed in respect there-
of to the public. As to the remedy
in cases of collusive alienations of
corporate property, see 5 & 6 Will.
IV. c. 76, s. 97, and A.-G. v. Wil-
son, 9 Si. 30.

(y) Co. Litt. 206 b, 223 a ; 2 Jarm.
16.

(z) See as to an estate for life,
Rochfordv. Hackman, 9 Ha. 475 ; and

see Birdv. Johnson, 18 JUT. 976.

(«) Willis v. Iliscox, 4 M. & Cr.
201 ; Shaw v. Ford, 7 Ch. D. 669 ;
Re Maclean, 20 Eq. 186.

(b) See Co. Litt. 223 a ; Mus-
champ v. Bluet , Bridg. 132 ; Ware
v. Cann, 10 B. & C. 433; Doe v.
Pearson, 6 Ea. 173 ; Large' s case,
2 Leon. 82 ; 3 ib. 182 ; Willis v,
Iliscox, supra; Atticatcr v. Attwatcr,
18 B. 330 ; 2 Jarm. 18 ; see judg-
ment of Sir G. Jessel in Re Macleay,
20 Eq. 186; but see Ware v. Cann,
supra; Re Rosher, 26 Ch. D. 801.

TO BUY OK SELL REAL ESTATE. 23

on liis own bankruptcy. It seems, however, that he may do so Sc!-t 2

by a condition to take effect on his own attempted alienation, •

although for value (c) . Where the condition is in an active
form, requiring something to be done by the grantee, and
there is no collusive purpose, an act in invitum, such as bank-
ruptcy, or the giving of a warrant of attorney, is not a cause
of forfeiture (d). The case of a married woman furnishes an
exception from the general rule: she, as we have already
seen(<?), may, in Equity, be effectually restrained while covert
from dealing with even her fee simple estate : and no condi-
tion or gift over is necessary to give effect to the restriction ;
inasmuch as it operates to create in her a personal disqualifi-
cation to contract or convey the particular property : the pro-
vision in such a case being one, not of forfeiture but of
preservation ; and even this disqualification may, as we have
seen, be now, in special cases, removed by the Court.

We may here remark that the fact of a woman being a
professed nun does not affect her capacity to take or dispose
of property (/).

Upon the 2nd sub-division we may instance the case of Undue
an agent for purchase, who cannot sell his own estate to his
principal, without acquainting him with the facts (#) : and, as
a general rule, whenever such a relation subsists between
contracting parties as may enable one to exercise undue in-
fluence (//) over the other, whether the relation be that of
parent and child (i), guardian and ward, legal adviser and

(c) Knight v. Browne, 9 "W. R. (h) See Casbome v. Barsham, 2 B.
515; Brooke v. Pearson, 27 B. 181. 76; Cooke v. Lamottc, 15 B. 234,

(d) Avison v. Holmes, 1 J. & H. 239 ; Coulson v. Allison, 2 D. F. & J.
530; and see cases cited in note, 521.

ib. p. 540. (t) Iloghton v. Hoghton, 15 B. 278 ;

(a) Ante, p. 10. see Beanland v. Bradley, 2 S. & (Jr.

(/) Ee MetcalfSs Trusts, 2 D. J. & 339 ; Wright v. Vandcrplank, 8D. M.

S. 122. & G-. 133; Dimsdak v. Dimsdale, 3

(g) Gillett v. Peppercorne, 3 B. 78; Dr. 556; Gibson v. Jeyes, 6 V. 266 ;

Rothschild v. Brookman, 2 Dow & C. Holman v. Loynes, 4 D. M. & Gr. 270 ;

188 ; Bcntley v. Craven, 18 B. 75 ; Gresky v. Mousky, 4 D. & J. 78, 94.
Blake v. Mowatt, 21 B. 603.

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Chap. I.
Sect. 2.

Sect. 3.

Who are
generally
incompetent
to purchase.

Corporations
cannot hold
without
licence.

client (A*), trustee and ccstul que trust, medical man and
patient, spiritual adviser and penitent, or whatever else may
be the nature of the confidential relation, if influence is ac-
quired and abused, or confidence reposed and betrayed (/),
the Court, upon proof of the exercise of such undue influence,
will set aside the transaction (m) ; and the circumstance of the
real facts not being stated on the face of the assurances will
be considered prima facie evidence of fraud (n).

(3.) Who are generally incompetent to purchase.
Purchasers must, necessarily, be either individuals (o) or
corporations : corporations, of whatever description, may pur-
chase, but cannot, in their corporate capacities, hold land,
except under a licence to hold in mortmain (/?), or under the
special provisions of an Act of Parliament (q).

(k) Broun v. Kennedy, 33 B. 133 ;
12 W. R. 360. As to the case of
the promoter of a company, where a
similar principle applies, see Erlanger
v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., 3 Ap.
Ca. 1284, per Lord Penzance.

(/) Smith v. Kay, 7 H. L. C. 750 ;
Harrison v. Guest, 6 D. M. & G. 432 ;
Rhodes v. Bate, 1 Ch. 252 ; Tate v.
Williamson, 2Ch. 56; Mitchell v. Horn-
fray, 8 Q. B. D. 587 ; and see Wright
v. Proud, 13 V. 136 ; and Hay garth
v. Wearing, 12 Eq. 320 ; where the
fiduciary relation was held not to be
established, but the deed was set
aside on other grounds ; cf . Cockburn
v. Edwards, 18 Ch. D. 449.

(m) In determining as to the
validity of dealings with expectant
heirs or reversioners, the question
whether undue influence has been
exercised or advantage taken, is
always material.

(n) See Mulhallen v. Marum, 3 D.
& War. 317 ; Ahcarnev. Hogan, Dru.
310; Gibson v. Russell, 2 Y. & C.
C. C 104 ; Hatch v. Hatch, 9 V. 292;
Hugucnin v. Baseley, 14 V. 273 ; 2
Wh. & T. L. C. ; Dent v. Bennett,
4 M. & C. 269 ; Harvey v. Mount, 8
B. 439 ; Bilhif/ev. Southce, 9 Ha. 534;

Baker v. Loader, 16 Eq. 49 ; and cases
therein respectively cited ; see too
Middletonv. Sherburne, 4 Y. & C. 358.

(o) As to the effect of a conveyance
to a body of unincorporated indivi-
duals, see Thompson v. Shakspcar, 1 D.
F. & J. 399 ; and Carnev. Long, 2 D.
F. & J. 75. For the case of a fluc-
tuating body, see Gateivard's Case,
6 Co. 60, and Goodman v. Mayor
of Saltash, 7 Ap. Ca. 633. In the
case of a grant by the Crown to such
a body, incorporation will be pre-
sumed, if necessary for establishing
the validity of the grant. Chilton v.
Corp. of London, 7 Ch. D. 735 ; Lord
Rivers v. Adams, 3 Ex. D. 361.

(p) Co. Litt. 2 b. A benefit build-
ing society under the 6 & 7 Will. IV.
c. 32, might purchase real estate ;
Mullock v. Jenkins, 14 B. 628 ; but
this Act, except as to subsisting so-
cieties, has been repealed by the 37
& 38 V. c. 42, which apparently re-
stricts the power of such a society to
hold land to what they hold by way
of mortgage, or acquire by fore-
closure. See as to charities, 16 & 17
V. c. 137, s. 27; 18 & 19 V. c. 124,
ss. 35 and 41 ; and ante, p. 3.

(q) In Pcrring v. Trail, 18 Eq. 88,

\ . TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 25

Purchases by individuals, unincorporated, must be made by gee?' 3 *
them in their private capacities and individual names : e.g. ~ jh~~T
a purchase by, co nomine, the inhabitants of a place, or the unincorpo-
parishioners or churchwardens of a parish, is bad ; so is a bad.
similar purchase by, or grant to, the commoners of a waste (r).

But, by custom, in London and elsewhere, the parson and Parochial
churchwardens are a corporation to purchase and hold land (*) ; may purchase
and so, by statute, are church wardens and overseers generally
in some matters relating to the Poor Laws (£), and to Educa-
tion (H). So, too, certain quasi corporate bodies, as Local So also local
Boards of Health formerly established under the Public
Health Act, 1848 (#), and Improvement Commissioners acting
as Burial Boards (//), or the Sanitary Authorities under the
Public Health Act, 1875 (z)y to which these local jurisdictions
are now transferred, may purchase and hold lands for the pur-
poses authorized by their Acts. So, too, public companies Public
formed under the Companies Act, 1862, may hold lands : but
if formed for the promotion of art, science, religion, or charity,
or any like object not involving the acquisition of gain, the
quantity so held must not exceed two acres, unless the Board
of Trade sanctions a larger holding (a). And the Governors
of Queen Anne's Bounty have power to purchase (b).

We may here also refer to the 21 & 22 Viet. c. 92, as Purchases for
amended by the 34 Viet. c. 14, under which contracts for the purposes,
purchase of property for certain county purposes may be
entered into in the name of the Clerk of the Peace on behalf

it was held that a statutory power c. 49 ; and 14 V. c. 24.

conferred on a charity to acquire land (x) 11 & 12 V. c. 63.

by will, implied a power to devise (y) 20 & 21 V. c. 81 ; 23 & 24 V.

land for the purposes of the charity. c. 64. As to the metropolitan area,

But see and distinguish Luckcraft v. see 16 & 17 V. c. 134 ; 18 & 19 V.

Pridham, 6 Ch. D. 205. c. 128 ; 20 & 21 V. cc. 35, 81 ; 24 &

(/•) Co. Litt. 3 a. 25 V. c. 101.

(«) See Warner's case, Cro. Jac. (z) 38 & 39 V. c. 55, ss. 7 and 175 ;

532 ; note (4) to Co. Litt. 3 a. see also the Act of 1872.

(t) 9 Geo. I. c. 7, s. 4 ; Sug. 685. (a) 25 & 26 V. c. 89, ss. 18, 21.

(«) Jointly with the minister ; see (*) 1 & 2 V. c. 23 ; 28 & 29 V.

4&5 V. c. 38, ss. 7and8; 12&13V. c. 69.

26 RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

'3*' °^ ^e Justices> an(i ^ne purchased property may be conveyed
to the Clerk of the Peace, and will vest in his successors in
the office from time to time.

Alien could Previously to the passing of the Naturalization Act, 1870,
an alien might purchase before denization ; but the Crown
might at any time assert its right to the property (c), unless
the alien was a subject of a friendly state, and the property
was taken for the purposes of his own residence or business
for a term not exceeding twenty-one years (d) ; and the
Crown might exercise the right of re-entry, without the
necessity of any inquisition being taken, or office found (e).
Before the Crown had exercised its right of re-entry, an alien
might make a conveyance to a natural-born subject, which,
though it could not defeat the prior right of the Crown,
would be valid in every other respect (/). The Crown could,
it was said, claim land vested in trustees for an alien (g] ;
but not his share of the produce of sale of real estate, devised
in trust to sell (//) ; nor, according to a modern decision, the
benefit of an executory trust to convey land to an alien (i) ;
but on appeal the grounds of the decision were not ap-
proved; and they were expressly dissented from in a later
case (k).

Leases to, The claim of the Crown extended to terms for years (/) ;

were formerly

void. and, until recently, the only exception was of leases of

habitations of alien merchant friends during their lives and

(c) Co. Litt. 2 b ; Rex v. Holland, cases are very fully reviewed ; see,
Aleyn, 14 ; Dumonccl v. Dumoncel, 13 too, Sharp v. St. Sauvcur, 7 Ch.
Ir. Eq. R. 93. 343, where Barrow v. Wadkin is ap-

(d) 7 & 8 V. c. 66, 8. 5, now rep. proved of.

by 33 V. c. 14. (A) Du HourmeUn v. Sheldon, 4 M.

(e) 22 & 23 V. c. 21, s. 25. & C. 525 ; and see p. 530, as to
(/) Shep. T. 232. distinguishing Fourdrin v. Gowdey,
(y) Du HourmeUn v. Sheldon, IB. 3 M. & K. 383.

90 ; Sug. 685 ; but see Rittson v. (i) Rittson v. Stordy, supra.

Stordy, 3 S. & G-. 230 ; affirmed on (k) Harrow v. Wadkin, 24 B. 1 ;

other grounds, 2 Jur. 1ST. S. 410, but Sharp v. St. Sauveur, 7 Ch. 343.

expressly dissented from in Barrow (I) Co. Litt. 2 b ; Rex v. JSast-

v. Wadkin, 24 B. 1, where the prior bourne, 4 Ea. 107.

TO BUY OK SELL REAL ESTATE. 27

residence within the realm (m). Leases, or agreements for a SeJf'sT
lease (»), to alien artificers or handicraftsmen, were, prior to
the now repealed statute of 7 & 8 Viet. c. 66, absolutely void ;
although an assignment to an alien artificer of a subsisting
lease has been held valid (o). By that Act, however, a resi- Exception of
dent alien friend might hold any lands, houses or other under 7 & 8 V.
tenements, for the purpose of residence, or of occupation by c< 66'
himself or his servants, or for the purpose of any business,
trade, or manufacture, for any term not exceeding twenty-
one years, as if he were a natural-born subject (p).

But by the late Act (<?) the disabilities of an alien as Naturaliza-_
respects the acquisition of real and personal property were
almost entirely removed ; he may now acquire, hold, and
dispose of real property situate within the United Kingdom
as freely as a natural-born British subject ; but until he has
obtained a certificate of naturalization after the period of
residence, and in the manner prescribed by the Act (>*), he
cannot hold office, or exercise any municipal, parliamentary,
or other franchise. The Act is not retrospective (*) ; nor does
it confer upon an alien any right to hold real property situate
out of the United Kingdom (t).

By the 7 Anne, c. 5, 4 Geo. II. c. 21, and 13 Geo. III. c. 21, Natural-bom
the children of a male British-born subject, or of his son, are, is.
with certain special exceptions (M), to be considered natural-
born subjects ; and, by the 7 & 8 Yict. c. 66, the child born
of a British mother out of the Queen's allegiance is enabled
to hold land (z) ; and by the 33 Yict. c. 14, where the father,
or the mother being a widow, has obtained a certificate of
naturalization in the United Kingdom, every child of such

(m) 32 Hen. VIII. c. 16, s. 13. giance by 33 & 34 V. c. 102.

(«) Lapierre v. M'Intosh, 9 A. & (r) Sect. 7 et seq.
E. 857. (*) Sharp v. St. Sauveur, 7 Ch. 343,

(o) Wootton v. Steffenoni, 12 M. & and see sect. 2, sub-sect. 3.
W. 129. (t) Sect. 2, sub-sect. 1.

(p) Sect. 5. (u) As to which, see the Acts, and

(q) 33 V. c. 14 ; amended as re- fitch v. Weber, 6 Ha. 51.
spects the taking of oaths of alle- (x) Sect. 3.

30

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Chap. I.
Sect. 3.

What time
allowed for
election.

Infants'
Relief Act.

Whether an
infant, if he
abandon the
contract, can
recover the
price.

the like privilege descends on his representatives. The pur-
chase of an annuity by an infant was made absolutely void
by statute, and incapable of confirmation after majority (k) ;
but this has been repealed by a later Act (/) .

No precise rule can be laid down as to the time within
which the infant, after attaining majority, must elect. An
unexplained acquiescence of three or four months (w), or,
even a shorter period (».) in the case of a purchase, would
probably amount to confirmation ; but the delay of a fort-
night would not be unreasonable (o) . If his election be to
avoid the purchase he ought to disclaim ( />) .

The Infants' Eelief Act, 1874, as already pointed out (5-),
applies to any ratification made after full age of any contract
made during infancy, and precludes any action being brought
upon such ratification. No distinction can, it is conceived, be
drawn, as respects the application of the Act, between a
contract for sale, one for purchase, and any other contract ;
and whenever a person, after attaining twenty-one, desires to
adopt and make binding a contract which he has entered into
while a minor, the only safe rule of practice is to have an
entirely new contract, not one which is in terms, or according
to its fair construction, merely a confirmation of the previous
voidable contract.

And, although the infant may abandon the contract, and
thus relieve himself from all unsatisfied liabilities under it,

(k) 53 Geo. III. c. 141, s. 8.

(I) 17 & 18 V. c. 90. But see
sect. 2 of the Infants' Relief Act,
1874 (37 & 38 V. c. 62).

(m) Betsey's case, Cro. Jac. 320.

(n) See judgment in Holmes v.
Sloffff, 8 Taunt. 42, Park, J.; and
Sirkenhead, $c. R. Co. v. Pilcher, 5
Ex. 127.

(o) Doe v. Smith, 2 T. R. 436,
439.

(p) See 5 Ex. 128 ; Goode v. Har-
rison, 5 B. & Aid. 147. As to the
adoption and avoidance of contracts
to purchase land, see the notes to
Tucker v. Morcland, 1 Amer. L. C. 314 ,
6th ed., and particularly Henry v.
Root, 33 N. Y. 526. The rules laid
down in the said cases are applicable
to our law.

(q) Vide ante, p. 6, and cases there
cited.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 31

he cannot, it is said, recover money which he has actually SocT 3
paid, unless such payment were procured by fraud (r), or -
except in cases where he has derived no benefit from the con-
tract (.v) ; and if he be unable to restore the consideration,
this will be an additional bar to the action : for instance,
where an infant paid a premium for a lease of business pre-
mises, and entered upon and occupied them, it was held,
upon his attaining majority and repudiating the lease, that,
whatever might be the general rule, he could not, under the
circumstances, recover the premium, inasmuch as he had en-
joyed a part of that term, for which it formed the considera-
tion (t) : and although, upon the purchase of the fee simple
the same decisive effect might not always be attributable to
mere occupation («/•) , any act affecting the value of the estate,
e. g., the felling of ornamental timber (.r), or the removal or
alteration of buildings, &c., would, it is conceived, be conclu-
sive against his right to reclaim the purchase-money.

If, however, the infant had fraudulently represented him- Fraudulent
self to the vendor as an adult, Equity, it is conceived, would relieved,6 3 '
relieve the vendor by restraining any action for the purchase- J
money (supposing such action to be maintainable), and would
allow the vendor to avail himself of any collateral securities
which he might hold for the unpaid balance : but it could
not enforce any security given by the purchaser personally
during his infancy ; such being absolutely void (y) .

A lunatic or idiot may purchase ; and, according to the Purchase by
early authorities, cannot himself, though he recover his far voidable,
senses, avoid the transaction : but it may be set aside by the

(r) Macph. on Inf. 484 ; Wilson (t) Holmes v. Blogg, 8 Taunt. 508 ;

v. Kearse, 2 Pea. N. P. 196 ; Ex Ex p. Taylor, 8 D. M. & G. 254.
p. Taylor, 8 D. M. & G. 254 ; Simp- (u) See, however, Blackburn v.

son, 46. Smith, 2 Ex. 783.

(s) See as to avoidance by infanta (x) As to what is ornamental

of their contracts, and their right timber, see Ford v. Tynte, 2 D. J. &

to recover money paid thereunder, S. 127.
Lindley, 82. (y) Simpson, 97.

32 RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Sect? '3 ' Crown, after office found (s), or by his committee, after in-

' quisition (a) ; or by his representatives, after his decease,

unless he have recovered his senses and agreed to the pur-
chase (b). The present doctrine of the Courts in regard to
such purchases seems, however, to accord with that which has
been already stated with respect to contracts for sale by
lunatics (c). In a modern case, a purchase of an estate in
consideration of the release of a bond debt, was set aside at
the suit of a legatee of the bond debt (d).

Purchase by A married woman may purchase ; and, by the contract for

TY1 £1 TT1 P C\

woman, when purchase, bind her separate property, even without referring
voidable. ^ ^ ^ . nor »g ^here, apparently, any distinction between
her statutory separate property under the recent Act and pro-
perty settled to her separate use by a deed or will, as respects
the liability to satisfy her engagements. But if, having no
separate property, she enter into a contract for purchase, her
husband, it is conceived, may annul the purchase and recover
the purchase-money, unless she purchased as his agent (/) ;
or she may herself annul it after her husband's death, al-
though he may have agreed to it (#). In other words, " the
extent of her separate property " is, it would seem, the limit
of her contracting capacity.

Cases where a Where the married woman is judicially separated from her
woman is husband (h) , or has obtained a protection order under the
8a Divorce Acts (i). or where her husband is a convicted felon,

or an alien enemy, she is at law capable of entering into a

binding contract for purchase (k) .

(z) Co. Litt. 247 a. Sug. 686.

(a) A.-G. v. Parkhurst, I Ch. Ca. (/) Granby v. Allen, 1 Raym.

112. 224.

•(*) Co. Litt. 2 b.; 2 Bl. Com. 292; ((/} Co. Litt. 3 a, 356 b; Barn-

Shelf. on Lun. 347. father v. Jordan, Doug. 452 ; Sug.

(c} Ante, pp. 6 et Beg. 686.

(d) Steed v. Galley, 1 Ke. 620 ; and (k) 20 & 21 V. c. 85, ss. 25, 26.

see S. C.,Ballv. Mannin, 3 Bli. N.S. (i) 20 & 21 V. c. 85, s. 21; and

1 ; cases cited ante, p. 7, n. (h) ; and 21 & 22 V. c. 108, ss. 6—10.

Waring v. Waring, 6 Mo. P. C. 341, (k) See Portland v. Prodgers, 2

as to evidence of insanity. Vern. 104 ; and other cases cited, 2

(t) Vide post, pp. 1120 et scq. ; Rop. H. & W. 120.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 33

The general rules above referred to respecting acquiescence ' '

b. 3.

by an infant after majority will, it is conceived, apply to the -

« . . . i n. May be

case of a married woman retaining the estate, after the confirmed by
termination of the coverture ; and, in the case of a purchase °

Fraudulent

by a married woman representing herself to be single, or who, purchase by,
contracting as if single, has so dealt with the property as to against:
prevent its perfect restoration in specie. Equity would, it is *embk-
conceived, secure to the vendor all his legal rights, and would
restrain the exercise of any adverse legal right by either the
woman or her husband, supposing him to have been privy to
the fraud.

Roman Catholics were formerly subject to disabilities in this Roman
respect which have now been removed by statute (I).

Previously to the 33 & 34 Viet. c. 23, persons guilty of Traitors,
treason, or felony, or who had incurred a prsemunire, might, ns> c*
before judgment, purchase land ; but, upon judgment, it
became subject to the rights of the Lord of the fee, or of the
Crown : and purchases by such persons after judgment were
subject to the same rules as purchases by aliens before deni-
zation (m). By the 33 & 34 Viet. c. 23, such persons, while
continuing subject to the operation of the Act (i. e., until
bankruptcy, or completion of the sentence, or pardon, or
death (n) ), are incapacitated from entering into any contract (0),
except, it would seem, in respect of property which they may
acquire while lawfully at large under licence (p) ; but they
are not otherwise prohibited from purchasing land. Upon
the appointment, however, of an administrator, whose position
and duties are not unlike those of a trustee in bankruptcy, all
the property of the felon to which he was entitled at the time

(I) 10 Geo. IV. c. 7. As to the table institutions, see Cocks v. Man-
position of Roman Catholics with re- ners, 12 Eq. 574.
ference to land devoted to religious or (m) Co. Litt. 2 b ; Rex v. Hodden-
charitable purposes, see 2 & 3 Will. ham, 15 Ea. 463 ; Sug. 685.
IV. c. 115, and Anstey on Rom. Cath. (n) Sect. 7.
p. 128 et seq. As to what are mere (o) Sect. 8.
voluntary associations and not chari- (p) Sect. 30.

D. VOL. I. D

34 RESTRICTIONS ON GENP;RAL CAPACITY

Sect? 3 ' °^ ^ie conviction, or to which lie becomes afterwards entitled

while subject to the operation of the Act, vests in the adminis-
trator (q) ; so that any purchase made by the felon after his
conviction, and not falling within the exception contained in
the Act, enures to the administrator for the purposes of the
Act.

Bankrupts. Under the 15th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869 (r), all
property acquired by or devolving on the bankrupt during the
continuance of the bankruptcy vested in the trustee ; and by
sect. 48, when the bankruptcy was closed, or at any time
during its continuance, with the assent of creditors, the bank-
rupt might apply to the Court for an order of discharge,
which, when granted, had the effect of releasing the debtor
from all debts proveable under the bankruptcy, with certain
specified exceptions (s). It was held in one case (t), that
where a bankrupt had received his discharge, but his bank-
ruptcy was not closed, the trustee might, under sect. 15, claim
his after-acquired property ; but in a later case (w), this deci-
sion was overruled by the Court of Appeal, and it was laid
down that when a debtor has obtained his discharge, his after-
acquired property belongs to him, and not to the trustee,
although the bankruptcy or liquidation has not been formally
closed. And, in like manner, after the close of a bankruptcy,
property falling in to the bankrupt was held to belong to
him and not to the trustee, although the bankrupt had not
obtained an order of discharge (#). The effect of such an
order is the same under the Act of 1883 (y) as under the Act
of 1869 ; but the definition of property available for payment
of debts, instead of comprising, as did the Act of 1869, pro-
perty which may be acquired by or devolve on the debtor
during the continuance of the bankruptcy, is now confined, so
far as after-acquired property is concerned, to such as may be
acquired by or devolve on the bankrupt before his discharge (z).

(q) Sect. 10. (u) Ebbs v. Boulnois, 10 Ch. 479.

(r) 32 & 33 V. c. 71. (#) Re Petti? s Estate, 1 Ch. D. 478.

(s) See sect. 49. (y) 46 & 47 V. c. 52, see sect. 30.

(0 Re Bennetts Trusts, 19 Eq. 245. (z) Sect. 44.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 35

The question which was considered in the cases above referred S3?'/*

Sect. 3.

to cannot now arise.

(4.) Who are relatively incompetent to purchase.

The cases to be considered under this section may, it is Sect. 4.
conceived, be classified under two heads. Two classes

of cases :

I. Where the authority of the vendor (e. g., a mortgagee, 1st class,

or agent, or trustee for sale) does not, upon the true construe- J^ture of6 the

tion of the instrument under which he acts, authorize him to authority

t prevents pur-

be himself the purchaser, a sale to himself, or to any one on chase.

his behalf, is voidable, at the instance of the person to whom
he is accountable, on mere proof of the nature of the
authority.

II. Where A. stands to B. in such a fiduciary, or even 2nd class,
confidential, position that it is his duty to consider the in- JSati
terests of B. as paramount to his own, a sale by B. to A. is Parties-
not in the strict sense voidable ; but the burden is cast on A.

to show that it was in all respects fair, and that no improper
influence was exercised.

The case of a mortgagee, who is incapacitated from selling General illus-
to himself under his power, is a good illustration of the first two^lasses. C
principle ; for it seems that a mortgagee selling is not in a
fiduciary position towards his mortgagor (#), even where the
mortgage is in the form of a trust for sale (b). His right is
not to take over at a valuation, however fair, but to sell (c) .
On the other hand, the case of a solicitor who can maintain
his purchase, if he can discharge the burden of proof thrown
on him (d), or that of a mere trustee to preserve contingent
remainders (e), illustrates the second principle. And it is

(a) Warner v. Jacob, 20 Ch. D. (d] Gibson v. Jeyes, 6 V. 266 ; Cane
220. v. Lord Allen, 2 Dow, 289 ; Pisani v.

(b) Locking v. Parker, 8 Ch. 30; A.-G. of Gibraltar, L. R. 5 P. C.
Re Alison, 11 Ch. D. 284. 516.

(c) Martinson v. Clowes, 21 Ch. D. .(e) ParJces v. White, 11 V. 209,
857. 226.

D2

36 RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

*Sec*'/" obvious that both elements of objection to the validity of a
- transaction which purports to be a sale and purchase may be
simultaneously present.

The distinc- The line of distinction between the two classes of cases,

tion stated by.. ......

LordEldon. though it is not always clearly drawn, may be distinctly
traced in the authorities. In Ex parte Lacey (/), Lord Eldon
said : "The rule I take to be this : not that a trustee cannot
buy from his cestui que trust, but that he shall not buy from
himself. If a trustee will so deal with his cestui que trust
that the amount of the transaction shakes off the obligation
that attaches upon him as trustee, then he may buy. If
that case (g) is rightly understood, it cannot lead to much mis-
take. The true interpretation of what is there reported does
not break in upon the law as to trustees. The rule is this : a
trustee, who is entrusted to sell and manage for others, under-
takes, in the same moment in which he becomes a trustee,
not to manage for the benefit and advantage of himself. It
does not preclude a new contract with those who have en-
trusted him. It does not preclude him from bargaining that
he will no longer act as a trustee. The cestui que trust may
by a new contract dismiss him from that character. I dis-
avow that interpretation of Lord Bosslyn's doctrine that the
trustee must make advantage." And in a recent case (ti),
Jessel, M. B., referred the disability of a mortgagee to sell
to himself simply to the reason of the analogous disability at
law of a pledgee, who must sell at a fair price and cannot
sell to himself.

Meaning of It is submitted that the disability on the part of a trustee

applied to 1st to sell either to himself or to his cestui que trust does not arise

class. from the fiduciary position in which he stands (which would

be ground for the application of the second rule only), but

from the nature of his authority and the transaction, which

must, therefore, in all cases be examined in deciding whether

the disability is absolute.

(/) 6V. 625.

(g] Whichcote v. Lawrence, 3 V. 740. (h) Nash v. Eadst 25 Sol. J. 95.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE.

As a consequence of the first principle, the fact that no sec?. 4."
advantage has heen made by the trustee, agent, or mortgagee

is no answer to an impeachment of the transaction. "It may to 1st class ;
sometimes happen that the terms, on which a trustee has dealt,
or attempted to deal, with the estate or interests of those for
whom he is a trustee, have been as good as could have been
obtained from any other person : — they may even at the time
have been better. But still so inflexible is the rule that no
inquiry on that subject is permitted " (i).

But in cases belonging to the second class only, the fact *° 2nd cla88-
that the terms were as good as could have been obtained
becomes very material. It may be added that evidence of
knowledge appears to be relevant only in so far as it is
evidence of a dissolution or waiver of the relationship : and
this is so, whether the case falls under the first or the second

The first principle is probably the one to be applied in Tenant for
determining whether a tenant for life with a power of sale Settled Land
or leasing (e. g. under the Settled Land Act) can sell or lease
to himself. The question would in this view be one of con-
struction of his authority (/), and sect. 53 would seem to
afford ground for a negative answer.

Other cases falling within the first class are the following : — Cases falling

within 1st
class:

A trustee, and formerly an assignee, of a bankrupt (m) ; Trustees in
and the rule precludes a purchase by his partner on behalf of
the firm (n) ; or by anyone so related to the trustee as to stand

(i) Aberdeen JR. Co. v. Blaikie, 1 81; Sevan v. Habgood, U. &H. 222.

Macq. 461. (m) Ex p. Lacey, 6 V. 630 n. ; Ex p.

(k) Dunne v. English, 18 Eq. 524 ; Bennett, 10 V. 395 ; Ex p. Alexander,

Albion Co. v. Martin, 1 Ch. D. 580 ; 2 M. & A. 492 ; Turner v. Trelawny,

and see notes to fox v. Mackreth, 1 12 Si. 49 ; Pooley v. Quilter, 2 De G.

Wh. & T. L. C. & J. 327.

(1) Of. Howard?. Ducane, T. & R. (n) Ex p. Burnett, 7 Jur. 116.

38 RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

' in a better position than an ordinary purchaser (o) ; the Court
• has, however, on the petition of a purchasing assignee, directed
a reference to inquire whether the purchase would be for the
benefit of the estate, he paying all the costs ( p) ; and, on the
report being favourable, has confirmed the sale (q) ; it has also,
under special circumstances, allowed an assignee to be removed,
at his own request, in order that he might bid at the sale of
the bankrupt's estate (r) ; where, however, an assignee, who
was also second mortgagee of the property, applied for leave
to bid, (remaining assignee,) the Court refused the applica-
tion ; but allowed him to name a price at which he might take
the property if not sold at the auction (s) ; and where a cre-
ditor's assignee, in another person's name, bought from a
creditor, Yice-Chancellor Kindersley was of opinion that the
validity of the sale depended on the vendor's believing that
the purchase was made on behalf of the assignee, and directed
an issue to determine the fact ; but on appeal the transaction
was declared wholly void, irrespectively of the vendor's be-
lief (t) :

Trustee for ^ *s 0^en sa^ ^na^ though an ordinary trustee may pur-
sale. chase trust property from his cestuis que trust, a trustee for

sale cannot do so (u) ; but it is conceived that the true mean-
ing of the rule is, that a trustee for sale may not unite in
himself the characters, and perform the functions, both of
buyer and seller ; or, in other words, purchase from himself,
instead of from his cestuis que trust (x) . When the purchase
is from the cestuis que trust, and the sale is not conducted,
either directly or indirectly by the trustee for sale, the trans-
action is taken out of the first class of cases (y) :

(o) Ex p. Fordw, W. N. 1881, p. see this case as to the duties of

117, and see Yate-Lee, 471. assignees in bankruptcy.

(p) Ex p. Gore, 3 M. D. & D. 77. (u) Denton v. Banner, 23 B. 290 ;

(q) S. C., 7 Jur. 136. Luff v. Lord, 34 B. 220 ; and see

(r) Ex p. Perkes, 3 M. D. & D. Franks v. Bollans, 3 Ch. 717.
385. (x) Ex p. Lacey, 6 V. 625; Luffv.

(s) Ex p. Holt/man, 8 Jur. 156. Lord, supra.

(t) Pooley v. Quitter, 2 D. & J. 327 ; (y} Post, p. 48 et seq.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE.

The committee of a lunatic's estate ; the Court has even
refused to confirm a lease to the committee, though approved —
by the Master as advantageous to the estate (z) : lunatics.

A director of a company purchasing from the company (a) : Director of a

A governor of a charity, taking a lease of the charity Governor of
lands (4) :

A solicitor conducting a sale under order of the Court (c), Solicitor to
or on behalf of trustees for sale, or of other persons whose having con-
duty it is to sell (d), and purchasing the estate himself: duct of sale-

A trustee whose duty it is to purchase particular property Trustees for
for his cestui que trust (e. g., a trustee of renewable leaseholds
bound, if possible, to renew), shall never buy it for himself;
even though the proposed vendor positively refuse to part
with it for the benefit of the cestuis que trust (e) ; but the pur-
chase if effected will be considered as made on their behalf (/) ;
and any additional interest which the trustee acquires by
purchase will belong to his cestui que trust (g) ; subject, of
course, to the trustee being re-paid the purchase-money (h) :

An agent for sale : except where the purchase is made with Agents,
the knowledge and consent of his employer (i). Nor can he

(z) Re Sir J. Smyth, 29 July, 1829, Trelawny, 12 Si. 49 ; Zeech v. Sand-

reported in Shelf, on Lunacy, p. 446. ford, 1 Wh. & T. L. C., and cases

(a) Aberdeen R. Co. v. Blaikie, 1 there cited; Re Lord Ranelagh* s Will,
Macq. 461. 26 Ch. D. 590 ; Leigh v. Burnett, 29

(b) A.-G. v. Lord Clarendon, 17 V. Ch. D. 231.

491. (/) See Tanner v. Elworthy, 4 B.

(c) Ou-en v. Foulkes, 6 V. 630, n. ; 487.

Sidny v. Ranger, 12 Si. 118. (g} Fosbrook v. Balguy, 1 M. & K.

(d) Ex p. Bennett, 10 V. 381 ; 226 ; Vaughton v. Noble, 30 B. 34 ;
Morse v. Royal, 12 V. 372 ; A.-G. where, however, the purchase was
v. Earl of Clarendon, 17 V. 491, made out of trust moneys.

500 ; and see Downes v. Graze- (h) And cf. Fox v. Mackreth, 1

brook, 3 Mer. 200 ; Whitcomb v. Min- Wh. & T. L. C., and cases there

chin, 5 Mad. 91 ; Re Bloye's Trust, cited.

1 M. & G. 488, 495 ; et post, p. 42. (i) Charter v. Trevelyan, 11 C. & F.

(e} Ex p. Lacey, 6 V. 630 ; Ex p. 714, 732 ; Sharman v. Brandt, L. R.

Bennett, 10 V. 395 ; see Turner v. 6 Q. B. 720, 723 ; Lunne v. English,

40

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Chap. I.
Sect. 4.

purchase from the person to whom he has sold, so long as the
contract for sale is executory (k) ; and a re-purchase by him
from the person to whom he has sold, even after the com-
pletion of his sale, will be regarded with extreme jealousy (I) :

Auctioneers. An auctioneer employed to sell the property (m) :

Executors
and adminis-
trators.

Executors and administrators, in respect to the personal
estate of the deceased (n) , and also in respect to his real estate,
where they are selling in exercise of the implied or statutory
power for payment of debts. So, too, the husband of an
administratrix is incompetent to purchase from the co-adminis-
tratrix (0) :

Mortgagee : A mortgagee with a power of sale, who cannot purchase,
power of sale : under the power, either in his own name or through an agent,
or so arrange the transaction as to make himself the absolute
owner (p) : nor can his agent, who has acted in surveying the
property and receiving the interest, purchase on his own
account from the mortgagee (q) : but the rule does not apply
to a purchase of the equity of redemption by the mortgagee

18 Eq. 524 ; De Bussche v. Alt, 8
Ch. D. 286 ; McPherson v. Watt, 3
Ap. Ca. 254. The opinion of Lord
Lyndhurst in the first case, that
proof of adequacy of price might
establish the sale is inconsistent with
the principle of the authorities. And
it is conceived that the consent of the
employer is only material, as evidence
that the principal authorises a pur-
chase by his agent.

(k) Parker v. McKenna, 10 Ch. S6,
125.

(Z) Ibid.

(m) Oliver v. Court, 8 Pr. 127, 160 ;
Sug. 688 ; Baskett v. Cafe, 4 De G-. &
S. 388.

(n) Killick v. Flexney, 4 B. C. C.
161 ; Watson v. Toone, 6 Mad. 153 ;
Baker v. Head, 18 B. 398 ; Smedleyv.
Varley, 23 B. 358. But see and dis-

tinguish Clark v. Clark, 9 Ap. Ca.
733, where the rule was held not to
extend to a person, who, though
nominated executor, had not proved
the will.

(o) EC Peperell, 27 W. R. 410; but
it is conceived that this would be
otherwise in cases falling within the
Married Women's Property Act,
1882.

(p) Robertson v. Norris, 1 Giff.
421 ; where redemption was decreed,
though fifteen years had elapsed ; see
also Downes v. Grazebrook, infra, and
Nat. Bank of Australasia v. United
Hand-in-Hand Co., 4 Ap. Ca. 391.

(q) Or me v. Wright, 3 Jur. 19 ;
Re Bloye's Trust, 1 M. & G. 488 ; and
see Downes v. Grazebrook, 3 Mer. 200;
Robertson v. Norris, supra; Mar-
tinson v. Clowes, 21 Ch. D. 857.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 41

from the mortgagor (r) ; the purchase being from its inception sect 4'

a transaction subsequent to the loan (s) ; but if from the

influence of his position he purchases at an undervalue, the
sale may be set aside (t) ; nor does the rule apply to a pur-
chase by a second mortgagee from a first mortgagee selling
under his power of sale(w), even though the second mortgage
may be in the form of a trust for sale (x) : and on such
purchase, if unimpeachable on other grounds, the second
mortgagee acquires an irredeemable title, just as if he were
a stranger:

On a sale by the Court a mortgagee may, as a rule, obtain Mortgagee
leave to bid, but not where he is also a trustee and the cestuis sale by the
que trust object (y) ; and on a sale under the general order in
bankruptcy, under the Act of 1849, it was usual, though not
perhaps strictly necessary, for a mortgagee intending to bid
to apply for leave to do so. The Act of 1861 (z) enabled
any mortgagee, with the leave of the Court first obtained, to
bid at any sale of the mortgaged property. There is no
similar provision either in the Act of 1869 or in the recent
Act ; but, even without express enactment, the Court has
always had power to grant leave to bid (a), and the law in
this respect remains unaltered. If leave is given, the dis-
ability, so far as the particular sale is concerned, is entirely
removed (b). In the case of a legal mortgage, it appears to
have been a common, although improper, practice for the
mortgagee to conduct the sale (c) ; in such a case, of course,

(r) Webb v. Rorke, 2 Sch. & L. D. J. & S. 468.

661, 673 ; and see Waters v. Groom, (x) Kirkwood v. Thompson, ubi

11 C. & F. 684; Knight v. Marjori- supra; Locking v. Parker, 8 Ch. 30;

banks, 2 M. & G-. 10, and cases cited; Re Alison, 11 Ch. D. 284.

JDobsonv. Land, 8 Ha. 220; Sug. 689; (y) Tennant v. Trenchard, 4 Ch.

Gossip v. Wright, 11 "W. R. 632; 537.

Melbourne Banking Co. v. Brougham, (z) See sect. 132.

7 Ap. Ca. 307. (a) Ex p. Say, 1 Dea. & Ch. 32 ; see

(*) Post, p. 282. Yate-Lee, 472.

(t) Fordv. Olden, 3 Eq. 461. (b) Coaks v. Boswell, 11 Ap. Ca.

(u) Parkinson v. Hanbury, 2 D. J. 232.

& S. 450 ; Kirkwood v. Thompson, 2 (c) See Ex p. Cuddon, 3 M. D. & D.

D. J. & S. 613 ; Shaw v. Bunny, 2 302.

42

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Chap. I.

Sect. 4.

he could not purchase without the permission of the Court,
which permission would not be given except upon very special
grounds (d) :

Solicitor of The solicitor or agent of a person disqualified from pur-

disqualified . . *

purchaser. chasing, would, it is conceived, in general, be unable to

purchase on his own account (e) :

Arbitrator.

An arbitrator contracting for unascertained claims of
parties to the reference (/) :

rectory.

A bishop purchasing an annuity to be charged upon a
rectory ; he being the person whose consent was required to
the sale ; although he gave a better price than could be else-
where obtained (g) :

Inclosure or
Land Com-
missioners.

Commissioners for Inclosure (now Land Commissioners (A)),
under the General Inclosure Act, who cannot purchase any
land in a parish in which an inclosure is made until five
years from the date and execution of their award (i) ; and a
similar disability for the term of seven years affects valuers
acting under the Commons Inclosure Act (k) :

Rector buying
glebe.

A rector purchasing in the name of his curate a portion of
glebe sold for the redemption of the land tax (/) :

Tenant for And, it is conceived, that a tenant for life selling under

lii 6 under

Settled Land the Settled Land Act, who is placed in the position, and with
the duties and liabilities, of a trustee for all parties entitled
under the settlement (m) , is absolutely disqualified, by reason

(et) See Ex p. McGregor, 4 De G. &
S. 603 ; Bellamy v. Cockle, 18 Jur.465.

(e) Dotcnes v. Grazcbrook, 3 Mer.
209 ; Whilcomb v. Minchin, 5 Mad.
91 ; In re BloyJs Trust, 1 M. & G.
488 ; Hesse v. Sria-nt, 6 D. M. & G.
623 ; but see Alvanley v. Kinnaird, 2
M. & G. 1.

(/) Blennerhasset v. Day, 2 B. &
B. 116.

(g) Greenlaw v. King, 3 B. 49.

(h) See sect. 46 of the Settled Land
Act, 1882.

(i) 41 Geo. III. c. 109, s. 2.

(*) 8 & 9 V. c. 118, s. 129.

(/) Grorer v. Hugell, 3 Russ. 428 ;
but see Beaden v. King, 9 Ha. 429,
520.

(m) See sect. 63.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 43

of the relation in which he stands to the settled property,
from purchasing any portion thereof on his own account.

In all the above cases, the transaction is binding on the incompetent
purchaser (n) ; and voidable merely at the option of the

parties originally interested in the property, or their repre- °Ptl9n of

sentatives (0). interested.

The following are examples of cases falling within the Cases falling

. . . within 2nd

second class, in which the sale is not voidable ab initio, but class :—
will be set aside unless the purchaser, on whom the burden is
cast, proves that the transaction was in all respects fair, and
that he obtained no undue advantage ; or, in other words,
that he treated the interests of the vendor with whom, or on
whose behalf he was dealing, as paramount to his own : —

A guardian purchasing from his ward, immediately on his Guardian ;
coming of age ; although the price was adequate ( p) :

An agent for management of property (q) : Agent ior

A receiver (r) : Receiver ;

A steward contracting for a lease from his employer ; to Steward
sustain which he must show the fairness of the transaction (<s) : iease ;

Counsel purchasing below their nominal value charges on Counsel buy-
his late client's estate (tf), upon the validity of which he had cK
advised :

(n} See Sanderson v. Walker, 13V. Chambers v. Betty, Beat. 488 ; and

603. see Rossiter v. Walsh, 4 D. & "War.

(o) Tate v. Williamson, 1 Eq. 628 ; 485 ; Murphy v. O'Shca, 2 J. & L.

2 Ch. 56. 422.

(p) See Sug. 691 ; Oldin v. Sam- (r) Eyre v. McDonnell, 15 IT. Ch.

borne, 2 Atk. 15 ; Mulhallen v. Ma- R. 534; Alven v. Bond, Fl. & K. 196.

rum, 3 D. & War. 317 ; Archer v. (s) Lord Selsey v. Rhoades, 2 S. &

Hudson, 7 B. 560 ; Dawson v. Massey, S. 49 ; 1 Bli. N. S. 1.

1 B. & B. 219, 232. (t) Carter v. Palmer, 8 Cl. & F.

(q) Canev. Lord Allen, 2 Dow, 289; 657.
Molony v. Eernan, 2 D. & War. 31 ;

44

Creditor of
bankrupt ;

Purchase not

auction, &c.

^ cre^or °^ a Bankrupt who has been consulted by the
trustee as to the best mode of selling the estate (u).

A purchase coming within the above rules is not rendered
va^ ^J ^e ^ac^ °^ ^s naving been ^7 auction (#), or under
a decree of the Court (y) ; or by the vendor having had
independent professional advice (z) : nor, when a person, by
filling a confidential office, has acquired a knowledge of pro-
perty, is his capacity to purchase it restored by his retirement
from office (a) ; for his knowledge remains.

On the other hand : —

Execution An execution creditor may buy the property sold under the

creditor may ,. /7\

buy. execution (b) .

A solicitor is under no positive disability to purchase from
his client (c) ; yet where the confidential relation subsists, and
the transaction is impeached, he must be able to prove its
fairness ; and that either the circumstances were such as not
to impose upon him the duty of advising the client, or that
he gave the client all the information respecting the subject
of the purchase which he himself possessed, and advised him
as diligently as he would or ought to have done, had the
transaction been between the client and a stranger (d) ; and
that the sale was as advantageous to the client as it would
have been if the solicitor had used his utmost endeavours to

As to pur-
chases by
solicitors.

(u) Ex p. Hughes, 6 V. 617.

(x) Bug. 691 ; Ex p. James, 8V. 349 ;
Randall v. Errington, 10 V. 423;
Ingle v. Richards, 28 B. 361.

(y} Price v. Byrn, cited 5 V. 681 ;
and see Gary v. Gary, 2 Sch. & L.
173.

(z) Tate v. Williamson, 2 Ch. 56.

(a) Ex p. James, 8 V. 352 ; Carter
v. Palmer, 8 C. & F. 657 ; Spring v.
Pride, 12 ~W. R. 892 ; but see as
to agents, Scott v. Dunbar, 1 Moll.
442, sed qu. For this purpose he
stands in the same relation to his
client's trustee in bankruptcy as he

did to his client, Luddy's Trustee v.
Peard, 33 Ch. D. 500.

(b) Stratford y. Twynam,Ja,c. 418;
Ex p. Villars, 9 Ch. 432.

(c} Johnson v. Fesemeyer, 3 D. & J.
13, 22; where the solicitor was an
urgent creditor. See remarks of
Lord Eldon, 2 Dow, 299 ; Pisani \.
A.-G. of Gibraltar, L. R. 5 P. C. 516;
Davies v. London and Provincial In-
surance Co., 8 Ch. D. 469.

(d) See Holman v. Loynes, 4 D
M. & G-. 270 ; Barnard v. Hunter, 5
W. R. 92.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 45

sell the property to a stranger (e) ; but he need not have

4

pointed out a merely speculative advantage (such as the pos- *

sibility of an unplanned, though contemplated, railroad run-
ning near the property), which might be reasonably supposed
to be equally in the knowledge of both parties (/) : nor does
the fact of the consideration having in part consisted of
costs already incurred (g), or of a judgment vested in the
solicitor (A), necessarily invalidate the transaction (g) : al-
though the mere fact of the client being indebted to the
solicitor is an unfavourable feature in the case, on account of
the additional influence which it must necessarily have
created. So, too, the fact of the consideration being secured
only by the solicitor's bond or covenant (i), or of the client
being in embarrassed circumstances, and having no indepen-
dent professional advice (k), are very material circumstances
in judging of the validity of the transaction : and it has been
held that a solicitor, taking a security from his client, must
prove the actual advance of money by some other evidence
than the instrument creating the security (I). And where
the solicitor, who was himself the mortgagee, purchased the
equity of redemption from his client, who had no separate
legal advice, the conveyance was ordered to stand merely as a
security for the money advanced, and the Court refused to
import a power of sale into the transaction (m). So, where a
solicitor acting on behalf of both parties prepared a lease to
himself, and inserted an absolute covenant for title, although
he knew or should have known that the title was defective,
he was restrained by injunction from enforcing his cove-

(e) D&nton v. Banner, 23 B. 285. v. Lee, 23 L. J. Ch. 473.

(/) See Edwards v. Meyrick, 2 Ha. {g} Edwards v. Meyrick, supra;

60, where the earlier cases are cited aliter as regards future costs ; Up-

and reviewed, and Holman v. Loynes, ping ton v. Bullen, 2 D. & "War. 184.

4 D. M. & G. 270 ; Ward v. Hart- (K) Spencer v. Topham, 22 B. 673.

pole, 3 Bli. 470 ; Bellamy v. Sabinc, 2 (i) Waters v. Thorn, 22 B. 547.

Ph. 425 ; Salmon v. Cutts, 4 De G. & (k] Gredey v. Mousky, 4 D. & J.

S. 125 ; aff. 16 Jur. 623 ; King v. 78.

Savery, 1 S. & G. 271 ; Savery v. (t) Gresky v. Mousley, 3 D. F. &

King, 6 H. L. C. 627 ; Wright v. J. 433.

Vanderplank, 2 K. & J. 1 ; Cookson (m) Pearson v. Benson, 28 B. 598.

46 RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Chap. j[. nan^. ^ j^j where a solicitor and mortgagee took a con-
- veyance of the equity of redemption from the mortgagor, a
day labourer, who had no independent advice, the deed was
set aside many years afterwards, because the burden of show-
ing that all the circumstances had been explained to the mort-
gagor had not been discharged (m) ; and a solicitor will not
be allowed, as against his client, to make a secret profit out
of a transaction in which he is professionally concerned for
him (n). But except in cases of undue influence resulting
from other professional connections (0), the rule does not
extend to prevent a purchase, by a solicitor, of his client's
property in respect to which he has not been professionally
employed (p) ; or to prevent his purchasing by auction his
client's property if he have not acted for him professionally
in respect to the sale (<?). But when a solicitor has once
advised upon an intended sale of his client's property, there
is a difficulty in holding that any mere lapse of time can get
rid of the fiduciary relation (r). The mere employment of
another solicitor to peruse the draft conveyance on behalf of
his client, no advice being afforded respecting the terms of
the arrangement, will not be sufficient to validate the trans-
action (s) ; and where a purchase by a solicitor from his late
client is defended on the ground that the client had other
professional assistance, it must be shown that the solicitor,
who intervened, was fully informed as to the state of the
vendor's affairs, and the value of the property (t). A subse-
quent gift of the property to the attorney by the client will
not validate a previous voidable sale to the attorney, unless it

(1} Williams v. Moriarty, 19 W.R. N. S. 1049 ; Coaksv. Boswcll, 11 Ap.

818 (V.-C. of Ir.). Ca. 232.

(m) Preetv. Coke, 6 Ch. 645. (r) See Holman v. Loynes, 4 D. M.

(n) Bank of London v. Tyrrell, 10 & G-. 270 ; Gibbs v. Daniel, 11 W. R.

H. L. C. 26. 653 ; Lord Clanricarde v. Henning, 9

(o) As to which, see McPherson v. W. R. 912 ; as to gifts, Tomson v.

Watt, 3 Ap. Ca. 254, 263. Judge, 3 Dr. 306.

(p) Jones v. Thomas, 2 Y. & C. (#) King v. Savery, 1 S. & G. 271,

520 ; Edwards v. MeyricJc, 2 Ha. 68. 311 ; Savery v. King, 5 H. L. C. 627.

(q) Austin v. Chambers, 6 C. & F. (*) Gibbs v. Daniel, 11 W. R. 653.
1 ; Lawrance v. Galsworthy, 3 Jur.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE.

47

is sufficiently clear that the client was aware of its void- sect.4.
ability (u). Where the purchase is fair at the time when it is
made, and the transaction is unimpeachable on other grounds,
the mere circumstance of the solicitor having subsequently
resold at a profit, is not material ; and a trifling deficiency in
value, such as may reasonably be considered an equivalent
for immediate payment, and for the risk and expense of
an ordinary sale, is not sufficient to invalidate the transac-
tion (x) .

The rule which disqualifies a solicitor from purchasing from Purchase by

olf*rk oi

his client, pending the relation between them in the particular solicitor.
transaction, applies also to his clerk, who has been profes-
sionally concerned for the client (y).

The son or other relation of a trustee or other disqualified Relation of

A • i disqualified

person, may purchase bon a fide on his own account ; and, purchaser.
although, when a trustee sells to a relation, the relationship is
calculated to excite a suspicion, which, if confirmed by any
other circumstance, it would require a very strong case to
remove (z) , the Court will, in the absence of fraud, even decree
specific performance at the suit of the purchaser (a).

A tenant for life, with powers of sale and leasing, has been Tenant for
held entitled to sell or lease to a trustee for himself (6), and trustees

this doctrine has been extended to the case of a mortgagor hls consent-
with power of leasing until entry by the mortgagee (c) . So,

(«) Waters v. Thorn, 22 B. 547 ; Pow. 918 ; Farwell, Pow. 462. These

where the gift was by will ; and cases are an exception to the general

compare Stump v. Gaby, 2 D. M. & rule ; and, it is conceived, the same

G. 623. principle does not apply to the case

(x) Spencer v. Top ham, 22B.573. of a tenant for life exercising the

(y) Hobday v. Peters, 28 B. 349. powers conferred by the Settled Land

(z) See Ferraby v. Hobson, 2 Ph. Act ; vide ante, p. 42.

261 ; John v. Jones, 34 L. T. 570. (c) Sevan v. Habgood, 1 J. & H.

(a) Sug. 692 ; see Coles v. Treco- 222. See now as to the statutory
thick, 9 V. 234. leasing powers of a mortgagor and a

(b) Wilson v. Sewell, 4 Burr. 1979 ; mortgagee in possession, sect. 18 of
see too Montague v. Cardigan, Sug. the Conveyancing Act, 1881.

48 RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Sec? 4 a^s0' a ^enan^ f°r life under a settlement, whose consent is

requisite to the exercise of a power of sale by the trustees,
may, nevertheless, purchase from them under the power (d) :
but this is an avowed exception from the general rule ; and
was so decided by Lord Eldon, on the ground of its being
dangerous to unsettle the practice of conveyancers (e) ; but,
although the power of consenting to or requesting a sale by
the trustees may be regarded as given to the tenant for life,
for his own benefit, and not as constituting any fiduciary
relation, he is not, it would seem, in the same position as a
stranger as regards the absence of obligation to communicate
what he knows respecting the value of the property (/).

As to pur- A trustee may either simply, though expressly, hold the

trustees. property in trust for others ; or, although not nominally a
trustee, he may yet owe duties to others in respect of it which
invest him with a fiduciary character in the contemplation
of the Court ; or he may actually hold it in trust to effect
a sale.

So his cestui que trust may be either sui juris, or the con-
trary,— as infants, married women, &c., &c.

Dry trustees The rule, in its absolute form, does not apply to mere dry

may purchase.

trustees ; e.g., a, trustee to preserve contingent remainders (g),
or (it is conceived) a trustee to bar dower, or of a term for
years assigned to attend the inheritance, or of a mere out-
standing legal estate, or, in fact, a trustee of any description
who cannot possibly derive in the transaction any advantage
from his fiduciary character (h), and thus comes within the
Trustees for second class of cases. Where a purchase is made from ccstuis

making the 3ue trust, and the sale is not conducted, either directly or
sale,

(d) Howard v. Ducane, T. & R. 81. (/) Dicconson v. Talbot, 6 Ch. 32,

(•) T. & R. 86 and 87 ; Grover v. 37, 38.
Hugell, 3 Russ. 432. (g] Parkes v. White, 11 V. 226.

(h) Naylorv. Winch, 1 8. & S. 567.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 49

indirectly, by the trustee for sale, the transaction may s^ct>.*4.'
stand ; but in every dealing between cestuis que trust and
their trustee, the burden of proving the propriety of the
transaction, and that no advantage was taken of the cestuis
que trust, is thrown upon the trustee, and the relationship
between them should, in respect at least of the subject-
matter of the transaction, be actually, or virtually, dissolved.

A husband might, even before the passing of the Convey- Husband may
ancing Act, 1881 («'), and the Married Women's Property
Act, 1882, which have enlarged a wife's capacity, become
a purchaser from his wife of property belonging to her (k).

Nor is a trustee or agent incapable of purchasing from his Purchase by

, . -i p .0 ji -i • • • /7\ i j_ active trustees

cestuis que trust or employers, &c., 11 they be suijuns(l); but, from cestuis

in any such case, the Court looks at the transaction with a quf trust>

when valid.

jealous eye (m) ; and the question to be determined is, not
whether the price is fair, but whether the purchaser, hav-
ing held a confidential situation, previously to the pur-
chase, has at the time of the purchase, shaken off that
character, by the consent of the other parties, freely given,
after full information, and has bargained for the right
to purchase («).

So, where the sale by auction is in fact conducted by the Sale in fact by
cestui que trust, a purchase at an adequate price by the trustee
for sale, may be supported (o), if, in effect, the cestui que trust
has so acted in relation to the taking of the estate by the

(i) Sect. 50. L. 422, 429 ; Plowright v. Lambert,

(K) Hewison v. Negus, 16 B. 598 ; 52 L. T. 646.

22 L. J. Ch. 655 ; Teasdak v. Braith- (ri) See Ex p. James, 8 V. 353 ;

waite, 5 Ch. D. 630; Re Foster and Denton v. Donner, 23 B. 290 ; and see

Lister, 6 Ch. D. 87. Hickley v. Hickley, 2 Ch. D. 190 ;

(I) See Coles v. Trecothick, 9 V. Plowright v. Lambert, supra.

244 ; Randall v. Erring ton, 10 V. (o) See Coles v. Trecothick, 9 V.

426. 234, and compare Ingle v. Richards,

(m) Davidson v. Gardner, Sug. 28 B. 361.
691 ; see Murphy v. (f Shea, 2 J. &

D. VOL. I. E

50

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

4 trustee in lieu of the price paid by him for it as to render it

" inequitable to dispute the validity of the transaction.

Purchase by In the case of a trust for the benefit of creditors, it is

p y« orj i ^ /")T* o

trustee, with doubtful whether the consent of the majority will bind the

majority0* minority, so as to render valid a purchase by the trustee for

invalid, semble. gale (p).

Solicitor can-
not consent
for cestui que
trust.

The solicitor of a cestui que trust has no general authority
to authorize a purchase by the trustee (q).

A trustee cannot get rid of his incapacity by resigning the
trust or confidential situation ; for he would still retain the
knowledge he had acquired while in office (r) .

Secret
purchase.

Purchase
tinder decree.

Risk incurred
by disquali-

And the circumstance of a trustee or agent purchasing
secretly in the name of a third person is indicative of fraud ;
and the sale will, as a general rule, on that ground be set
aside (*) .

Where the cestuis que trust or any of them are not sui
juris, a purchase by a trustee, who comes within the restric-
tive rule, can be safely effected only under an order of the
Court ; which order will not be made unless to the evident
advantage of the trust (£). A purchase by a trustee, made
without this precaution, cannot be supported even by evidence
of the best possible terms having been secured for the cestuis
que trust (u) .

We may next consider the nature of the risk incurred by

(p) See Lord Eldon's remarks,
Ex p. Lacey, 6 V. 628, and see 630,
n. (b} ; Ex p. Beaumont, 1 M. &
A. 304 ; Ex p. Thwaites, ib. 323 ;
and Sug. 692 ; but see also Ex p.
Bage, 4 Mad. 459.

(q) Doivnes v. Grazebrook, 3 Mer.
209.

(r) Ex p. James, 8 V. 352 ; and
see Carter v. Palmer, 8 C. & F. 657.

(s) Lord Hardwicke v. Vernon, 4 V.
411 ; Lewis v. Hillman, 3 H. L. C.
607, 630; Ingk v. Richards, 28 B.
361 ; Dunne v. English, 18 Eq. 535 ;
McPherson v. Watt, 3 Ap. Ca. 254.

(f) See Campbell v. Walker, 5 V.
681 ; Farmer v. Dean, 32 B. 327.

(u) Aberdeen R. Co. v. Blaikie, 1
Macq. 472.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE.

the trustee or other person purchasing while under any in- Sec? 4
capacity of the second description. fied pur-

chaser.

He may, on the requisition of any of his cestuis que trust —
including in this general term all persons interested in the
estate before the sale (x) and their representatives — be
compelled,

1st, To reconvey the estate, supposing he have not resold He may be

. , / \ forced to

1* \ y) • reconvey ;

Or, 2ndly, To let it be put up for sale, and to reconvey to or let estate
another purchaser, if a better can be found; but if not, to
keep it (z) :

Or, 3rdly, If he have resold it at a profit, to account for or to account

, r>, / \ f°r profit if he

such profit (a) : has sold.

And a sub-purchaser or mortgagee, buying or lending with Sub-pur-
notice of the circumstances creating the incapacity in the notice is simi-
original purchaser, is in the same predicament, if the original ar y a e*
sale be impeached (b) ; although it has been suggested that, if
the case be merely that of an avowed purchase by a trustee from
his cestuis que trusty a sub-purchaser or mortgagee would not
be liable unless he had notice of circumstances rendering it
voidable in Equity (c) . In many doubtful cases, his security
would practically depend upon his having the legal estate.

In the first of the above cases, the purchaser will be credited Terms upon

which recon-

(x) See Ex p. Morgan, 12V. 6. Brookman v. Rothschild, 3 Si. 153;

(y) Ex p. Lacey, 6 V. 627 ; and see Rothschild v. Brookman, 2 Dow &

Hamilton v. Wright, 9 C. & F. 123. C. 188. But where an agent for

(z) Ex p. Reynolds, 5 V. 707; Ex p. purchase has sold his own property

Hughes, 6 V. 617 ; Randall v. Erring- to his principal, the latter's only

ton, 10 V. 428. remedy is probably rescission ; Re

(a] Fox v. MacJcreth, 2 Br. C. C. Cape Breton Co., 29 Ch. D. 795.
400, and cases cited in last note ; the (V) CooJcson v. Zee, 23 L. J. 473,

rule is the same although, as in the Ch.
case of shares, stock, &c., similar (c} See Sug. 695.
property can be purchased; see

E2

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

Chap. I.
Sect. 4.

veyance is
decreed :

Accounts :

Must recon-
vey at once
unless decree
gives him a
lien for
balance due.

Must produce
deeds.

Terms of
resale.

with his original purchase-money and interest at £4 per cent.,
and all sums expended by him in substantial improvements
(unless he have been guilty of actual fraud) (W), as, in one
case, buildings erected, and inclosures made (e) , or in re-
pairs (/) ; and interest from the time of the advances ; and
will be debited with rents received by him, an occupation
rent for any part occupied by himself (</), and his receipts
for the sale of timber, &c., with interest; and also with the
estimated amount of deteriorations (if any) (ti).

In making the above estimates, buildings pulled down will,
if incapable of repair, be valued as old materials, but other-
wise as buildings standing (i) .

If nothing be due to him, he must, of course, give up his
purchase without receiving any further consideration (k) .

Where the decree directs a reconveyance, and an account,
and payment of the balance to the purchaser, but does not in
terms give him a lien for such balance upon the estate, the
reconveyance must be made at once, without waiting for the
accounts (/). And a solicitor purchasing from his clients,
who were trustees for sale, has been compelled to produce the
title deeds before payment, although he alleged that the
early title was defective, and on that ground resisted the
exposure (m).

The estate, if put up for resale, will be put up at the
amount due to the purchaser, ascertained as just men-
tioned (ri), and, if there be no advance, he must keep the

(d] Baugh v. Price, 1 Wils. 320 ;
see Howell v. Howell, 2 M. & C. 478 ;
and Turner v. Trelawny, 12 Si. 49.

(e) York Buildings Co. v. Mac-
kenzie, 8 Bro. P. C. 56, 71.

(/) Ex p. Hughes, 6 V. 617. Ne-
cessary repairs are allowed for, even
in cases of fraud ; 1 Wils. 322.

(g) Ex p. James, 8V. 351.

(h) Ex p. Bennett, 10 V. see
p. 401.

(») Robinson v. Ridley, 6 Mad. 2.

(k) Greenlaw v. King, 3 B. 63.

(/) Trevelyan v. Charter, 9 B. 140.

(m) Shallcross v. Weaver, 12 B.
272.

(«) Ex p. Hughes, 6 V. 617.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 53

estate: in one case, where permanent improvements had sec? 4
been made, it was put up at its improved value, subject to r
the question whether he should be allowed the amount of
such improvements (o).

In the case of a resale, the cestuis que trust cannot, if the Estate not
estate were bought in one lot, insist on its being put up in
several lots (p), nor, it is conceived, allotted otherwise than
as it was bought ; to effect the change they must take it off
the purchaser's hands on the terms we have already men-
tioned (q) .

The third rule would extend to a purchaser who, by sale of Purchaser
wood, minerals, &c., had more than repaid himself his pur- for the
chase-money, expenses, and interest (r) ; or who had made a fr^
similar profit by merely letting the property (which in the
case of unexpected public improvements might often easily
happen in the course of a few years, although the original
price were perfectly fair) ; it is apprehended that, in either of
these cases, he would have, not only to reconvey, but also to
pay the balance found due from him (s) .

If, in any of the above cases, the purchaser has paid pur- Variations in
chase-money into Court, and it has been invested, he will me
neither gain nor suffer by a rise or fall in the funds (t). Court.

Of course, if the cestuis que trust, on being made cognisant If cestuis que
of the facts, decline to adopt the purchase, the trustee may trustee may'
retain the benefit of it, however advantageous it may be (u). ^^t^^6

purchase.

And, as a general rule, a trustee, though free from fraud, Costs.
must pay the costs of a suit occasioned by his improper

(o) Williamson v. Sealer, 3 Y. & (s) S. C.; and see Ex p. Hughes,

C. 717. 6V. 622, and the decree in Nee&om

(p) Ex p. James, S V. 351. v. Clarkson, 2 Ha. 176 ; 4 Ha. 97.

(q) Ante, p. 51. (t) Ex p. James, supra.

(r) York Buildings Co. v. Mac- (u) Harwell v. Harwell, 34 B. 371.
Tcenzie, 8 Br. P. C. see p. 71.

Chap. I.
Sect. 4.

Time allowed
for impeach-
ing sale.

Classes more
favoured than
individuals.

EESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

dealing with the estate (x) ; such is the almost invariable
practice where the cestuis que trust are infants (y) ; in other
cases, however, the rule is sometimes relaxed where the
trustee is free from all moral blame (z) ; and in one instance
it would seem that he was even allowed to receive a sum on
account of costs (a).

Mere lapse of time, except where it is a statutory or positive
bar to relief, is only evidence of acquiescence (b) ; but a cestui
que trust wishing to impeach a sale must do so within a
reasonable time (c) ; which, as a matter of fact, is generally
less than the time allowed by the Statute of Limitations (d) ;
though independently of statutory limitation, no positive
limit of time can be imposed, and each case must be governed
by its own circumstances (e) . A delay of eighteen years
has been held to be an implied confirmation of the trans-
action^) ; ten and eleven years have been held insufficient in
the case of an individual (y} ; and twelve in the case of credi-
tors (h) ; but the general tendency of modern decisions and of
recent legislation is more and more to discourage stale demands ;
and where there are other circumstances, showing acqui-
escence, beyond the mere lapse of time, a short delay will be a
sufficient bar to relief (i). A. longer time, however, is allowed
to a class of persons, e. g. creditors, than would be allowed to
an individual (k).

(x) Sug. 695 ; Plou-right v. Lam-
bert, 52 L. T. 646.

(y} Sanderson v. Walker, 13 V. 601.

(z) Baker v. Carter, 1 Y. & C. 250.

(«) See Doivnes v. Grazcbrook, 3
Mer. 209.

(b) Life Association of Scotland v.
Siddal, 3 D. F. & J. 58. As to
what is acquiescence, see Redgrave v.
Surd, 20 Ch. D. 1 ; De Bussche v.
Alt, 8 Ch. D. 286, 312 et seq.

(c} Chalmers. Bradley, 1 J. & "W.
59 ; Lord Selsey v. Rhoades, 1 Bli. N.
S. 1 ; Beaden v. King, 9 Ha. 532 ;
Baker v. Read, 18 B. 398 ; aff. 3 W.
R. 118.

(d) See Morse v. Royal, 12 V. 374.

(e} Per L. J. Turner in Gresley v.

Mousley, 4 D. & J. 95 ; see Redgrave
v. Hurd, 20 Ch. D. 1.

(f) Gregory v. Gregory, Gr. Coop.
201 ; Jac. 631 ; Champion v. Rigby,
1 R. & M. 539 ; Harcourt v. White,
28 B. 303; Barwell v. Barwell, 34
B. 375 ; see, too, Seagram v. Knight,
3 Eq. 398 ; varied on app. 2 Ch. 628.

(ff) Hall v. Noyes, cited 3 V. 748 ;
Murphy v. O'Shea, 2 J. & L. 422.

(h) Anon., cited 6 V. 632.

(t) Wright v. Vanderplank, 7 D.
M. & GT. 597 ; Harston v. Tenison, 20
Ch. D. 109, per Fry, J., 117.

(k) Whichcote v. Lawrence, 3 V.
740 ; York Buildings Co. v. Mac-
kenzie, 8 Br. P. C. 42.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE. 55

And time will not run against a cestui que trust until he Chap. I.
be sui juris (I) , and aware that the trustee was improperly

the purchaser (m) : nor will it, in general, run against him, period time

so long as his interest is contingent, or reversionary (ft), or (in egm

particular) dependent on the will of the purchasing trustee, or

of a party implicated in the breach of trust (0) : for in the

former case he has no adequate motive for incurring the

expense of attempting to impeach the sale, and in the latter

he is under a direct inducement not to do so : but, though he

is not bound to assert his title until it comes into possession,

the mere circumstance of his interest being reversionary does

not make him incapable of assenting to a breach of trust (p) ;

and though the rule is, that the onus lies on the party relying

on acquiescence to prove the facts from which the consent

of the cestui que trust is to be inferred, yet there may well

be cases in which, from great lapse of time, such facts ought

to be presumed (q).

It does not appear that his poverty is in itself an excuse
for laches (r) : although it would, probably, have an effect
upon the Court if united with other circumstances («).

A cestui que trust may confirm a voidable purchase by his Confirmation
trustee, &c. ; but, to make his confirmation binding, he must purchase,
be sui juris (t), fully aware of the material facts (w), of his

(I) Lewin, 496; Campbell v. Walker, Browne v. Cross, ubi supra.

5 V. 678, 682. (q) Per Lord Campbell in Life

(m) Chalmer v. Bradley, 1 J. & "W. Association of Scotland v. Siddal,

51; Charter v. Trevelyan, 11 C. & supra.

F. 714. (r) S. C. ; Roberts v. Tumtatt, ubi

(n) Gowland v. De Faria, 17 V. 20; supra.

Duke of Leeds v. Lord Amherst, 2 Ph. (s) Gregory v. Gregory, G-. Coop.

117; Browne v. Cross, 14 B. 105; 201; and see Oliver v. Court, 8 Pri.

Hope v. Liddell, 21 B. 183 ; Life As- 168.

sociation of Scotland v. Siddal, 3 D. (t) Campbell v. Walker, 5 V. 678,

F. & J. 58. 682.

(o) Roberts v. Tunstall, 4 Ha. 257. («) Chalmer v. Bradley, 1 J. & W.

. (p) Life Association of Scotland v. 51 ; Wadderburn v. Wadderburn, 4

Siddal, supra ; and see remarks M. & C. 41 ; Skottowc v. Williams, 3

of L. J. Turner on judgment in D. F. & J. 535.

56

Chap. I.
Sect. 4.

A married
woman may-
bind herself
by acqui-
escence as
regards her
separate
estate.

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL CAPACITY

right to impeach the transaction (y), and of the legal con-
sequences of his confirming it (s) : he must be under no undue
influence, the confirmation must be a solemn and delibe-
rate act (a) , free from any pressure resulting from the original
transaction (6), and, in the case of a plurality of cestuis que
trust, it must, to be effectual, be the act of all (c), as a ma-
jority cannot bind the minority ; not even in the case of a
public company, in respect to matters not so provided for by
the deed of settlement (cl).

A. married woman may, as regards her separate property,
not subject to any restraint against anticipation, bind herself
by acquiescence, just as if she were a feme sole (e) ; but
whether she can do so when she is restrained from anticipa-
tion, appears to have been questioned. In one case (/), in
which, however, it was not necessary to decide the point,
L. J. Turner doubted whether the restraint against alienation
would protect a married woman against the rules of the Court
as to lapse of time and acquiescence ; and after remarking
that the fetter was imposed for her protection against her
husband, and that it prevented her from disposing of her
interest, stated that he was not prepared to say that it exone-
rated her from the obligation of asserting, within a reasonable

(y] Cann v. Cann, 1 P. "Wins. 727 ;
Roche v. O'Brien, 1 B. & B. 330, 340 ;
Marker v. Marker, 9 Ha. 16.

(z) Cockerell v. Cholmeley, 1 R. &
M. 425 ; Murray v. Palmer, 2 Sch. &
L. 486.

(a) Carpenter v. Heriot, 1 Ed. 338 ;
see De Montmorency v. Dcvereuz, 1
Cl. & F. 188 ; Salmon v. Cutts, 4 De
G-. & S. 125 ; aff. 16 Jur. 623 ; Great
Luxemburg R. Co. v. Magnay, 25 B.
586 ; where pending a suit impeach-
ing the purchase by the trustee, the
cestuis que trust sold the property.

(b) Crowe v. Ballard, 3 Br. C. C.
117; Wood v. Downes, 18 V. 128;
Wiseman v. Beake, 2 Vern. 121 ; Scott

v. Davis, 4 M. & C. 92.

(c) Ex p. Lacey, 6 V. 628 ; Tommey
v. White, 3 H. L. C. 49.

(d) Clay v. Rufford, 5 De G-. & S.
768.

(e) Jones v. Higgins, 2 Eq. 538 ;
the dicta of the M. R. in Davies v.
Hodgson, 25 B. 187, if meaning more
than this, viz., that a married woman
cannot impeach for her own benefit
her own fraudulent act, are not re-
concileable with the later authori-
ties.

(/) Derbishire v. Home, 3 D. M.
& G-. 80, 113; but see Davies v.
Hodgson, supra ; Clive v. Carew, 1 J.
& H. 205.

TO BUY OR SELL REAL ESTATE.

time, any claim which she might he entitled to advance; but sect!**."
a married woman who is restrained from alienation is not "
merely protected against the acts of her husband, hut is also
generally precluded from disposing of her separate estate
during the coverture ; and to hold that she is capable of ac-
quiescing in a breach of trust, which may lessen or prejudice
her estate, seems inconsistent with the scope and working of
the restraint on alienation. In one case (#), the protection
afforded by this restraint has been carried so far as to exempt
the separate estate still in the hands of the trustees from lia-
bility to replace other separate estate comprised in the same
settlement, and which the married woman had fraudulently
disposed of. This question does not seem to be affected by
the Married Women's Property Act, 1882.

But, in a case falling within the Married Women's Pro- Power to dis-
perty Act, 1870 (A), the Court removed the restraint against the restraint
alienation, so as to make the separate property of a married y^cterc 93 c
woman available for her antenuptial debts (i).

We may lastly here remark, that conduct, or language, on Acquiescence
the part of a cestui que trust who is sui juris, and which, had tion distin-
it occurred upon, or previously to, the commission of the Sul8hed-
breach of trust, might have amounted to acquiescence, and
have precluded him from all right of complaint, may, if it
occur subsequently to the breach of trust, be wholly insuffi-
cient to confirm the transaction, or to release the trustee from
liability (k).

(g] Clive v. Carew, 1 J. & H. 205 ; and vide ante, p. 10.

and see Stanley v. Stanley, 7 Ch. D. (k) Munch v. Cockerett, 5 M. & C.

589. 218; and see Duke of Leeds v. Earl of

(A) 33 & 34 V. c. 93, s. 12. Amherst, 2 Ph. 123, and Philhpson

(t) Sanger v. Banger, 11 Eq. 470 ; v. Gatty, 1 Ha. 516 ; Life Association

London and Provincial Bank v. Bogle, of Scotland v. Siddal, 3 D. F. & J. 58 ;

7 Ch. D. 773 ; Re Hedgeley, 34 Ch. De Bussche v. Alt, 8 Ch. D. 312 et

D. 379 ; and see now sect. 19 of the seq.

Married Women' s Property Act, 1882,

Chapter II. CHAPTEE II.

AS TO SALES AND PURCHASES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS AND

PURCHASERS.

1. As to the time for sale.

2. The manner of sale.

3. The consideration.

4. General points relating to sales by fiduciary vendors.

5. As to purchases by fiduciary purchasers.

Sales by
fiduciary
vendors.

UNDER the term, fiduciary vendors, we may comprise
agents for sale, trustees in bankruptcy, mortgagees with
powers of sale, tenants for life selling in exercise of the
statutory power conferred by the Settled Land Act, persons
selling under the special authority of Railway and other
Acts of Parliament, and, in particular, of the Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act, 1845 (and who may be conveniently de-
scribed by the general appellation of statutory owners (a ) ) ,
and, lastly, trustees selling in pursuance of either an express
trust or only a permissive power ; — the term, trustees, being
also held to include executors, when selling freeholds or copy-
holds in exercise of a power expressed or implied, and per-
sonal representatives generally, when selling the chattels real
of their testator or intestate.

(«) As to the meaning of the word
' ' owner ' ' in the 76th section of the
L. C. C. Act, see Douglas v. L. $• JV.
W. E. Co., 3 K. & J. 173 ; and
under sect. 79, see Ex p. Winder, 6
Ch. D. 696. A person in possession,

but showing a bad title, is not, but
a surviving partner selling the pro-
perty in the discharge of his duty to
wind up the partnership is, an owner
within that section ; see Ex p. Free-
men of Sunder land, 1 Dr. 184.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 59

We may consider sales by such vendors, with reference to Chap. II.

J . Sect. 1.

the proper time for and manner of sale, and to the pnce

which should be obtained ; and then refer to some points sideration for,
which cannot conveniently be classed under any of these *£ manner
heads.

Section 1.

(1.) The time for sale. Time for sale.

An agent for sale should, subject to a reasonable exercise By agents.
of discretion, sell with all convenient speed.

It was the duty of assignees of a bankrupt, and is equally Assignees,
the duty of trustees in bankruptcy, to sell without any un- and trustees
necessary delay (b) ; and any single creditor might insist on
a sale ; and, if he so insisted, it was doubtful whether the
Court could refuse its assent (c).

A mortgagee, with a general power of sale, may sell without Mortgagees.
waiting for the concurrence of the mortgagor; nor does a
stipulation in the mortgage deed that the mortgagor shall, if
required, join in any sale, entitle a purchaser to require his
concurrence (d) . By the combined effects of the Convey- Their power
ancing Act, 1881 (c), and the Settled Land Act (/), Lord the Convey-
Cranworth's Act (g) is repealed, and its provisions in regard iggj11^
to the powers of mortgagees are re-enacted with additions.
By the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (h), it is provided that a
mortgagee, where the mortgage is made by deed, shall, by
virtue of the Act, have power, when the mortgage money has
become due, inter alia to sell, or concur with any other person
in selling, the mortgaged property or any part thereof, either
subject to prior charges, or not, and either together or in lots,
by public auction or by private contract, subject to such
conditions respecting title or evidence of title or other matter,
as the mortgagee thinks fit, with power to vary any contract

(b) Ex p. Goring, 1 V. 169 ; and (d) Corder v. Morgan, 18 V. 344.
see post, p. 75. (e) Sect. 71.

(c) S. C. ; and see Ex p. Hughes, (/) Sect. 64.

6 V. 622 ; Ex p. Miller, 1 M. D. (g) 23 & 24 V. c. 145.

& D. 44. (h) Sect. 19.

60 SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II. for salej and to buy in at an auction, or to rescind any
- contract for sale, and resell without being answerable for any
loss occasioned thereby. But this power is not to be exer-
cised (a), unless and until (k) notice requiring payment of the
mortgage money has been served on the mortgagor or one of
several mortgagors, and default has been made in payment
of the mortgage money or of part thereof for three months
after such service, or (I) some interest under the mortgage is
in arrear and unpaid for two months after becoming due,
or (m) there has been a breach of some provision contained in
the mortgage deed or in the Act, and on the part of the
mortgagor, or of some person concurring in making the mort-
gage, to be observed or performed, other than and besides a
covenant for payment of the mortgage money or interest
thereon. But the title of the purchaser is not to be impeach-
able on the ground that no case had arisen to authorize the
sale, or that due notice was not given, or that the power
was otherwise improperly or irregularly exercised; and the
remedy of the person damnified by the sale is to be in
damages against the person improperly exercising the power (n) .
These new statutory powers which are more favourable to the
mortgagee than the powers ordinarily inserted in mortgage
deeds, and which, unlike the powers conferred by Lord
Cranworth's Act, extend not only to real, but also to per-
sonal, property, will be extensively relied on in practice ;
they may, however, be excluded or modified, and they apply
only to mortgage deeds executed after the 31st December,
1881 (o).

Mortgagees When a mortgagor and mortgagee with a power of sale

power of sale,

how not concurred in demising to a trustee, for the purpose of grant-

ing building leases at the request of the mortgagee, during
the continuance of the security, and of the mortgagor when
the debt was satisfied, and the demise was not expressly made
subject to the power of sale, it was held that the power of

(i) Sect. 20. (m) Sub-sect. 3.

(k) Sub-sect. 1. (») Sect. 21, sub-sect. 3.

(0 Sub-sect. 2. (0) Sect. 19, sub-sects. 3, 4.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 61

sale was not extinguished, and that the concurrence of the Ss£5' ?•
mortgagor was not necessary to make a good title (p) . Where -
a mortgagee with a power of sale submortgages with a
declaration that the suhmortgagee may exercise the power,
it has been doubted whether the power of sale in the original
mortgagee is not destroyed by the transfer (q). The better
opinion seems to be that it is only suspended, and upon
a simple transfer by way of submortgage, is exercisable by
the transferee.

Statutory owners must, of course, sell within such limits Statutory

o wQGrs

(if any) as to time as are prescribed by the Act under which
they derive their powers. The Lands C. C. Act, 1845, seems
to impose no restriction as to time upon the purchase of lands
by agreement ; although it limits the time for compulsory
purchases by the company to a period of three years from the
passing of the special Act, unless some other period be there-
in prescribed (r) ; and it would seem that, in the absence of
restriction, even a compulsory power could be exercised with-
out reference to lapse of time (s) : but a railway company,
having found their original undertaking impracticable can-
not, it seems, exercise their compulsory powers in respect only
of part of the proposed scheme (t). It is sufficient if the
company, within the limited period, give notice of their
intention to take the lands, and summon a jury to assess
their value («) ; or merely give notice (v) and take possession, Statutory

notice.

(p) King v. Hcenan, 3 D. M. & G. (£) Gray v. Liverpool and Bury R.

890. Co., Cohen v. Wilkinson, supra.

(q) Cruse v. Noivell, 25 L. J. Ch. (u) Brocklebank v. Whitehavm R.

709. Co., 15 Si. 632 ; and see Reg. v. Bir-

(r) L. C. C. Act, 1845, s. 123. minghamR. Co., 15 Q. B. 647 ; Wors-

(*) Thicknesse v. Lancaster Canal ley v. South Devon R. Co., 16 Q. B.

Co., 4 M. &W. 472. A railway com- 539; Burkinshaw v. Birmingham,

pany cannot, it seems, exercise its $c. R. Co., 5 Ex. 487.

compulsory powers when it is evident (v) The publication of the requi-

that the entire line cannot be com- sition required by the Artizans and

pleted; see Gray v. Liverpool and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1875, is

Bury R. Co., 9 B. 391 ; Cohen v. analogous to the notice to treat ;

Wilkinson, 1 M. & G. 481 ; and see Wilkinsv. The Mayor of Birmingham,

generally on the subject, Tiverton 25 Ch. D. 78.
R. Co. v. Loosemore, 9 Ap. Ca. 480.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II.
Sect. 1.

Trustees
for sale.

in which latter case it rests with the landowner to have the
value ascertained (x) ; or give notice and deliver the usual
bond (y) , or even merely give notice (z) ; but if, after giving
notice, they neglect to take the necessary steps for summon-
ing a jury, the issue of the warrant to the sheriff may be
enforced against them by a mandamus under the C. L. Pro-
cedure Act, 1854 (a). A contract in anticipation of the
special Act, which subsequently confers the power of sale,
is binding on the company (b) ; but it has been held that
the company, after incorporation, are not bound by the
agreement of the promoters with the landowner, unless they
expressly, or by acts, adopt it as their own (c) .

Trustees for sale are not, by the usual direction to sell
" with all convenient speed," precluded from exercising a
reasonable discretion as to the time of sale ; nor need one
co-trustee adopt the opinion of another (d) ; but in cases of
clearly improper delay they will be responsible for any con-
sequential loss to the estate (e) . A direction to sell with all
reasonable expedition, and within a specified time, does not
preclude a sale after the expiration of such period, or inca-

(#) Doe v. N. S. R. Co.yU Q. B.
526 ; Doe v. Leeds R. Co., 16 Q. B.
796 ; Inge v. S. W. § S. V. R. Co.,
3 D. M. & G. 658.

(y) Sparrow v. 0. W. § W. E.
Co., 2 D. M. & G. 94.

(z) Lord Salisbury v. G. N. R. Co.,
17 Q. B. 840 ; Edinburgh R. Co. v.
Leven, 1 Macq. 284.

(a) Fotherby v. Metrop. R. Co., L.
R. 2 C. P. 188. See now as to the
mode of procedure, R. S. C. 1883,
O. 53, r. 1 ; an&post, p. 1101.

(b) Hawkes v. E. C. R. Co., 5 H. L.
C. 331. In the Manchester, $c. R. Co.
v. G. N. R. Co., 9 Ha. 284, a question
arose, but was not decided, as to the
effect of two special Acts conferring
on different companies the right of
compulsorily purchasing the same
land.

(c) Preston v. Liverpool R. Co., 5

H. L. C. 605. See, too, Williams v.
St. George's Harbour Co., 24 B. 339 ;
reversed on app., but on the ground
that the company had adopted the
contract ; 2 D. & J. 547. See also
as to the power of the projectors to
bind the company, Cal. R. Co. v.
Mayor of Helensburgh, 2 Macq. 391 ;
and as to the personal liability of
those who profess to contract for the
company, see Kelner v. Baxter, L. R.
2 C. P. 174 ; Scott v. Lord Ebury, ib.
255 ; Melhado v. Porto Allegre, $c.
R. Co., L. R. 9 C. P. 503 ; Re Em-
press Engineering Co., 16 Ch. D. 125.

(d) Marsden v. Kent, 5 Ch. D. 598,
following Euxton v. Buxton, 1 M. &
C. 80.

(e) Pattenden v. Hobson, 22 L. J.
Ch. 697 ; Cuff v. Hall, 1 Jur. N. S.
972 ; Devaynes v. Robinson, 24 B. 86;
Fry v. Fry, 27 B. 144.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 63

pacitate the trustees from making a good title to a pur- Chap- n.

> ( ' ' I . 1 .

chaser ; but as between themselves and their cestuis que .
trust (/) the onus of showing that the ccstnis que trust are
not prejudiced by the time for sale being extended, is thrown
upon the trustees, unless the Court relieves them of the
trust, or authorizes the delay (g) ; and where a sale has
been postponed until long after the time at which it appa-
rently ought to have been effected, a prudent purchaser
should ask for some explanation of the delay (h). For the
purpose of determining the relative rights of tenants- for life
and remaindermen, twelve months will be considered a
reasonable period within which to execute a trust to sell or
purchase " with all convenient speed " (i) or, " so soon as
conveniently may be " (k) ; and this although the property be
a reversion (/). Where trustees are directed to sell "with
all convenient speed," or " so soon as conveniently may
be," but the time for sale is left entirely to their own dis-
cretion, they may not arbitrarily postpone the sale for an
indefinite period ; especially in cases where such postponement
may have the effect of varying the relative rights of tenants
for life and remaindermen (m) ; and in one case (n) where
trustees, having a discretion, allowed a reversionary interest
in a fund to remain unsold for nineteen years, when it fell
into possession, the tenant for life, who had received nothing,

(/) Pearce v. Gardner, 10 Ha. 287 ; 500 ; and cases cited in Elwin v.

Cuff v. Hall, 1 Jur. N. S. 972. In Elwin, 8 V. 547.

De la Salle v. Moor at, 11 Eq. 8, where (K) Greisky v. Lord Chesterfield, 13

the trust was to sell, but not within B. 288 ; but see cases cited in Elwin

five years, unless a certain price could v. Elwin, 8 V. 547.

be obtained, an administration order (1) Wilkinson v. Duncan, 23 B. 471.

was made under 15 & 16V. c. 86, (in) Walker v. Shore, 19V. 391.

s. 47, on the ground that the trustees (n) Wilkinson r. Duncan, 23 B.

could give good receipts for the pur- 469 ; in this case it was considered

chase-money. that the trustees had properly exer-

(y) Cu/v. Hall, 1 Jur. N. S. 972. cised their discretion, but that it was

(h) Stroughill v. Anstey, 1 D. M. not to prejudice the tenant for life.

& G. 635 ; and see judgment in De- And see Brown v. Gellatly, 2 Ch.

vaynes v. Robinson, supra. 751 ; Wright v. Lambert, 6 Ch. D.

(i) Parry v. Warrington, 6 Mad. 649.
155; Vvckers v. Scott, 3 M. & K.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II.
Sect. 1.

was held entitled to be recouped, out of the fund, the
difference between the amount when it fell into posses-
sion and the value of the reversion at the end of a year
from the testator's death, calculated on the assumption, that
it would fall into possession on the day when it actually did
fall in.

Whether It has been said that, in the absence of any special

bound to sell _ .

immediately, direction, trustees for sale should, subject to a reasonable
exercise of discretion, sell with all convenient speed (o) :
but in practice, trustees of a will or settlement are not
generally considered bound under the ordinary trust for
sale, nor is it usual for them, to sell, except upon the request
of some one or more of their cestuis que trust, or under
circumstances which render a sale necessary or expedient (p) ;
or unless the property is not of a permanent character.
And as respects the time of sale, greater latitude may, it
is conceived, be allowed where the trust for sale is con-
tained in a settlement, than where it is conferred by a
will; for in the former case, the trust is frequently intro-
duced merely for the convenience of declaring the beneficial
trusts, and not with any intention of an immediate or early
sale of the property. The like distinction may also be held
to exist between the case of a trust (whether in a deed
or will) to sell for the purpose of raising a specified sum,
and that of a trust to sell for the mere purpose of a divi-
sion of the proceeds among a class of beneficiaries. After an
action is commenced for the administration of the trust, trus-
tees cannot sell without leave of the Court (q) : it has, however,
been held by the Court of Queen's Bench, that the power of
an executor to make a good title to the chattels real of the
testator is not affected by the existence of an administration

(o) Sag. 62 ; Davison v. Tennison,
11 Ch. D. 341.

(p) If, after request, the trus-
tees unreasonably delay the sale,
this will not affect the relative
rights of the cestuis que trust; see

Lechmere v. Earl of Carlisle, 3 P. W.
215; Walker y. Shore, 19 V. 391;
Caldecott v. Caldecott, 6 Jur. 232 ;
Greisley v. Lord Chesterfield, 13 B.
294.

(q) Walker y. Smalwood, Amb. 676.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 65

suit, so long as there is no decree (r) ; and it would seem ChaP- H-

OJCL. 1.

that in a creditor's suit an executor may, with leave of the

Court, exercise the power of sale which is implied from a
charge of debts (s).

Greater latitude as to the time for selling is given to Executors
executors who sell under a power of sale implied from a implied power
charge of debts, than would be allowed to ordinary trustees °
for sale ; and though it is only right that a purchaser
should be fully protected, it may be doubted whether the
authority of executors to sell in such a case has not been
prolonged beyond reasonable limits. Thus in one case (£), a
sale by executors thirty-three years after the death of their
testator, for the purpose, as they alleged, of paying his debts,
was enforced against the purchaser ; and in a later case (u),
although twenty-seven years had elapsed since the testator's
death, and nine years since the death of the executor, it was
held that the executors of the original executor could make a
good title under the implied power of sale ; and further,
that they were not bound to answer the inquiry of the
purchaser, whether any debts still existed which rendered a
sale necessary.

It may be here remarked, with much deference to the Remarks on
eminent judge who decided this case, that the latter branch '

of the decision, although avowedly based upon Forbes v.
Peacock, 1 Phill. 717, is really untouched by that authority.
In Forbes v. Peacock (x) there was no doubt that the vendor,
a sole surviving executor and trustee for sale, could sell and
convey ; the only question was whether he could give a good
discharge for the purchase-money : and it was held, and
perhaps properly held, that the charge of debts indicated an

(r) Neeves v. Sunrage, 14 Q. B. 504, (t) Wriglcy v. Sykes, 21 B. 337.

sed. qu. ; and see Maltby v. Russell, See Sug. Pow. 121.

2 S. & S. 227. (M) Sabin v. Heape, 27 B. 553.

(*) Bolton v. Stannard, 6 W. R. (#) See the observations on this

570. case of Jessel, M. R., in Carlyon v.

Trtucott, 20 Eq. 350.

D. VOL. I. F

66 BALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. li: intention on the part of the testator that the trustees' receipt

oCC't. 1.

should, under all circumstances, be a good discharge to a

purchaser, and, inasmuch as the existence or non-existence
of debts was immaterial, the vendor was held not bound to
answer the purchaser's inquiry on the point. In Sdbin v.
If cape , the validity of the sale itself, at least as between the
vendor and the devisees of the estate, depended npon the
existence of debts. Unless the vendor knew or believed that
debts existed, he was committing a fraud in selling the pro-
perty ; and although it may be admitted that the purchaser
was not entitled to evidence of the existence of debts, it may
yet be doubted whether, especially under the suspicious cir-
cumstances of the case, he had not a right to be assured that
the vendor was professedly selling for the only purpose which
could warrant a sale ; and whether, even assuming (which
may be also doubted) that he could have safely omitted to
make the inquiry, the refusal to answer it when made was
not implied notice that no debts existed. The general rule is
conceived to be, that a vendor, not protected by condition, is
bound, to the extent of his personal information and belief,
to answer any question put to him by the purchaser, the
answer to which may elicit matter affecting the title (y) ; and
the decision in Sabin v. Hcape, so far as it may appear to im-
pugn this rule, and even its entirety, should, it is respectfully
submitted, be acted upon with much caution in actual practice.

It has been held, that where twenty years have elapsed
since the death of the testator it may be presumed that his
debts have been paid or have become statute barred ; and
that a purchaser may in such a case require from executors
selling under their power satisfactory proof that debts of the
testator still remain unpaid (z) . This limit of twenty years
was arbitrarily fixed by Sir Greorge Jessel with reference to
the period allowed by law for the recovery of mortgage and

(y) But see Re Ford and Hill, 1 0 Cb . as to payment of debts is strengthened

D. 365, which seems to have taken if the beneficiaries under the will are

a too narrow view of the vendor's in the enjoyment of the estate ; and

obligation to answer requisitions. see Re Molyncux and White, 15 L. R.

(z) Re Tanqueray-Willaume and Lan- Ir. 383 ; Re Ryan and Cavanagh, 17

dau, 20 Ch. D. 465 ; the presumption L. R. Ir. 42.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 67

other specialty debts. A rule which, in the absence of any- ^aP- n-

» ''('l . 1 .

thing to excite suspicion, relieves the purchaser from inquiry —
whether debts of the testator still remain unpaid, is obviously
a most convenient one ; nor can it be said that the period of
twenty years is not, in ordinary cases, amply sufficient for
the complete administration of the estate. It has been
recently held in two cases that the limitation of twelve years
imposed by the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874 (a), in
regard to actions for the recovery of money charged on land,
applies to the personal remedy on the covenant in a mort-
gage deed, or on a collateral bond, as well as to the remedy
against the land (b) ; but these decisions do not curtail the
period of limitation for the recovery of other specialty
debts (c), and they do not seem to affect the rule of practice
laid down by Sir Greorge Jessel. The rule has recently been
held to have no application to a sale of leaseholds by an
executor (cc).

Trustees of a mere power of sale, with the usual trusts for Trustees
re-investment in real estate, ought not to sell except for some
good reason (d) ; the Court, however, will not control a bond
fide exercise of their discretion (e) ; but a sale by a trustee,
after a cestui que trust has become absolutely entitled to the
property, is primd facie invalid (/). The object of the power
must, however, be in each case considered, and if it may be
reasonably inferred from the purpose or language of the
instrument that the power was intended to remain exercis-
able, notwithstanding that the ccstuis que trust have become
absolutely entitled, a sale after that event has happened may
be supported (g] . Thus, the mere fact of the estate having

(a) 37 & 38 V. c. 57, s. 8. (/) Jefersonv. Tyrer, 9 Jur. 1083;

(b) Suttonv. Button, 22 Ch. D. 511; and see Lantsbery v. Collier, 2 K. &
Fearnside v. Flint, ib. 579. J. 709.

(c) Re Powers, 30 Ch. D. 291. (g) Re Cotton's Trustees and the
(cc) Re Whistler, 35 Ch. D. 561. London School Board, 19 Ch. D. 624 ;

(d) See Mortlock v. B tiller, 10 V. Peters v. Lewes and East Gr instead
309 ; Watts v. Girdlestone, 6 B. 188 ; R. Co., 18 Ch. D. 429, 435 ; Re
Sug. 70. Bmvn's Settlement, 10 Eq. 349 ; Re

• (e) Sug. Pow. 601 ; Marshall v. Cooke's Contract, 4 Ch. D. 454.
Slodflen, 4 De G. & S. 468,

F2

68

Chap. II.
Sect. 1.

Validity of
unlimited
powers con-
sidered.

Two theories
First theory,

Second
theory.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

become vested in the reversioners will not destroy the trust
for sale (h) ; and where the trust was to sell with the consent
of the tenants for life, and after their death at discretion, and
to hold the proceeds upon trusts, it was held that the trustees
could make a good title after the death of the tenants for
life, without the concurrence of the beneficiaries (i).

It is convenient to take this opportunity of examining a
point in the law of powers, about which there is no little ob-
scurity. It is now settled beyond question that a power in
a settlement to change the nature of the interests limited is,
notwithstanding the rule against perpetuities, valid, although
there is no period prescribed within which the power is to be
exercised (k) .

Two theories have been put forward in support of the
validity of such powers. The first — which appears to have
the authority of Lord St. Leonards (/) and Lord Cairns (m)
— is, that the exercise of the power is to be regarded as if
made in the settlement which created the power. But this
hypothesis is open to the apparently fatal objection that it is
inconsistent with that branch of the rule against perpetuities
which prescribes that property must be so limited as to admit
of there being absolute ownership within lives in being, and
twenty-one years afterwards from the date of the limitation,
and which, therefore, excludes the qualification of such abso-
lute ownership (n).

The second theory is, that there is an implied proviso that

(A) Biggs v. Peacock, 22 Ch. D. 284.

(i} Re Tweedie and Miles, 27 Ch. D.
315.

(k) Boyce v. Manning, 2 C. & J.
334; Biddle v. Perkins, 4 Si. 135;
Waring v. Coventry, 1 M. & K. 249 ;
Cole v. Sewell, 4 D. & War. 1 ; Wood
v. White, 4 M. & C. 460 ; Sl-ark v.
Dakyns, 10 Ch. 35, a special power
of appointment among issue ; Peters
v. Lewes E. Co., 18 Ch. D. 429, a

power of sale; 2 Prest. Abstr. 158 ;
Sug1. Pow. 848 et seq. ; Lewis on
Perp. c. 25, and Suppl. ; 1 Jarm.
255 et seq.

(t) Sug. Pow. 396, 397, 848 ; al-
though in Cole v. Sewell, 4 D. & War.
32, he seems in favour of the other
view.

(m) Slark v. Dakyns, supra.

(n) See Cadell v. Palmer, Tud. L.
C. 424, 462 ; Lewis on Perp. c. 13.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

the power is to be exercised within either a definite (0), or a s^
reasonable (p) period. The objections to this theory are,
that it is both artificial and out of harmony with the principle
of English law — that stipulations are not as a rule to be
implied in instruments which are complete without them (q) .

On the whole, it would seem that the doctrine of the
validity of indefinite powers was originally laid down under
a too narrow conception of the rule against perpetuities, and
that it is now too firmly established, as an exception to that
rule, to be questioned. But the authorities have laid down
that, however unlimited the power, the exercise of it must be
actually made within the legal period from the date of the
settlement (r).

Trustees ought not to sell after the objects of the trust are May not sell
satisfied, even where their power of sale is not confined to Of tmst are 8

the continuance of the trust ; nor, where it is so restricted, satlsfied'
can they exercise it after the time when, but for their own
default, the trust ought to have been completed (s) . In one
case, where the limitations of the settlements were exhausted,
with the exception only of a jointure secured by a term which
was still subsisting, a power of sale, exercisable with the con-
sent of the person entitled to the rents, was held to be extin-
guished (t) . But where an estate was devised to trustees for
different persons in specified shares, some of the beneficiaries
being entitled absolutely, while the shares of others were
settled upon trusts for their benefit, and the trustees had an
unlimited power of sale over the whole estate, it was held
that this power might be exercised so long as the trusts of
any of the shares remained unperformed (u).

(o) Lantsbery v. Collier, 2 K. & J. Lantsbery v. Collier, Peters v. Lewes

709. R. Co., supra; Sug. Pow. 849.

(p) Peters v. Lewes R. Co., 18 (*) Wood v. White, 2 Ke. 664,

Ch. D. 429, 434. 669.

(q) See Erskine v. Adeane, 8 Ch. (<) Wolley v. Jenkins, 23 B. 53, 63.

756, 763, per Mellish, L. J. But see Vine v. Raleigh, 24 Ch. D.

(r) Wood v. White, 4 M. & C. 460, 238, a case under the S. E. Act.
482 ; Wallis v. Freestone, 10 Si. 225; (u) Taite v. Swinstead, 26 B. 525.

70 SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Sect i Where a transaction, apparently a sale under the ordinary

' ' . ,. . T power, was in fact a mere contrivance to raise money for the
Fictitious sale r

by, set aside, purpose of its being advanced to the tenant for life, under a
power of advancement in the settlement, it was set aside as a
fraud upon the power of sale (#) .

Time fixed by "When the instrument creating the trust fixes the time for
trust cannot sale, this cannot he anticipated either by the trustees or the
pated." Court, however injurious the delay may be to the estate; e.g.,

where a testator directed an advowson to be sold upon the
death of A., the incumbent, the Court held that it had no
jurisdiction to sell in A.'s lifetime, although upon his death
it would be necessary to present a new incumbent before any
sale could be effected (y) ; and where trustees, with the con-
sent of the tenant for life and of some of the cestuis que trust,
attempted to sell in anticipation, they were not allowed costs
of the attempted sale and litigation, as against the cestuis que
trust who were under disability (z) . But where an estate was
devised to A. for life, and after her death to trustees upon
trust to sell as soon as conveniently might be after the tes-
tator's death, the trustees, with the concurrence of A., were

May be post- hg]^ £0 make a good title (a). And notwithstanding- an im-

poned, when.

perative direction to sell, trustees may, with the sanction of
the Court, postpone a sale, where strict compliance with the
terms of their trust is clearly disadvantageous to the parties
beneficially interested (b) .

Acceleration The ordinary power of sale and exchange may, it seems, be

by surrender

of prior accelerated by the surrender of a prior life interest, for this

does not prejudice the estate of the remainderman, but only
changes the nature of the property; but where powers of
charging are limited to successive tenants for life when in

(#) Robinson v. Briggs, 1 S. & Gr. (z) Leedham v. Chawner, 4 K. & J.

188. 458.

(y) Johnstone v. Baler , 8 B. 233 ; (a) Mills v. Dugmore, 30 B. 104.

see Blacklow v. Laws, 2 Ha. 40 ; Gos- (b} Morris v. Morris, 4 Jur. N. S.

ling v. Carter, 1 Coll. 652 ; Want v. 802.
Stallibrass, L. R. 8 Ex. 175.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 71

possession, the power given to a tenant for life in remainder

. 1 .

must await the regular determination of the previous limita- -
tions, and cannot bo accelerated by the surrender of a prior
life interest (c).

On the other hand, where a settlement of a reversion in Reversion
terms authorized a sale at any time with the consent of the to prejudice of
tenant for life under such settlement, it was held that the J^^^sr
trustees might proceed to an immediate sale, although its express
effect would be, under the trusts declared of the purchase-
money, to vary the rights of the ccstuis quo trust by giving
such tenant for life an immediate income (d).

But trustees, in exercising discretionary powers of changing Power to con-
the nature of the trust estate, ought not to be influenced by should be

any desire to benefit one cestui que trust at the expense of
another (e) : and if one of several cestuis que trust, e. g. a tenant benefit
for life, having an absolute irresponsible discretionary power
of giving or withholding his consent to a sale by the trustees,
become himself a trustee, he is thereby precluded from with-
holding or giving his consent to a sale, with a view more to
his own interest than to that of the other beneficiaries (/) .
Where there is a tenant for life without impeachment of
waste, trustees with powers of sale and exchange should be
particularly careful not so to exercise them as to enable him
to take undue advantage of his rights in respect to timber
and minerals (g).

Under the Settled Land Act (A), a tenant for life, in exer- Tenant for

cising the new statutory powers, is to have regard to the under Settled

Land Act.

(c) Truell v. Ti/sson, 21 B. 437. (/) lord v. Wightwick, 4 D. M.

(d) Clark v. Seymour, 1 Si. 67 ; & G. 808.

and see Tosher v. Small, 6 Si. 625 ; (g) As to the rights of a tenant

Ulackwood v. Borrowcs, 4 D. & War. for life impeachable for waste in

441 ; Giles v. Homes, 15 Si. 359 ; Mi- respect of timber and minerals under

net v. Leman, 7 D. M. & G. 340, the Settled Land Act, see sects. 11

351; cf. Tewart v. Lawson, 18 Eq. and 35, and Hellard v. Moody, 31 Ch.

490. D. 504.

(e) Eaby v. Hidehalgh, 7 D. M. & (A) See sect. 53.
G. 104.

72 SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II. interests of all parties entitled under the settlement, and, in

— — relation to the exercise thereof, is to be deemed to be in the

position, and to have the duties and liabilities of a trustee for
those parties. In selling under the Act, he must sell as
fairly as trustees must sell for the tenant for life and for
those in remainder (i) ; and, in order further to protect the
remaindermen against an undue exercise of the powers, the
Court, in appointing new trustees, on whom the statutory
notices are to be served, will select independent persons (k) .

Conditional Powers of, and trusts for, sale are often exercisable only

T3O\VGI*S Or

and trusts for under certain specified conditions : when this is the case,
and a sale is made in breach of a condition, the purchaser's
safety seems to depend upon the following considerations,

Subsequent viz. : 1st, whether the condition is subsequent or precedent ;

condition. and, 2ndly, whether it affects the title to the legal estate. If
it affect merely the equitable title, an apt declaration in the
instrument creating the trust or power will protect a pur-
chaser against the non-performance of a precedent, and, d for-
tiori, of a subsequent condition ; as in the case of an ordinary
power of sale in a mortgage, which usually contains a prece-
dent condition that certain notices shall have been given, and
defaults made in payment, but with a declaration relieving
purchasers from liability for a breach of such condition. If,
on the other hand, the exercise of a power is to affect the
legal estate, as where land is limited in strict settlement, and
a power is given to trustees, in certain specified events, to sell,
and, for that purpose, to revoke the old and appoint new uses,
here, unless the required events occur, the old limitations
remain unaffected, notwithstanding any attempted exercise of
the power ; and any declaration that purchasers shall not be
bound to see that the events have happened, would, it is con-
ceived, be inoperative (/).

(i] Per Pearson, J., in Wheel- 485.

toriyht v. Walker, 23 Ch. D. 752, (1} See Doe v. Martin, 4 T. R.

762. 39; Watkins v. Williams, 21 L. J.,

(k) Wheelwright v. Walker, ubi Ch. 601 ; Ferrand v. Wilson, 4 Ha.

supra; Re Kemp's S. E., 24 Ch. D. 385; and a singular case of Hougham

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

By the Conveyancing Act, 1881, a bond fide purchaser is CJaP- n

QCCt. 1 .

protected on a purchase from a mortgagee selling under the

powers conferred hy the Act (m). And in the case of a sale

under the Settled Land Act a purchaser, dealing in good frommort-

gagee and

faith, is to assume that the requisitions of the Act have been tenant for
complied with (n).

The usual clause in mortgage deeds that a purchaser shall
not be bound to inquire as to the propriety or regularity of
the sale, and that notwithstanding any impropriety or irregu-
larity, the same shall, so far as he is concerned, be deemed to
be within the power, though it relieves him from the obliga-
tion to inquire, does not protect him if he has notice of
anything which throws a doubt upon the validity of the
sale (o) .

(2.) Manner of sale. Section 2.

An agent or trustee, simply authorized to sell by public Manner of
auction, either generally or even for a specified sum, cannot, Power to sell
whatever price be offered, sell by private contract (p) ; but Auction
in one or two cases, after an abortive attempt to sell by
public auction, subject to a reserved bidding, a sale by the
trustee or agent by private contract at the reserved price has
been upheld, and the title has, under special circumstances,
been forced on the purchaser (q).

And an express authority to sell by private contract, would or only by
not, it is conceived, justify a sale by auction (r) ; unless the contract.

v. Sandys, 2 Si. 95, 145 ; and see, as (o) Jenkins v. Jones, 6 Jur. N. S.

to the construction of discretionary 391 ; Parkinson v. Hanbury, 1 Dr. &

trusts for sale, Lord Rendlesham v. S. 143 ; and see Ford v. Heely, 3 Jur.

Meuz, 14 Si. 249; Bird v. Fox, 11 N.S.I 116; Selwyn v. Garfit, 56 L. T.

Ha. 40. 699. As to constructive notice, see

(m) As to conditions precedent to sect. 3 of the Conveyancing Act,

the exercise of those powers, by sect. 1882 ; and post, p. 969 et seq.

21 ; as to payment of the purchase- (p) Daniel v. Adams, Amb. 495 ;

money, by sect. 55 ; and as to a pur- In re Loft, 8 Jur. 206 ; Sug. 56,

chase under a sale by order of the et seq.

Court, by sect. 70; see He Hall Dare1 s (q) Else v. Barnard, 28 B. 228;

Contract, 21 Ch. D. 41. Bousfeld v. Hodges, 33 B. 90 ; sed qu.

(n} Sect. 54 ; and see Duke of Marl- (r) See and consider Daniel v.

borough v. Sartoris, 32 Ch. D. 616. Adams, Amb. 495.

74 SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II. authority were to sell for a specified sum, and the price
obtained at the auction (after payment of the incidental

To A., does expenses) exceeded or equalled that amount. Nor does an

sale to B. authority to sell to A. for a specified sum, necessarily justify

a sale to B. for that (or, it is conceived, any greater) sum (s).

As to trusts Under Lord Cranworth's Act (now repealed) , trustees who

created since . PI IT

28th August, by express declaration had a power of sale over hereditaments,

•i Qi?A

might, unless the trust instrument directed the contrary, sell
either by public auction or private contract, as they deemed
most advantageous (t) . Whether this provision applied to a
case where there was an imperative trust for sale, was doubted,
but never judicially determined (it). Now, under the Con-
veyancing Act, 1881, where a trust for sale or power of sale
is vested in trustees, they may sell or concur with any other
person in selling all or any part of the property, either sub-
ject to prior charges or not, and either together or in lots, by
public auction or private contract, subject to any such condi-
tions respecting title or evidence of title, or other matter, as
they think fit, with power to vary any contract for sale, and to
buy in at any auction, or to rescind any contract for sale, and
to resell, without being answerable for any loss; but this
power is only exercisable subject to the terms and provisions
of the instrument by which it is created (x).

Sale by estate An ordinary estate agent, who has not been instructed as to
what conditions as to title, &c., are necessary in respect of the
estate for which he has been instructed to find a purchaser at
a specified price, is not justified in signing an absolute con-
tract on behalf of the owner (y).

(s) Bulteel v. Lord Abinger, 6 Jur. strument coining into operation after

410. the 31st December, 1881.

(0 23 & 24 V. c. 145, ss. 1, 32, 34 ; (y] Hamer v. Sharp, 19 Eq. 108 ;

which are now repealed by the Settled . Mullens v. Miller, 22 Ch. D. 194.

Land Act, s. 64. But his authority may empower him

(u] See 3 Dav. 565. to enter into a binding contract.

(x) See sect. 35, which applies only Saunders v. Dense, 52 L. T. 644.
to a trust or power created by an in-

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 75

Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, the trustee had power C^P- *L
to sell all the property of the bankrupt, by public auction or

oale by
private contract, with power, if he thought fit, to transfer the trustee of

whole thereof to any person or company, or to sell the same under the Act
in parcels (s). of 1869;

Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (a), the creditors may
appoint a trustee, subject to the approval of the Board of
Trade (b), and also a committee of inspection. Until the
appointment of a trustee the official receiver acts in that
capacity (c), the property being vested in him ; but on the
appointment of a trustee the property passes to and becomes
vested in him (d), and the certificate of appointment is, for
the purposes of registration, enrolment, &c., to be deemed a
conveyance (e) . Subject to the provisions of the Act, the
trustee may (without the consent of the committee) sell the
property of the bankrupt by public auction or private con-
tract, and transfer it to any person or company, or sell it in
parcels (/). He may also give receipts for money received
by him, exercise powers, and deal with any property to which
the bankrupt is beneficially entitled as tenant in tail, in the
same manner as the bankrupt might have exercised them, or
dealt with it (g) . The positive rights and powers of a trustee
in bankruptcy do not seem to be materially altered by the
recent Act.

Mortgagees, trustees and agents for sale, may, in the absence or mortga-
of restriction, sell by private contract or public auction (H) ; or agents. e68'
and though not bound to offer the estate to public competi-
tion, before disposing of it privately («'), they should, as a
general rule, unless specially authorized to sell by private

(a) 32 & 33 V. c. 71, s. 25. (d) Sect. 54, sub-s. 2.

(a) 46 & 47 V. c. 52. (*) Sect. 54, sub-s. 4.

(J) Sect. 21. (/) Sect. 56, sub-s. 1.

(c) Sect. 54, sub-ss. 1 — 3 ; and he (g) Sect. 56, sub-ss. 2, 4 and 5.
may, during the interval between (A) Sug. 61.

the adjudication and the appoint- (i) Davey v. Durrant, 1 D. & J.

ment of a trustee, sell the property 535, 538, case of mortgagee selling

of the bankrupt ; Turquand v. Board under power ; Harper v. Hayes, 2 D.

of Trade, 11 Ap. Ca. 286. F. & J. 542, case of trustee.

76

Chap. II.
Sect. 2.

Estate may
be sold in
parcels.

But not in
undivided
shares :
semble.

Standing
timber, &c.,
must be sold
with the fee ;

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS,

contract, sell by auction, to avoid questions with their bene-
ficiaries, as to whether the price obtained was adequate (k).

They may also, as a general rule, sell either altogether or
in parcels (1) ; subject of course to a liability to be called to
account in Equity if they adopt a mode of sale which is
clearly depreciatory : but it may be doubted whether, even
at Law, a power (m) of sale, unless it contained expressions
pointing to such a mode of dealing with the estate, would be
well exercised by a sale of an undivided share. They may («)
concur with the owners of other properties in a joint sale,
where obviously beneficial to their cestuis que trusty and it may
even be their duty to do so(o). It has been decided that
trustees for sale under a settlement must sell the standing
timber with the estate, although the tenant for life be unim-
peachable for waste (p) ; and that a sale of the estate, apart
from the timber, is void at Law (q) ; so where the trust is to
sell for payment of debts or other limited purposes, and sub-
ject thereto the estate is settled on A. for life, with remainders
over, the trustees may not fell and dispose of the timber,
instead of selling the fee simple of part of the estate (r) ; the
same doctrine applies to a reservation of minerals, or any
other part of the inheritance, upon a sale by fiduciary ven-

(k) See as to trusts and mortgages
created since 28 Aug., 1860, 23 & 24
V. c. 145, and as to those created
since 31 Dec. 1881, the Conveyancing
Act, 1881, ss. 19 and 35.

(1} Sug. 61. It appears that a
trust for sale of " any part of" an
estate, at the discretion of the trus-
tees, would authorize a sale of the
entirety ; Lord Rendlesham v. Maix,
14 Si. 249; Cookev. Farrand, 7Taun.
122.

(m] Chance on Powers, 241.

(») See Conv. Act, 1881, s. 35.

(o) See Cooper and Allen's Contract,
4 Ch. D. 802 ; Cavendish v. Cavendish,
10 Ch. 319 ; Morris v. Debenham, 2
Ch. D. 540, which, in effect, repeal
the supposed rule in Rede v. Oakes,

4 D. J. & S. 505. But the principle
does not extend to the case of a joint
lease; Tolsonv. Sheard, 5 Ch. D. 19.

(p) Cockerell v. Cholmeley, 1 R. &
M. 418 ; see Watlington v. Waldron,
23 L. J. Ch. 713 ; Buckley \. Hou-ett,
29 B. 546.

(q) Cholmeley v. Paxton, 3 Bing.
207.

(r) Davies v. Wescomb, 2 Si. 425 ;
Marker v. Kekewich, 8 Ha. 299 : but
see Kekewich v. Marker, 3 M. & G-.
311. See a case of Silvester v. Brad-
ley, 13 Si. 75, where it was unsuccess-
fully contended that the inheritance
of the timber was, in Equity, severed
from the inheritance of the soil ; and
Butler v. Borton, 5 Mad. 40. See, too,
Bennett v. Wyndham, 23 B. 521.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 77

dors (*) ; although special circumstances, such as local custom, Chap. II.

oCCt» —.

or the peculiar nature of the property, may occasionally render -
such a mode of sale desirable and proper. Where a will em-
powered trustees with the consent of the tenant for life, who
was unimpeachable for waste, to sell all or any part of the so also

TYllTlf^rfllfl "

settled lands, it was held that they could not sell the surface,
reserving the minerals (t). This decision led to the passing
of the 25 & 26 Viet. c. 108, which after giving retrospective except under
validity to sales, &c., from which the minerals were excepted, tion of Sales
enabled trustees or donees of a power of sale, to dispose of c '
land with a reservation of minerals, and either with or with-
out powers of working the same, or of minerals apart from
the surface ; but the sanction of the Court had to be previ-
ously obtained (M). A special authority to sell minerals and
easements apart from the surface, or vice versa, is now com-
monly inserted in well- drawn instruments, in appropriate
cases.

So, under the Settled Estates Act, 1877 (a), the Chancery or the Settled
Division of the High Court may authorize a sale of mines
apart from the surface, or vice versa (y}.

And now, by sect. 17 of the Settled Land Act, a sale, ex- Settled Land
change, partition or mining lease may be made either of land,
with or without an exception or reservation of all or any of
the mines and minerals, and in any such case with or without
a grant or reservation of powers of working, way-leaves or
rights of way, rights of water and drainage, and other powers,
easements, rights and privileges for or incident to or con-

(s) But not (it is conceived) to a the Act, see In re firou-n's Est., 11

reservation of mines, on sales to W. R. 19, and generally as to what

Railway or Waterworks Companies ; are minerals, Darvill v. Roper, 3 Dr.

see 8 V. c. 20, s. 77, and 10 V. c. 17, 294 ; Earl of Rosse v. Wainman, 14

s. 18. As to what are mines within M. & W. 859 ; Hcxt v. Gill, 7 Ch.

sect. 77 of 8 V. c. 20, see Midland 699, 712 ; and. poet, p. 130.
Ry. Co. Y. Haunchwood Brick and Tile (x) 40 & 41 V. c. 18, s. 19.

Co., 20 Ch. D. 552, and post, p. 130. (y) See Re Mallin, 3 G-iff. 126; Re

(t) Buckley v. Howell, 29 B. 546; Law, 1 Jur.N. S. 511 ; Re Milwards'

and vide post, Ch. XIX. s. 2. Est., 6 Eq. 248 ; Re Gray's S. E., W.

(«) As to what are minerals within N. (1875), 106; post, p. 1279.

78

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II.
Sect. 2.

nected with mining purposes, in relation to the settled land,
or any part thereof, or any other land. And an exchange or
partition may be made subject to and in consideration of the
reservation of an undivided share in mines or minerals. As
this section is retrospective, an application to the Court under
the Confirmation of Sales Act is now no longer necessary.

Excessive sale "Where the trust is to sell for purposes which may, but will

for limited . /

purpose. not necessarily, require a sale 01 tne entirety, a purchaser need
not see that no more is sold than is requisite (s) .

Advertise-
ments.

As to sales
for building
purposes.

Fiduciary vendors are also bound to use all reasonable dili-
gence to obtain a fair price (a) : if, therefore, they sell by
auction they should give due notice of and advertise the sale :
and if the estate have been advertised to be sold in one par-
ticular manner (as in lots), they should not sell in any other
way (as altogether, or under a different plan of allotment)
without re-advertising the sale in accordance with the pro-
posed alterations (b) . But when a binding contract has been
entered into to sell at a fair price, they cannot break it off in
order to accept a higher offer (c).

A trust to sell land as building land, has been held to
authorize the trustees to set it out and make the necessary
roads, and pay the expenses out of the proceeds of sale (d ) .
Where land is sold for building purposes, under the ordinary
power of sale and exchange, a difficulty often occurs in prac-
tice as to the laying out of the roads and as to the feasibility
of securing to purchasers a right of way over such roads. The
best, plan seems to be to let each lot comprise a moiety of the
adjacent road, usque ad medium vice ; and to reserve rights of
way over it in favour of the purchasers of neighbouring lots ;
and it is conceived that such a reservation, over land actually

(b) Ord v. Noel, 5 Mad. 438 ; see

(z) Spotting v. Shalmer, 1 Vern.
301 ; Dolton v. Hewcn, 6 Mad. 9 ;
Sug. 658 ; Thomas v. Townsend, 16
Jur. 736.

• (a) Dowries v. GrazelrooJt, 3 Mer.
208.

p. 441.

(c) Goodwin v. Fielding, 4 D. M. &
G-. 90. See Harper v. Hayes, 2 D.
F. & J. 542.

(d) Cooksonv. Lee, 23 L. J. Ch. 473.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 79

sold under the power, would be supported : but this does not Chap. II.

r t Sect. 2.

get rid of the difficulty in respect to so much of the roads as —
have to be formed over plots which remain undisposed of, the
common power not apparently authorizing the sale of mere
easements over lands which may possibly be retained in
settlement. It is very desirable in settlements and wills
affecting land which is likely to be used for building, to insert
special clauses providing for these and other difficulties, which
in modern practice often interfere with the advantageous
letting or sale of property as a building estate.

Under the Settled Estates Act, 1877, the Court has power Under Settled
to direct that any part of the settled estates shall be laid out
for streets, squares, gardens, sewers, &c., either to be dedi-
cated to the public or not ; and also to direct such works to be
executed, and the costs thereof to be raised, by a sale or mort-
gage of any part of the settled estates (e).

Under the Settled Land Act a tenant for life may sell any Under Settled
easement, right or privilege of any kind over or in relation to
the settled land (/) ; and on or in connection with a sale or
grant for building purposes, or a building lease, he may, for
the general benefit of the residents on the settled land, or any
part thereof, cause or require any parts of the settled land to
be appropriated and laid out for streets, roads, paths, squares,
gardens, or other open spaces, for the use, gratuitously or on
payment, of the public or of individuals ; with sewers, drains,
watercourses, fencing, paving, or other works necessary or

(e) Sects. 20 and 21, and see post, settled land as dominant tenement

p. 1279. As to the more limited eeems doubtful. "By the interpreta-

powers of the Court under the Act tion clause of the Act land includes

of 1856, see ReHurltSs S. E., 2 H. incorporeal hereditaments; but an

& M. 196 ; Re Venour's 8. E., 2 easement is not, legally speaking1, a

Ch. D. 525 ; Re Chambers' S. E.t 28 hereditament, but only an appurte-

B. 653. As to the object of these nant right (see G. W. R. Co. v.

provisions, see Re Poynder's S. E., Swindon, $c. R. Co., 22 Ch. D. 677).

50 L. J. Ch. 753. Such a power, though not in terms

(/) Sect. 3, sub-s. 1. Whether this given by the section, may be reason-
section authorizes the extinction of an ably held to fall within it. And see
easement which is appurtenant to the Hood & C. 269.

80

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDOES.

Chap. IT.
Sect. 2.

proper in connection therewith (g) , and the Act contains pro-
visions for securing such appropriation. The cost of exe-
cuting such works may he defrayed out of capital monies
arising under sect. 21 of the Act, or hy a sale or mortgage
under sect. 21 of the Settled Estates Act, 1877.

As to the It sometimes happens that upon the sale in lots of a large

reserving the estate, roads, which have heen made hy the vendor for the

roads upon a P , ,-1 -• ,. « ,v

sale of land purposes oi access to the several portions 01 tne property, are

in a mineral reserved to him. In a case which came under the author's
district.

notice, the effect, although unintended, of such a reservation
was to secure to the vendor an undue advantage hy inter-
posing a barrier which enabled him to preclude the purchasers
from working by outstroke valuable minerals which were
found to exist under the property.

SJe under

A trustee for sale in a mortgage deed should not sell with-
out notifying his intention to the mortgagor (h) ; nor can a
mortgagee sell pending a suit to redeem (i) ; and he sells at
his own risk if a tender has been made him of his principal,
interest, and costs (k) . Where an equity of redemption was
conveyed to a second mortgagee upon trust to sell, and out
of the proceeds to pay off the first mortgage, then the second
mortgage, and to pay the surplus to the mortgagor, it was
held that the trust was duly carried out by a sale subject to
the first mortgage (/) .

Oppressive But a sale by a mortgagee, although harsh and improvi-

gagee not dent, will not be set aside in Equity, if clearly within the
terms of the power (m) ; nor will a mere offer, unaccompanied

(g] Sect, 16.

(h) Anon., 6 Mad. 10.

(t) Rhodes v. Auckland, 16 B. 212.

(k) Jenkins v. Jones, 2 Gif. 99.
As to a mortgagee's power to make
a title after satisfaction, or alleged
satisfaction, of his mortgage debt,
see Dicker v. Angerstein, 3 Ch. D.
600. Probably a purchaser would

be protected, if bond Jide, by sect.
22 (1) of the Conveyancing Act,
1881 ; but secus, if he had actual
notice ; Jenkins v. Jones, supra.

(1) Manser v. Dix, 3 Jur. N. S.
252.

(m) Dicker v. Angerstein, 3 Ch. D.
600 ; and see sect. 21 (2) and sect.
22 (1) of the Conveyancing Act,

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

81

by actual tender, of the amount due to him, be sufficient to
prevent a sale (n). And so long as anything remains due on
the security, a mortgagee may pursue all his remedies
concurrently (o) ; and since the Judicature Acts he may
do so in the same action, and may at the same time obtain
personal judgment for the debt and judgment for fore-
closure (p) ; but where on a sale he allows his agent to
receive the sale moneys, he cannot, if they are misapplied
or lost, sue the mortgagor for the mortgage debt (</). If
acting bond fide, a mortgagee can only be stopped by tender
of principal, interest, and costs (r) ; and it would require a
strong case to induce the Court to restrain an intended sale
by a mortgagee under special conditions, on the ground of
their undue stringency (s) ; but of course if the sale be
clearly oppressive, as e.g. where the mortgagee overstates
the amount of his debt, and thus deters the person entitled
to redeem from paying it off, the Court will interfere (£).
The established rule, in fact, is that the Court will only
stay a sale on tender of what the mortgagee swears to be
due (M) ; but if it is clear on the surface that less is due
than the sum to which the mortgagee swears, and tender
is made of what is manifestly due, the Court will restrain

Chap. II.
Sect. 2.

1881. As to how far the mortgagee
when exercising his power is a trus-
tee, see Warner v. Jacob, 20 Ch. D.
220 ; and see Nash v. Eads, 25 Sol.
J. 95 ; and see ante, p. 35.

(n) See Matthie v. Edicards, 2 Coll.
465 ; on app., 11 Jur. 761 ; G rug eon
v. Gerrard, 4 Y. & C. 119. Money
paid for expenses by mortgagor to
mortgagee's solicitor, under a threat
of an exercise of a power of eale,
but not really due, may, it seems, be
recovered at Law ; Close v. Phipps, 7
Man. & G. 586.

(o) Lockhart v. Hardy, 9 B. 354 ;
Cockellv. Bacon, 16 B. 158 ; Dymond
v. Croft, 3 Ch. D. 512; Wood v.
Wheater, 22 Ch. D. 281.

(p) Farrer v. Lacey Hart land, 31
Ch. D. 42 ; Greenough v. Littler, 15
Ch. D. 93. Where a puisne mort-

D. VOL. I.

gagee, against whom judgment for
foreclosure has been obtained, makes
a proper offer to disclaim, the plain-
tiff is entitled to no further costs
against him ; Greene v. Foster, 22
Ch. D. 566. An order for sale may
now be obtained after judgment for
foreclosure, at any time before it is
made absolute ; Union Bank v. In-
gram, 20 Ch. D. 463.

(g) Palmer v. Hendrie, 28 B. 341;
Rudge v. Richens, L. R. 8 C. P. 358.

(r) Paynterv. Carew, Kay, xxxvi.

(a) Kershaw v. Kalow, 1 Jur. N. S.
974.

(t) Jenkins v. Jones, 2 Gif. 99;
and cf. Prichard v. Wilson, 10 Jur.
N. S. 330.

(M) Hill v. Kirkwood, 28 W. R.
358.

82

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II.
Sect. 2.

Notice of
sale.

When to be
given to the
assigns of
the mort-
gagor.

a sale (x) . But the Court will always restrain a sale, if the
mortgagee holds a fiduciary relationship towards the mort-
gagor (y}. Where, as is usually the case, the power is
exercisable only upon notice, a contract for sale is not invalid
by reason of its being entered into before the expiration of
notice duly given (z) : nor need notice be given if not re-
quired by the terms of the power (a). In one case, which
cannot be regarded as satisfactory, a purchaser was com-
pelled to take a conveyance without the mortgagor's concur-
rence," although it was apparent from the dates of the
instruments that the required notice had not been given (b) ;
but it was more recently held, that the clause protecting a
purchaser from inquiring whether due notice has been given
is unavailing if he buys with the knowledge that notice has
not been given (c) .

Where the equity of redemption has been incumbered,
and the power, does not contain the usual clause making an
irregular sale valid as in favour of a purchaser, a sale without
the required notice — if required by the terms of the power
to be given to the assigns of the mortgagor (d) — is invalid
as against the subsequent incumbrancers, even although the
mortgagor expressly waive the notice and consent to the
sale (e). A notice fairly given pursuant to the terms of the
power is valid, although the party on whom it is served is an
infant (/) ; so, too, it would seem, if he is a lunatic (</), or
totally blind, or deaf (h) ; and the Court is slow to interfere

(x) Hickson v. Darloiv, 23 Ch. D.
690.

(y) Macleod v. Jones, 24 Ch. D.
289.

(z) Major v. Ward, 5 Ha. 598,
which also see, as to mode of giving
notice.

(a) Davey v. Durrani, 1 D. & J.
535 ; but see Cockburnv. Edwards, 18
Ch. D. 449 ; Craddock v. Rogers, 53
L. J. Ch. 968 ; cf . Poolers Trustee v.
Whetham, 33 Ch. D. 111.

(b) Fordv. Heely, 3 Jur. N. S. 1116.

(c) Parkinson Y. Han bury, 1 Dr. &

S. 143, where there was no person in
existence to whom the notice could be
given; Selwynv. Garfit, 56 L. T. 699.

(d} It is very desirable to omit the
word " assigns " from the clause re-
quiring notice.

(e) Forster v. Hogg art, 15 Q. B.
155 ; Hoole v. Smith, 17 Ch. D. 434.

(/) Tracey v. Lawrence, 2 Dr. 403.

(a) Robertson v. Lockie, 15 Si. 285;
Mellersh v. Keen, 27 B. 236, qases of
notice of a dissolution of partner-
ship.

(h) Robertson v. Lockie, supra.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

as against a bond fide purchaser : thus, where notice was Chap. II.

given by the mortgagee of an intention to sell, if payment 1_!

was not made at the end of six months from the date, but
was not actually served till nearly three weeks afterwards, it
was held that the notice was not invalid ; the sale not having
been made until more than six months had elapsed since the
delivery of the notice (i). Subsequent negotiations between
the mortgagee and mortgagor may amount to waiver of a notice
duly given (k).

In the case of a mortgage of hereditaments, executed after Notice to be

criVGn under

the 31st December, 1881, three months' notice in writing must, the Convey-
unless the deed otherwise directs, be given to the person or i88iDg ° '
one of the persons entitled to the property subject to the
charge, or be affixed on some conspicuous part of the pro-
perty, before the statutory power of sale can be exercised ;
but the purchaser's title is not to be impeached on the ground
that no case had arisen to authorize the exercise of the power,
or that no such notice had been given (I).

Fiduciary vendors are not, without special authority (m), Sale under
justified in selling under any unnecessary and depreciatory conditions
special conditions (such as a condition that the purchaser shall unpr<
take, at a valuation, fixtures belonging to a third person) ; or
that he shall take the property saddled with a disadvantageous
contract into which they have improvidently entered (n) ; or
conditions unnecessarily restrictive of the purchaser's right to
a marketable title : it is by no means clear that, under such
circumstances, they can make a title which a purchaser can be
advised to accept (o) . They should, however, take care that

(i) Metiers v. Brown, 9 Jur. N. S. of the Conveyancing Act, 1881 ; see

958. sect. 66.

(K) Tommey v. White, 3 H. L. C. (n) Marriott v. Anchor Reversionary

49; Davey v. Durrani, 1 D. & J. Co., 3 D. F. & J. 177; Dance v.

535 ; Metiers v. Brown, supra. Goldingham, 8 Ch. 902 ; Dunn v.

(0 44 & 45V. c. 41, s. 20. Flood, 28 Ch. D. 586; Re Rayner's

(m) They are expressly protected Trustees and Greenaway, 53 L. T. 495.

in the direct employment on tacit (o) Bonnor v. Johnston, 1 Mer. 268 ;

adoption of the provisions and forms 1 Dav. 440.

G 2

84

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II. their title to the property as described in the particulars is
- good, or that the defect is guarded against by apt conditions ;
and where from neglect in this respect a mortgagee failed in
a suit against a purchaser for specific performance, he was
disallowed the costs of the suit as against the mortgagor (p).
"What are not But, even without express authority, a fiduciary vendor may,
it is conceived, insert a condition enabling him to rescind the
contract, in the event of the purchaser insisting on an objec-
tion, which he is unable or unwilling to remove ; for though
such a condition may, in a certain sense, be depreciatory,
yet it is one which a prudent owner, selling in his own
right, would introduce (q) . So, too, a condition that part of
the purchase-money, such part not exceeding the amount of
the mortgage-debt, may remain on the security of the pro-
perty, is free from objection (r).

Trustee By the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 (s), trustees who

V. & P. Act are either vendors or purchasers may sell or buy without ex-
1874, and eluding the application of the rules which by the Act, in the

Conveyancing

Act, 1881. absence of any stipulation to the contrary, now govern the
obligations and rights of vendor and purchaser. And by the
Conveyancing Act, 1881, trustees, whether they employ a
solicitor or not, are protected from the consequences of not
excluding the stipulations implied by the Act (t).

Mortgagee's
power to sell
under Con-
veyancing
Act, 1881.

A mortgagee of hereditaments, whose security is subsequent
to the 31st December, 1881, may, unless restricted by the
terms of the instrument, sell, subject to such conditions as he
may think fit to make, and may rescind or vary contracts for
sale, and buy in and re-sell the property (u) ; and a trustee
selling in execution of a trust or power created by an instru-
ment coming into operation since that date, may sell subject
to any such stipulations as he shap. think fit (x) ; but, of

(p) Peers v. Ceeley, 15 B. 209.

(q) Falkner v. Equitable Reversion-
ary Co., 4 Dr. 352, and the V.-C.'s
judgment.

(r} Davey v. Durrani, 1 D. & J.
535, post, p. 90.

(s) 37 & 38 V. c. 78, ss. 2 and 3.
(t) Sect. 66.

(if) 44 & 45 V. c. 41, s. 19.
(a?) Ibid. s. 35. Cf. sects. 1 and 2
of 23 & 24 V. c. 145, now repealed.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 85

course, this will not -justify him if he insert conditions which Chap. II.

Sect. 2.

are not warranted hy the state of the title, or the circumstances -
of the property.

Where an estate in mortgage is contracted to be sold hy Sale by mort-
parties claiming the equity of redemption, and difficulties quest, for
arise upon the title subsequent to the mortgage, it often hap-

pens that the mortgagee, if he has a power of sale, is requested tltle>
to exercise it, for the purpose of getting rid of the difficulty ;
and doubts are often expressed as to the validity of the
scheme, or, at any rate, whether the mortgagee can safely
comply with the request. Assuming, as, of course, must be
assumed, that the power is exercisable according to its terms,
and the mortgagee chooses to receive his money, and to obtain
it by means of the power, it is clear that no valid objection
can be made to such an arrangement, motive being imma-
terial in the exercise of a legal Bright. A man taking merely
that which belongs to him, by means of the security which he
has contracted for, does not act improperly in so doing,
merely because one principal reason for his calling in the
money is a wish to benefit another person.

If trustees employ an agent to sell, or confide the sale to Trustees, &c.
a co-trustee, &c., they will be responsible for his acts (y).

responsible
for his acts.

By the Settled Land Act, in case of conflict between the Consent of

• • r» j_j_i j J_T • • P j_ i A i tenant for life

provisions 01 a settlement and the provisions 01 the Act, under Settled
relative to any matter in respect whereof the tenant for life Land Act-
exercises or contracts, or intends to exercise any power under
the Act, the provisions of the Act are to prevail ; and, ac-
cordingly, notwithstanding anything in the settlement, the
consent of the tenant for life is, by virtue of the Act, neces-
sary to the exercise by the trustees of the settlement or other

(y) Re Lord Lichfield, 1 Atk. 87 ; to the employment of an agent

Oliver v. Court, 8 Pr. 127, 167 ; in the ordinary course of business,

£rice v. Stokes, 11 V. 319; 2 Wh. and not involving a delegation of

& T. L. C. ; and see Styles v. Guy, the trust ; see Speight v. Gaunt, 22

1 M. & G. 422, and generally as Ch. D. 727; 9 Ap. Ca. 1.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

?' Person of an7 power conferred by the settlement, exercisable
- for any purpose provided for in the Act (z) . But it has been
held that, where there is an absolute trust for sale, or where a
sale is ordered by the Court, the consent of the tenant for life
is not requisite (a) .

Sale with It seems to be doubtful whether, when a power of sale is

consent suffi- exercisable only with a specified consent, a general prospective
consent is sufficient (b) ; or whether there must not be a con-
sent to the particular sale : but it would seem that consent
given after the execution of the power is sufficient (c) . Where
consent in writing is required by the terms of the power, a
parol consent, even though followed by an act of part per-
formance by the consenting party, will not be sufficient (d).
Where property was devised upon trusts for sale, but not
without the consent of certain specified persons who were
legatees of the proceeds, and the trustees, after the death of
one of the legatees, but with the concurrence of the person
beneficially entitled to his share and with the consent of the
remaining legatees, contracted to sell the property, the title
was considered too doubtful to be forced on a purchaser (e).
We have seen that a consent is not necessarily invalid by
reason of its effect being to benefit the consenting party (/).
In the case of a lunatic, the committee may consent by order
of the Chancellor (g) ; and where a tenant for life, whose
consent is necessary to a sale, becomes bankrupt, a good

(2) Sect. 56, sub-sect. 2. to 737; and A.-G. v. Sitwell, 1 Y.

(a) Taylor v. Poncia, 25 Ch. D. & C. 559 ; Wiles v. Gresham, 2 Dr.
646 ; and see Duke of Newcastle1 s S. E., 258.

24 Ch. D. 129. (d] Phillips v. Edwards, 33 B. 440.

(b) See Haivlcins v. Kemp, 3 Ea. (e) SyJccs v. Shear d, 2 D. J. & S.
410, 427. Under the Settled Land 6. The decision of the Court of
Act, 1882, it was held that a general Appeal was mainly rested on the
prospective notice of an intention to difference of opinion entertained by
sell was not sufficient ; Re Ray's judges, which is no longer a ground
S. E., 25 Ch. D. 464. But a general for rejecting the title ; see Beioley v.
notice is now sufficient under the Carter, 4 Ch. 230.

Act of 1884. (/) Clark v. Seymour, 7 Si. 67 ;

(c) Offen v. Harman, 1 D. F. & J. ante, p. 71.

253, but there had been aprior parol (g] 16 & 17 V. c. 70, ss. 136, 137 ;
consent ; and see Chance, Pow. 727 and see Re T , 15 Ch. D. 78.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 87

title may be made with the assent of the bankrupt and his Chap. n.

Sect. 2.
trustee (ti). ^— '- —

A question has frequently arisen, as to whether the power Whether

COR 86 ii is in cr

of a tenant for life to consent to a sale is affected by the power of
alienation of, or incumbrances upon, his life estate. The uf^ affected
general rule of law is, that no one shall derogate from his ^y alienation,
own grant. If, therefore, the deed of assurance contain an
actual or implied engagement that the alienee or incumbrancer
shall enjoy the property in specie, the consenting power of the
tenant for life cannot be exercised, as against such alienee or
incumbrancer, without his concurrence : but if the deed con-
tain an actual or implied recognition of the liability of the
property to conversion during the existence of the life estate,
then the consenting power of the tenant for life seems to be
unaffected in cases of mere equitable powers (t) . At Law the
decisions recognize the continuance of the power in cases
where the alienation is partial, or by way of re-settlement, or
mortgage, or for some other limited purpose (k) ; but in these
cases the power cannot be exercised so as to defeat interests
previously created by the donee of the power (/). It has been
thought (m) that an alienation out and out necessarily de-
stroys the power ; but this opinion has not met with general
approval (n) ; and it seems to be now well settled that the
power is not extinguished by an absolute alienation of the life
estate, though of course it cannot be exercised to the prejudice
of the alienee. Thus, where A., being entitled for life, with
an ultimate remainder in default of children to himself in fee,

(A) Roldsworthv. Goose, 29 B. Ill; powers of sale, exchange or parti-

Eisdellv. Hammenly, 31 B. 255. tion.

(i) See 5 Jarm. Conv. 161 et seq. ; (k} See Sug. Pow. ch. 3, s. 3 ;

Warburton v. Farn, 16 Si. 625 ; If or- and see, too, Tyrrell v. Marsh, 3

gan v. Eutson, ib. 234 ; and Lord Bing. 31 ; Warburton v. Farn, 16 Si.

Leigh v. Lord Ashburton, 11 B. 470 625; Hill v. Pritchard, Kay, 394;

(where the life estate was subject Simpson v. Bathurst, 5 Ch. 193 ; and

to judgments), and cases cited ; see Wright's Trustees to Marshall, 28

Hurst v. Hunt, 16 B. 372. See Ch. D. 93.

special provisions in the Succession (I) Goodright v. Cater, Doug. 477.

Duty Act, 1853, s. 42, as to charges (m) See Sug. Pow. 66.

created by the Act not affecting («) See Chance, Pow. 3157 et seq.

.88

Chap. II.
Sect. 2.

Not affected
by his con-
currence as
protector.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

first sold all his interest in the settled estate to B., and after-
wards the trustees of the settlement by his direction sold the
same estate to B. in exercise of their power, the second sale
was upheld as a valid exercise of the power (o).

The consenting power of the tenant for life is not affected
by his concurring as protector in a disentailing assurance by
the tenant in tail in remainder ; although the deed is ex-
pressed to be made " to the intent that all estates, powers,
rights, and interests limited to take effect after the deter-
mination, or in defeazance of the estate tail, should be put an
end to, and to limit the estate in fee simple " (p).

Inalienable Under the Settled Land Act the powers of a tenant for life

nature of • i i p • ^ -it

powers of are incapable ol assignment or release, and do not pass to a
tenant for hfe partial Or qualified assignee, or to a mortgagee or incum-
Settled Land brancer of his estate ; and a contract not to exercise any of
these powers is void. But these provisions are to operate
without prejudice to the rights of any assignee for value of
the estate or interest of the tenant for life (<?) .

Act.

Power of sale,
when it
authorizes a
mortgage.

We may here remark that, as a general rule, a power of
or trust for sale, out and out, for a purpose or with an object
beyond the raising of a particular charge, does not authorize
a mortgage ; but that where it is for raising a particular
charge, and the estate itself is settled or devised subject to
that charge, there it may be proper under the circumstances
to raise the money by mortgage ; which will then be sup-
ported as a conditional sale (r). On the other hand, a
restriction against raising a sum of money by sale of an estate
has been held also to preclude a mortgage (s) ; so, too, a
lease is, primd facie, not within the scope of a trust for
sale (t) .

(o) Alexander v. Mills, 6 Ch. 124 ;
and see Hardaker v. Moor house, 26 Ch.
D. 417; and He Cooper, 27 Ch. D.
565.

(p) Hill v. Pritchard, Kay, 394.

(?) Sect. 50.

(r) See Stroughill v. Anstey, 1 D.
M. & G. 645 ; Page v. Cooper t 16 B.
396.

(s) Bennett v. Wyndham, 23 B. 521,
sed qu.

(t) Evans v. Jackson, 8 Si. 217.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.
It has been held that a trustee, who has merely a power to Chap. II.

Sect. 2.
mortgage, cannot give a mortgage of real estate with a power

of sale, though he may do so as to chattels (?/) ; and it seems

only reasonable that a person having in himself no power power to

^ => L mortgage can

to sell should be unable to delegate such a power to another, give a power

But it has been held that an executor, in mortgaging his

testator's leaseholds, may give a power of sale (#). So, too,

a power given to an executor to mortgage real estate was

held to authorize the insertion of a power of sale (y} ; and

the tendency of the recent decisions has been to treat a power

of sale as a necessary and proper incident of every mortgage.

Under Lord Cranworth's Act a power of sale in the statutory

form became, unless expressly excluded, an implied part of

every mortgage executed after the passing of the Act ; and

under the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (s), a mortgagee, where

the mortgage is made by deed, has a statutory power of

sale to the like extent as if it had been in terms conferred by

the mortgage deed. A power to raise money by sale or

mortgage authorizes a mortgage with a power of sale (a).

It is now settled (though it was at one time doubted) that Whether
a power of sale and exchange authorizes a partition (b) ; and authorizes* &
there can be little or no doubt that it authorizes an enfran- partition or

enfranchise -

chisement, which is in fact merely a sale of the freehold to ment.
the tenant instead of to a stranger.

(3.) The price. Sections.

Trustees must sell for a gross sum of money, unless any The price,
other consideration be specially authorized : for instance, a sale 8iaerationC-0n

they must sell

(u) Clarke v. Royal Panopticon Co., but see on app. 3 D. F. & J. 127. *°r gross sum.

4 Dr. 26. See, too, Leigh v. Lloyd, 2 D. J. &

(x) Russell v. Plaice, 18 B. 21 ; Earl S. 330 ; Selby v. Cooling, 23 B. 418 ;

Vane v. Rigden, 5 Ch. 663 ; Re Chaw- where the mortgage was ordered by

ner's Will, 8 Eq. 569 ; and Cruik- the Court.

shank v. Duffin, 13 Eq. 555, where (z) Sect. 19.

the mortgage was to a benefit build- (a] Bridges v. Longman, 24 B. 27 ;

ing society ; Ricketts v. Lewis, 20 Re Chawncr's Will, 8 Eq. 570.

Ch. D. 745. (b) Re Frith and Osborne, 3 Ch. D.

(y) Cook v. Damon, 29 B. 123 ; 618.

90 SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II. in consideration of a rent charge (c) or annuity is invalid (d) ;

' but a mortgagee, selling under a general power of sale, may

allow a part of the purchase-money, of course not exceeding
the amount due on the security, to remain on mortgage of the
estate, provided that he debits himself in account with the
mortgagor with the whole price, and the sale and mortgage
are distinct transactions (e) . Statutory owners under the
Lands Clauses Consolidation Act were expressly restricted to
a sale for a gross sum, except where the vendor was seised
in fee (/) ; under the Amendment Act, the power has been
extended to all cases of sale, &c., by persons under disability,
and the restriction to a sale for a gross sum has been re-
moved (g) .

And may Trustees should use all reasonable diligence (A), as if the

have estate . .

valued. estate were their own, to obtain a fair price ; and, therefore,

should ascertain its value, even at the expense of a valua-
tion (i) , where circumstances seem to render such a course
expedient ; but they are not, it is conceived, justified in
agreeing to sell, at a price to be fixed by valuation, or in any
other manner. The price, whatever means they may take of
ascertaining what it ought to be, must eventually be deter-
mined by a free exercise of their own judgment. Of course
they are not justified in entering into an agreement with an
intending purchaser, giving him a future option to purchase
at a fixed price (k) . Although bound to sell by auction, they
may, it seems, without special authority, fix a reserved bid-
ding ; and, after an ineffectual attempt to sell, buy in at that

(c} Read v. Shaw, Sug. Pow. 953. Sag. 61 ; Harper v. Hayes, 2 D. F.

(d) Reid v. Shergold, 10 V. 370, & J. 542. Under the Settled Land

381. Act (sect. 4), every sale is to be made

(e} Davey v. Durrani, 1 D. & J. at the best price that can reason -

535 ; Thurlow v. Mackeson, L. R. 4 ably be obtained ; and see Wheel-

Q. B. 97 ; Settyes v. Maijnard, 31 W. wright v. Walker, 23 Ch. D. 753.

R. 461. (») See Campbell v. Walker, 5 V.

(/) Sects. 10, 11. 680.

(g) 23 & 24 V. c. 106, ss. 1, 2. (k) Clay v. Rufford, 5 De G. & S.

(Ji) Ord v. Noel, 5 Mad. 438, 440 ; 768 ; Oceanic Steam Navigation Co.,

and see Mortlock v. Bulkr, 10 V. 309; v. Sutherberry, 16 Ch. D. 236.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

price (/) : but if they do so, and there is a delay in the Chap. II.

re-sale, they may be held answerable for the loss BUS- '

tained (m) . In one case, instead of putting up the property
again for sale, liberty was given to the trustee to purchase at
the reserved price, when that appeared to be the full value (n) .
A condition, reserving a bidding, although it may, under the
circumstances of the case, subject the trustees to liability to
their cestuis que trust, will bind bidders at the sale (0) .

In cases where estates are vested in trustees in trust to sell Contract by

. . cestuis que

at the request of their cestuis que trust, the usual course is, for trmt :
such cestuis que trust, who are the persons most interested in ^trustee
the matter, and who have the strongest motive for obtaining
the highest possible price, to enter into a conditional contract
of sale, and then to obtain the assent of the trustees ; who,
when they have satisfied themselves that the sum proposed
to be given for it is the value of the property, ought to sanc-
tion a sale which is beneficial for the persons for whom they
are trustees. And a trustee capriciously refusing to adopt a
contract so entered into, has been fixed with the costs of a
suit for removing him from the trust (p).

If a trustee offers property for sale by private contract, Trustee ought
and there are rival bidders for it, he ought to promote com- competition
petition between them ; but he is under no obligation to
recede from his acceptance of an offer, in order to entertain a
higher bid. Where a trustee for sale of an estate, not readily
saleable by auction, with the consent of all his cestuis que
trust, offered it to a purchaser at a specified price, and before
the offer was unconditionally accepted, received a bid of a
similar amount from another person, a sale to the person to
whom he had first offered the estate was upheld (q).

(I) Ee Peyton's Settlement, 30 B. auction; Ex p. Lewis, 1 Gl. & J. 69.
252 ; Else v. Barnard, 28 B. 228 ; (») Farmer v. Dean, 32 B. 327.

Bousjield v. Hodges, 33 B. 90. (o) Levy v. Pendergrass, 2 B. 415.

(m) Taylor v. Tabrum, 6 Si. 281 ; (p) Palairet v. Carew, 32 B. 568.

Fry v. Fry, 27 B. 144, where there (q) Harper v. Hayes, 2 D. F. & J.

was no previous attempted sale by 542. Consider this case.

Chap. II.
Sect. 3.

Fiduciary
vendors not
responsible
for loss on
sale by
auction.

Statutory
owners can-
not fix price.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

As a general rule, fiduciary vendors, selling by auction, and
using all proper precautions to effect an advantageous sale,
incur no responsibility should the estate sell below its value ;
and Equity will even help the purchaser to his bargain (r) .

Under the Lands C. C. Act, 1845, statutory owners have
no power to fix the price ; this must be determined either by
a jury, or arbitration, or valuation (s) : it is conceived, how-
ever, that a company agreeing with a statutory owner to
purchase at a certain price, is bound, if such price be subse-
quently ascertained, in manner prescribed by the Act, to be
a fair value of the land (t). Where a satisfactory title can-
not be made, the company should go to a jury ; and they
then get a price fixed which binds the true owner, whoever he
may be (u) ; unless the person contracting to sell to the com-
pany has either no title at all, or a positively bad title (x).

Costs of re-

investment

on sale by

railway com
panics, &c.

Where real property is settled in the usual way, with a

J .

tenancy for life, and a discretionary power of sale in trustees,
and a trust for re-investment of the purchase-money in land,
-^ mav ^e ft question whether the trustees could safely exer-
cise the power, for the purpose of a sale under the Lands C.
C. Act, except under a special stipulation that the company
shall bear the costs of re-investing the purchase-money, in
the same way as if the sale had been made by the tenant for
life, under the statutory power (y) ; or, with such an increase
of purchase-money as may be considered an equivalent to the
probable amount of such costs.

Sale by An equitable tenant for life, though he can bind those in

tenant for life remainder, cannot, by the 7th section of the Lands C. C. Act,

(r) Ord v. Noel, 5 Mad. 440.

(s) Sect. 9 ; see post, pp. 705 et
seq.

(t) See Hawkes v. Eastern Counties
R. Co., 5 H. L. C. 331 ; Potts v.
Thames Haven Co., 15 Jur. 1004 ;
Peters v. Lewes R. Co., 18 Ch. D.

429.

(«) Sects. 76, 77 ; Douglas v. L.
# N. W. R. Co., 3 K. & J. 173.

(x) Wells v. Chelmsford Local Board,
15 Ch. D. 108.

See sect. 80.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 93

1845, make a valid conveyance at law, without the concur- Chap. II.

Sect. 3.
rence of the trustees having the legal estate (z) . On the other

hand, trustees for persons who are absolute owners in equity,
and are under no disability, are not persons competent to
contract for the sale of land under this section (a) .

Municipal corporations, if not within the Municipal Cor- By municipal
porations Act, have primd facie the same powers of alienation
as a private individual, though this presumption may be re-
butted by showing that they hold their lands upon trusts (b) ;
but under the Lands C. C. Act, 1845, no municipal corpora-
tion can sell land required by the promoters for extraordinary
purposes, except with the consent of the Treasury (c) ; the
signature of the Secretary of the Commissioners to a letter of
consent is sufficient (d) ; but no consent can be given in respect
of land not specified in the memorial (e) .

Committees of lunatics ought not to exercise statutory powers Committees of
of sale without the consent of the Chancellor (/).

Where a mortgagee in possession agreed to sell a portion Sale by a
of the land as a site for a hospital, and to give the price to who makes a
the charity, so as, in effect, to make a free gift of the land, it °
was held that the sale could not be supported, although the
price had been ascertained by valuation, and the mortgagee
debited himself with it in his account with the mortgagor (g) .
In such a case, it is to the vendor's interest to lower the price
as much as possible.

(z) Lippincott v. Smyth, 29 L. J. 25 L. J. Ch. 776.

Ch. 520. (e) Ibid.

(a) Peters v. Lewes R. Co., 16 Ch. (/) Re Wade, 1 H. & Tw. 202;
D. 703 ; 18 Ch. D. 429. Re Taylor, ib. 432 ; and see 16 & 17

(b) JE 'van v. Corporation of Avon, 29 V. c. 70, ss. 124, 125, 136, 137;
B. 144 ; and see now the Municipal and see Re Brewer, 1 Ch. D. 409, as
Corporation Act, 1882, 45 & 46 V. to the release of an annuity charged
c. 50, ss. 108, 128 ; and Rawlinson. on land.

(c) Sect. 15. (g) Davey v. Durrani, 1 D. & J.

(d) Arnold v. Mayor of Gravesend, 535.

94

SALES BY" FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II.

Sect. 4.

As to general
points relating
to sales by
fiduciary-
vendors.

Fiduciary
vendors: their
general
liability ;

as to cove-
nants,

and costs.

(4.) As to general points relating to sales by fiduciary vendors.

As a general rule, fiduciary vendors must show a market-
able title — that is, a title which at all times and under all
circumstances may be forced on an unwilling purchaser (K) —
and are in all respects liable to a purchaser as if they were
absolute and beneficial owners (i) ; except that they ordinarily
enter into no covenants for title beside the covenant against
incumbrances (k) : and their liability extends to costs in a suit
for specific performance (/) : they have, however, a general
right, except in cases of neglect (m) or misbehaviour, to re-
cover such costs from the estate of their beneficiaries.

Sale by
solvent or
surviving
partner on
bankruptcy
or death of
co -partner.

Trustee of
legal estate
must convey

sale™? equit°-r
able estate.

If one of two partners become bankrupt, the solvent part-
ner, in winding up the affairs of the partnership, has a right
to sell the partnership property to pay the partnership debts (•/»).
But this power is an authority personal to him in his capacity
of partner, which he may exercise in that capacity, but cannot
transfer to another (o) . So, on the death of a partner, in the
absence of any special provision to the contrary in the articles,
the surviving partner seems to be able to sell, and to make a
good title to the real estate of the firm.

Where an equitable fee is conveyed to trustees for sale,
the trustee of the outstanding legal estate must convey it
to them without requiring the concurrence of their cestuis
que trust : but if he do more than merely so convey, he
will be responsible for any breach of trust which he may thus
facilitate (p).

(h) See PyrJce v. Wadding ham, 10
Ha. 8 ; and see comments on this
case in Mulling s v. Trinder, 10 Eq.
449 ; Hamilton v. Buckmaster, 3 Eq.
323.

(i) Sug. 69 ; White v. Foljambe, 11
V. 343 ; McDonald v. Hanson, 12 V.
277.

(k) Worley v. Frampton, 5 Ha.
560 ; post, pp. 146, 622 ; and 44 &

45V. c. 41, s. 7(7).

(1} Edwards v. Harvey, G-. Coop.
40 ; Hill v. Magan, 2 Moll. 460.

(m) See Peers v. Ceeley, 15 B. 209.

(n) Fox v. Hanbury, Cowp. 445.

(o) Fraser v. Kershaw, 2 K. & J.
501.

(p) Angier v. Stannard, 3 M. & K.
566, 567.

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

It is only upon strong grounds, and where irreparable Chap. II.
injury is likely to be sustained by the parties interested, or

a clear breach of trust is about to be committed, that the
Court will, by injunction, stop an intended sale by fiduciary

Vendors (q). injunction.

We may here remark, that if a person, either rightfully or Liability of
wrongfully, assume to act as a trustee for sale, and in that assuming to
character sign a receipt for purchase-money, he will be act as trustee,
answerable for it, whether he himself receive it, or allow it
to be received by a stranger (r).

A mortgagee selling under a power of sale, and retaining Mortgagee
the surplus purchase-money unproductive in consequence 8urplu?
only of disputes between subsequent incumbrancers, is not Purchase-
chargeable with interest on such surplus (s). The safest
course to adopt in such a case would be to pay the money
into Court under the Trustees Belief Act. And a mortgagee,
who sells with notice of subsequent incumbrances, is liable to
the later mortgagees if he allows the surplus purchase-money
to get into the hands of the mortgagor (t) .

Although trustees for sale can seldom be advised, unless Trustees
specially authorized, to run the risk of so doing, they will fui 3fims?
generally be allowed in their accounts any sums which, in
the exercise of a bond fide discretion, and acting under com-
petent advice, they may have paid in order to effect a sale :
as e.g. in satisfaction of a doubtful claim (u).

A trustee for sale, being a solicitor, or even one of several Trustee can-
trustees professionally employed by his co-trustees (#), cannot, professional

(q) See Ex p. Montgomery, 1 Gl. (t) West London Bank v. Reliance

& J. 338; Marshall v. Sladden, 7 Ha. Society, 27 Ch. D. 187.

428 ; Kershaw v. Kalow, 1 Jur. N. S. (u) Forshaw v. Higgimon, 8 D. M.

974 ; Dance v. Goldingham, 8 Ch. & Gr. 827.

902. (x) Broughton v. Broughton, 5 D.

(r) Rackham v. Siddall, 1 M. & Gr. M. & Gr. 160 ; but see the exception

607 ; Pearce v. Pearce, 22 B. 248 ; to this general rule established by

Hennessey v. Bray, 33 B. 96. Cradock v. Piper, 1 M. & Gr. 664 ;

(s) Mathison v. Clark, 4 W. R. 30. Re Barber, 34 Ch. D. 77 ; Re Corsellis,

ibid. 675.

96

SALES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II.

Sect. 4.

profit out of
the sale.

nor can the firm of which he is a partner, unless expressly
authorized by the trust instrument, charge his cestuis que
trust with any costs other than costs out of pocket : and the
same rule applies as against auctioneers (b) ; and a mort-
gagee is considered for this purpose to be a trustee for the
mortgagor within the stringency of the rule (c). But an
auctioneer or a broker, who is a mortgagee, may, it seems,
deduct his commission if he sells under the direction of the
Court (d) . A trustee may, before he accepts the trust, stipu-
late for a remuneration for his services : but there must be no
undue pressure on his part, and any bargain of this sort is
discouraged by the Court (e) .

Section 5.

As to pur-
chases by
trustees.

They can so
invest only
under special
authority.

(5.) As to purchases by trustees.

Trustees are not justified in investing trust money in
the purchase of real estate, unless specially authorized so to
do by the instrument creating the trust (/) : nor will the
Court compel them to exercise a mere discretionary power
of so investing (g) : but, where the power is so worded as
to be equivalent to a trust to invest upon a specified request
being made, they are bound to act upon it, although the result
may be — as in the case of a purchase of leaseholds — to benefit
the requisitionist at the expense of other cestuis que trust (7^),
and although the trustees so purchasing are bound, as be-
tween themselves and the vendor, to enter into the ordinary
covenants to pay the rent and perform the covenants in
the lease. Of course trustees empowered to invest in the
purchase of real estate could not, as a general rule (/), safely

(b) Douglas v. Archbutt, 2 D. & J.
148.

(c} Matthison v. Clarke, 3 Dr. 3 ;
Kirkman v. Sooth, 11 B. 273.

(d) Arnold v. Garner, 2 Ph. 231.

(e) Lewin, 631.

(/) Earl of Winchelseav. Norcliffe,
1 Vern. 434.

(g) Lee v. Young, 2 Y. & C. C. C.
532 ; Gisborne v. Gisborne, 2 Ap. Ca.

300 ; Marquis Camden v. Murray, 16
Ch. D. 161 ; Tempest v. Lord Camay s,
21 Ch, D. 571. As to the invest-
ment of capital moneys arising under
the Settled Land Act, see sect. 21.

(h) Beauclerk v. Ashburnham, 8 B.
322 ; Cadogan v. Lord Essex, 2 Dr.
227.

(i} But see, as to renewable Irish
leaseholds, Macleod v. Annesley, 16

PURCHASES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS. 97

buy leaseholds, unless the power expressly authorized this Chap. II.

particular mode of investment. It may not be useless to '

remark that the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 29, authorizing invest-
ments in Ireland under trusts to invest in England, &c., and
Lord St. Leonards' Act, 22 & 23 Yict. c. 35, authorizing a
trustee, unless expressly forbidden, to invest any trust fund
on real securities in any part of the United Kingdom (/),
apply only to investments by way of security, and do not
extend to purchases.

Whether a trust to invest in the purchase of lands, to be What invest-
settled to the same uses as the settled estates, authorizes rizea by a

an expenditure upon substantial improvements, is extremely
doubtful (k) . Now, trustees, who are in possession, are em-
powered by the Improvement of Land Act, 1864 (/), to apply Improvement
for and carry out, in accordance with the provisions of the 1864.
Act, the several improvements mentioned in the 9th section,
such as drainage, irrigation, planting, and the like.

Capital money arising under the Settled Land Act is to be Capital
invested as prescribed by sect. 21, or in improvements as
denned by sect. 25. And where money is in the hands of Land Act
trustees under a settlement, and is liable to be laid out in the
purchase of land to be made subject to the settlement, it may,
at the option of the tenant for life, be invested or applied as
capital money arising under the Act (m) . And this provision
has been extended to a case not strictly within the section, on
the principle that as the tenant for life could by a sale of the

B. 600 ; as to the powers of corpo- Newman's S. E., 9 Ch. 681 ; Drake

rations or trustees holding funds in v. Trcfusis, 10 Ch. 364 ; JRe Speeds

trust for any public or charitable Trusts, 3 Ch. D. 262 ; Donaldson v.

purpose to invest on real security, Donaldson, 3 Ch. D. 743; Ee Aldretfs

see now 33 & 34 V. c. 34. Est., 21 Ch. D. 228 ; and see post,

(/) Sect. 32. Note the provision pp. 751 et seq.

in this Act, that it shall not extend (T) 27 & 28 V. c. 114, 8. 24, ot-
to Scotland, and see Re Miles' Witt, tended by sect. 30 of, and in part re-
27 B. 579. pealed by, the Settled Land Act.

(k) Dunne v. Dunne, 7 D. M. & G. (m) Sect. 33.
207; Dent v. Dent, 30 B. 363; He

D. VOL. I. H

PURCHASES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II.
Sect. 5.

land purchased bring the proceeds within the Act, the for-
mality of a purchase may be dispensed with (•«).

Time for
investment.

Where trustees under a will are directed to invest in the
purchase of land " with all convenient speed," twelve months
from the testator's death will be deemed, as between the
parties beneficially interested, a reasonable time within which
to make the investment (o) : but, as between the trustee and
his cestuis que trust, the former, unless imperatively required
so to do by the terms of the trust, is not bound to make, and
would not be justified in making, the purchase until a favour-
able opportunity occur.

Devise of Where a testator devised estate A, conditionally upon his

conditionally executors buying and " completing the purchase of " estate

of State B6 B (which in that event was to go along with A) within a

specified period, but in case the executors " should not be

able " within that time to purchase B, then estate A was to

go in another specified direction, and the executors, although

" able " neglected to purchase B within the specified period,

it was held that A descended to the heir-at-law as undisposed

of ; and that the remedy (if any) of the devisees was against

the executors personally (p).

discretion
not^nterfered

Where trustees are empowered to choose between several
specified modes of investment, the Court will not interfere
with a bond fide exercise of their discretion, upon the ground
that the result may be to vary the relative rights of their
cestuis que trust (q).

Apportion- Where stock is sold for the purpose of investing the pro-
dividend on ^uce i31 land, the tenant for life has been held to be entitled

(n) Re Mackenzie's Trusts, 23 Ch.
D. 750.

(o) Parry v. Warrington, 6 Mad.
155.

(p) Upjohn v. Upjohn, 7 B. 59;

the two properties above referred to
as A and B were in fact undivided
moieties of one estate.

(q) See Minet v. Leman, 7 D. M.
& a. 340, 351,

PURCHASES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS,
to an allowance in the nature of an apportionment of the Chap. II.

^j "

current half-year's dividend (r).

stock sold
out.

In exercising the power or trust, any special directions in Directions
the trust instrument as to the peculiar mode or nature of the ^gt^ument i
investment must of course be strictly followed. be followe<1'

As a general rule, trustees for investment could not, unless How far
specially authorized so to do, safely buy subject to special require a
conditions restrictive of a purchaser's primd facie right to a
marketable title or the usual evidence of title ; nor accept a
title not strictly marketable (s) ; but this must be understood
merely as a rule for the general guidance of trustees, and it
does not follow that a trustee purchasing a substantially safe
holding, but not strictly marketable title, is necessarily guilty
of a breach of trust. In fact, such purchases are constantly
sanctioned by the Court (t)9 whenever special circumstances
exist which render the acquisition of the specific property a
matter of importance to the trust. If, for instance, there is
an estate already in settlement, and small adjacent or neigh-
bouring property, which has been or is likely to become a
nuisance, comes into the market, the Court will generally
sanction the purchase of such a property under a title very
far from marketable. So, too, in buying a large estate the
Court does not reject a property, desirable as a whole, merely
because some inconsiderable portions, not essential from local
position or other causes to the due enjoyment of the residue,

(r} Lord Londeslorough v. Somer- G-., Appendix iv. ; and see Ex p. Lowe ^

ville, 19 B. 295 ; but cf. Schole- 19 L. T. O. S. 310. In Ex p. The

field v. Rcdfern, 2 Dr. & S. 173; Trustees of Hindley New Chapel, V.-C.

Freeman v. Whitbread, 1 Eq. 266; K., 29th June, 1855, the Court, in

Re Ingrain's Trusts, 11 "W. R. 980. directing an inquiry as to title, di-

(s) See now 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 1, rected, that " in making such in-
substituting 40 years for 60 years quiry, E. M., of &c., shall be con-
as a sufficient root of title. See also sidered to have been seised for an
sects. 2 and 3 as to the power of estate in fee simple of the said plot
trustees to purchase without exclud- of land at the date of his will and at
ing the application of the rules pre- the time of his death," which death
scribed by the Act. occurred in 1820 ; but see MeyricJc v.

(t) Re Sheffield $ R. R. Co., 1 S. & Laws, 34 B. 58.

H2

100 PURCHASES BY FIDUCIARY VENDORS.

Chap. II. are held under short or otherwise objectionable titles. On the
- other hand, the want of a safe-holding title to a very minute

acreage may be a reason for rejecting the purchase of a large
estate. The greater the importance of the specific land to the
rest of the property, the greater is the reason for buying it
with almost any title if the rest of the estate is already in
settlement ; and the greater is the reason for rejecting the
purchase in toto if the entire property is proposed to be taken.
Trustees who have done of their own discretion that which
the Court, if applied to, would itself have sanctioned, would,
no doubt, be protected ; but considering the exigencies of
modern practice it seems desirable, in preparing wills and
settlements, to give trustees for investment an express discre-
tionary power to buy with less than a marketable title. It
may, however, be observed that, except under special circum-
stances, such as those above referred to, even such a power
could not be acted on with perfect safety, and that the ten-
dency of recent decisions and the recent practice of the Court,
is towards an increased rather than a diminished particularity
in investigating titles.

CHAPTEE III. Chapter III.

THE RELATIVE DUTIES OF VENDORS AND PURCHASERS PRIOR

TO THE SALE.

1. As to disclosure or concealment of defects, incumbrances,
fyc. by vendor.

2. As to commendatory and other similar statements by
vendor.

3. As to disclosure or concealment of advantages by pur-
chaser.

4. As to depreciatory remarks or conduct by purchaser.

may next advert to some general rules as to the rela- Preliminary
tive duties of intending vendors and purchasers before enter- rules to be18
ing into an agreement for sale : they relate to — observed in.

1st. The disclosure or concealment of defects, incumbranoes,
&c. by a vendor :

2ndly. Commendatory and other similar statements] by a
vendor :

3rdly. The disclosure or concealment of advantages by a
purchaser :

4thly. Depreciatory remarks or conduct by a purchaser.

Section 1.

(1.) As to the disclosure or concealment of defects, incum- As to dis-

, or j closure or

branccs, $c. by a vendor. concealment

Defects in an estate may be either patent, — that is, such as incumbrances,
may be discovered by ordinary vigilance on the part of a vendor.
purchaser ; e.g., the existence of an open footpath over the Vendor need

102

RELATIVE DUTIES OF VENDORS AND

Chap. III.
Sect. 1.

not point
out patent
defect.

property (a), or the ruinous state of buildings (b) ; or latent, —
that is, such as the greatest attention (c) would not enable him
to discover; e.g., the existence of defects in a ship's bottom
when sold afloat (d) : it is held that a vendor is not bound to
point out patent defects (e).

But he must not, either during a treaty for, or while in-

But must not
conceal or

divert atten- tending a sale, endeavour to conceal a defect, or to divert a
purchaser's attention from it : in neither case, if proved, can
he enforce the agreement in Equity (./') : and in the first (as
where a vendor, about to sell a house, purposely plastered
and papered over a defect in the main wall (#),) the purchaser
may recover his deposit at Law : and this, although the estate
be sold " with all faults" (ti) : and where there was a contract
for a lease of " a newly-built house," to contain covenants on
the part of the lessee to repair, and the lessee entered into
possession, and shortly afterwards discovered that the house
was defectively built, specific performance was not enforced
against him ; partly because some of the defects were latent,
and partly because, in every contract of this sort, there is an
implied undertaking on the part of the lessor to deliver the
house in complete tenantable repair (?). Of course, if the
defects are patent, and the purchaser, having notice of them,
takes possession, he cannot resist the vendor's suit for specific
performance (k) . So, where there was an agreement to rent
a furnished house, which, from defective drainage, was unfit
for habitation at the time fixed for the commencement of the
tenancy, the tenant was allowed to rescind the contract, on
the ground that in such a letting there is an implied under-
taking that the house shall be fit for occupation at the time
at which the tenancy is to begin (I).

Latent
defects.

(a) OldfieU v. Hound, 5 V. 508.
(*) Grant v. Munt, G. Coop. 177;
Eeatcs v. Earl Cadogan, 10 C. B. 591.

(c) Sug. 333.

(d) See Mellish v. 3Iotteux, Pea.
N. P. 156.

(«) Sug. 2.

(/) Sug. 2 ; see Shirley v. Strat-
ton, 1 Br. C. C. 440 ; Small v. Att-
ivood, You. 490.

(g] See Pickering v. Dowson, 4
Taun. 785.

(h) Schneider v. Heath, 3 Camp.
506 ; Baglehole v. Walters, ib. 156.

(i) Tildesley v. Clarkson, 30 B.
419. But see Oxford v. Provand, L.
R. 2 P. C. 141, et quaere.

(k) Cook v. Waugh, 2 Gif. 201.

(1) Wilson v. Finch-Hatton, 2 Ex.
D. 336 ; and see Smith v. Marrable,

PURCHASERS PRIOR TO SALE. 103

But at Law, where the plaintiff, knowing that a nuisance Chap. III.
existed which rendered his house unfit for a residence, em-
ployed an agent to dispose of it, without mentioning to him Case of vendor
the nuisance, and the agent, upon being asked by the intended agent and
lessee whether there were any objection to the house, replied eating to him

that there was not ; a majority of the Court held, that this
was no defence to an action for breach of the agreement to
take the house (m) ; inasmuch as the plaintiff made no false
representation, and the agent, although he made one, did not
know it to be false. But this decision, from which Lord
Abinger at the time dissented, can no longer be regarded as
an authority (n) . In a later case in the House of Lords,
one of the Law Lords laid it down that if a vendor, aware of
a serious nuisance affecting his property, entrusts the sale to
an agent who is ignorant of it, and who, on being asked by
a purchaser, innocently denies its existence, the contract
ought to be avoided (0) .

In a suit for specific performance, the decision in Cornfoot of vendor
v. Fowke would doubtless have been in favour of the lessee ;
and, in fact, a vendor cannot, although the estate be
sold subject to all faults (p), rely on the aid of a Court of
Equity, if he omit to disclose a latent defect which the pur-
chaser has no means of ascertaining (q) : although the rule at
Law would seem to have been otherwise, in the absence of
fraud, if the sale be " with all faults " (r) : and it has been
held in an action upon the contract, that the representation
of the agent, if made in the ordinary course of business (s),

11 M. & W. 5. But there is no such fully discussed in Ludgater v. Love,

implied undertaking on the letting 44 L. T. 694.

of an unfurnished house ; Kcates v. (p) Sug. 2.

Earl Cadogan, 10 C. B. 591 ; Chester (q) See Lucas v. James, 7 Ha. 410 ;

v. Powell, 52 L. T. 722. Tildesley v. Clarkson, 30 B. 419.

(m) Cornfoot v. Fowke, 6 M. & W. (r) See Baglehole v. Walters, 3

358. Camp. 154, 156 ; Early v. Garrett,

(n) See Wilson v. Fuller, 3 Q. B. 9 B. & C. 929 ; Pickering v. Dowson,

68 ; Barwick v. English and Joint 4 Taun. 779 ; Freeman v. Baker, 5

Stock Bank, L. R. 2 Ex. 259, 262 ; B. & Ad. 797 ; Taylor v. Bullen, 5

notes to Pasley v. Freeman, 2 Sm. L. C. Ex. 779.

(0) National Exchange Co. v. Drew, (*) See Coleman v. Riches, 24 L. J. C.

2 Macq. 108, 145 ; Mullens v. Miller, P. 125. See also Barwick v. English

22 Ch. D. 194 ; and see the subject Joint Stock Bank, L. R. 2 Ex. 25$;

RELATIVE DUTIES OF VENDORS AND

Chap. III.
Sect. 1.

is the representation of the principal ; but in an action on
the case for deceit, the misrepresentation or concealment
must be proved against the principal (t) ; but the principal
is answerable for a misrepresentation made in the course of
his business and for the principal's benefit (tt)9 and if he
knowingly refer the purchaser to an ignorant agent («),
or knowingly allow him to remain under a delusion as to
a material fact which there is a duty to disclose (#) — for
there may be a silence which is as eloquent as words (?/) —
this will be equivalent to misrepresentation. In a recent
case at Law (s), it was held that the passive acquiescence
of the seller in the self-deception of the buyer did not
entitle the latter to avoid the contract; and it was laid
down by one of the judges, that a vendor is under no legal
obligation to inform the purchaser that he is under a mistake,
not induced by the act of the vendor (a). But these dicta,
however applicable to the particular case, seem to be too wide
as a general statement of the law. Many cases may be put
in which mere passive acquiescence by a vendor in the self-
deception of the purchaser, may render him as liable in
Equity to have the contract rescinded as if the mistake were
originally due to his own contrivance ; nor does it seem
material, so far as the principle on which the relief is granted
is concerned, that the purchaser might, with reasonable care
or inquiry, have disabused his mind of the false impression ;
though the want of proper caution may be evidence to show

Brownlie v. Campbell, 5 Ap. Ca.
925 ; Mullens v. Miller, 22 Ch.D. 194.
As to the authority of the secretary
of a company to make representa-
tions, see Newlands v. Nat. Employers'
Assoc., 54 L. J. C. L. 428 ; Barnett
v. South London Tramways Co., 18
Q. B. D. 815.

(t} Per Lord Campbell, Wilde v.
Gibson, I H. L. C. 615.

(tf) See Brit. Mutual Banking Co.
v. Charnwood It. Co., 18 Q. B. D.
714, 717.

(M) Wilson v. Fuller, 3 Q. B. 75.

(«) See Hill v. Gray, 1 Stark. 434 ;
Keates v. Earl Cadogan, 10 C. B. 591.

(y] Brownlie v. Campbell, 5 Ap.
Ca. 925, 950.

(z) Smithy. Hughes, L. R. 6 Q. B.
597.

(a] Ib. 607. As to the distinc-
tion which has been drawn be-
tween the concealment of extrinsic
circumstances affecting the value of
the subject-matter of sale, or ope-
rating as an inducement to a con-
tract, and the concealment of intrin-
sic circumstances appertaining to its
nature, character and condition, see
Story on Contracts, sects. 517 etseq.;
and see on the doctrine, Fry, 302, n.

PURCHASERS PRIOR TO SALE. 105

that the vendor was not under the belief that the purchaser chap. III.

T . j Sect. 1.

was deceived.

But a vendor is not bound, even in Equity, to state that Recent valua-
the property has been recently valued at a sum greatly less not be dis-
than the intended purchase-money ; or that the tenant has cl°8ed*
complained of the rent as being excessive (b) ; or on the sale
or lease of a mine, that he has himself worked it, but has
abandoned the working as unprofitable, where the intending
purchaser or lessee has had the opportunity of examination (c) .

As to incumbrances and defects in title: — A vendor, so As to matters
far as his prima facie liability in this respect is not negatived
or restricted by the terms of the contract, must produce to the
purchaser all such documents of title in his possession (d) or
power as are necessary, in order to deduce a marketable title
for the usual or stipulated period ; and must inform him of
all material facts not apparent thereon (e ) . Whether a pur-
chaser, where a good sixty — or now forty — years' title (/) is
shown, can, as a matter of right, unless precluded by condi-
tion, claim to inspect earlier title deeds than those abstracted,
is doubtful ; but the better opinion seems to be, that as they
clearly constitute a part of the title, he is entitled to inspect
them, though probably at his own expense (g). The vendor,
however, need not direct attention to defects, &c. apparent on
the title deeds (//), nor to any matter of which the purchaser
has actual or implied notice ; for instance, upon the sale of On sale of
leaseholds (i), the stringent or unusual character of the cove-
nants need not be mentioned, as notice of the lease is notice
of its contents. Thus, where property was described merely
as held by the vendor as assignee of a lease, the purchaser

(b) Abbott v. Sworder, 4 Do Gr. & and see Sug. 407.
S. 448, 460. (A) Sug. 6.

(c) Haywood v. Cope, 25 B. 140 ; (i) Hall v. Smith, 14 V. 426 ; Pope
Jeffreys v. Fairs, 4 Ch. D. 448. v. Garland, 4 Y. & C. 394 ; Walter

(d) 1 Jarm, Conv. 63. v. Maunde, U. & W. 181 ; Smith v.
(e}Edicards\.H('Leay,Gr. Coop. 312; Capron, 1 Ha. 189; Vignolks v.

and see Gibson v. IfEste, 2 Y. & C. Bowen, 12 Ir. Eq. R. 194 ; Lewis v.

C. C. 542 ; Sug. 246. Zond, 18 B. 85 ; Wilbraham v. Live-

(/) See now 37 & 38 V. c. 78, sey, 18 B. 206, 209. See there the

s. 1. distinction between an agreement to

(g) Parr v. Lovegrove, 4 Dr. 170 ; sell and an agreement to underlet.

106

Chap. III.
Sect. 1.

Misrepresen-
tation not
allowed.

Lease, how
far notice.

was precluded from objecting to the title on the ground that
the lease contained restrictive covenants (k) . The notice,
however, must be explicit; and a condition that no requi-
sition shall be made in respect of a specified underlease, or
any other underlease prior to a certain date, has been held
not to preclude a requisition in respect of such a prior under-
lease, which was within the vendor's knowledge, but not
specifically noticed in the contract (/) : but a reasonable oppor-
tunity of inspection should be allowed the purchaser (m).

And there must, of course, be no misrepresentation (H)
upon the subject, or any artifice to divert attention : and if
the vendor be informed by the purchaser of his object in
buying, and the lease contain covenants which will defeat
that object, mere silence will in Equity be equivalent to mis-
representation (o) ; unless, indeed, the purchaser enters into
the contract after having actually examined the lease (p).
But even misrepresentation, if unintentional, will not give
the purchaser a right of action, after conveyance, if the sale
be "with all faults" (<?) ; and the purchaser may, even although
the case be one of fraud, waive his remedy by continuing,
after discovering the fraud, to deal with the property as
owner (/•) . But it must be borne in mind generally that though
there may, in a particular case, not be enough to induce the
Court to rescind a contract, there may still be quite enough
to prevent the Court from enforcing it(s).

And it may be doubted whether the above rule as to notice

(k) Grosvenorv. Green, 5 Jur. N. S.
117.

(1} Edwards v. WicJcwar, 1 Eq. 68 ;
He Banister, 12 Ch. D. at p. 143 ;
Redgrave v. Hurd, 20 Ch. D. see p. 14 ;
He Marsh and Earl Granvilk, 24 Ch.
D. 11, 17.

(ni) Brumfit v. Morton, 3 Jur. N. S.
1198; and see Hyde v. Warden, 3 Ex.
D. 72, 80 ; Cosscr v. Collinge, 3 M. &
K. 283 ; Bank of Ireland v. Brook-
field Linen Co., 15 L. B. Ir. 37.

(«) See Van v. Corpe, 3 M. & K.
269, 277 ; and the judgment in Pope

v. Garland, 4 Y. & C. 401, 402, and
cases cited ; and see BasJccomb v.
Phillips, 6 Jur. N. S. 363 ; lie Ban-
ister, 12 Ch. D. 131 ; Me Marsh and
Earl Granville, 24 Ch. D. 11.

(o) Flight v. Barton, 3 M. & K.
282 ; and cases cited supra, p.
104.

(p) Morley v. Clavering, 29 B. 84.

(q) Early v. Garrett, 9 B. & C.
928.

(>•) Campbell v. Fleming, 1 A. & E.
40.

(s) Re Banister, supra.

PURCHASERS PRIOR TO SALE. 107

in the case of a lease (general as are the terms in which it is Chap. III.
laid down (t) ) would, if the question arose in a suit for spe- tj *•

cine performance, be held to apply so as to affect the purchaser
with notice of any matter in a lease which is not in its nature
incidental to such an instrument (M) : whether, for instance,
such implied notice, although extending to unusual covenants
on the sale of the term, would also extend to a clause of pre-
emption contained in a lease, upon the sale of the rever-
sion (x) ; or would extend to fix him with notice of collateral
facts, affecting the title and stated in such covenants (?/) .

It is conceived, that upon the purchase of an estate in pos- What facts
session, those facts only are so far material as to render their tootle. Gna
disclosure obligatory upon the vendor, which affect his power
to give to the purchaser that which he has contracted for ;
and that, if he buy subject to a known risk, circumstances
which increase the mere amount of risk need not, in general,
be stated : for instance, it has been held that the grantor of
a personal annuity, or his agents, although bound to give
honest answers to all relevant questions put by the intended
grantee, need not voluntarily disclose the fact of his being
already under large pecuniary liabilities (z) ; for it may be
presumed that a person, who is obliged to raise money by
granting annuities, is more or less involved : but where the On purchase
consideration for the annuity is a reversionary interest belong-
ing to the purchaser, the grantor is bound, in Equity, to
communicate to the purchaser the unhealthy state of the pro-
posed ccstui qite vie (a).

(t} See Sug. 7. Vaughan v. Magill, ib. 207. And

(u) See Jones v. Rimmer, 14 Ch. D. see further as to how far notice of a

588. lease is notice of its contents as be-

(x) In Martin v. Cotter, 3 J. & L. tween vendor and purchaser, post,

507, Sugden, C., intimates an opi- pp. 869, 980, and Caballero v. Henty,

nion that the doctrine as to a lease 9 Ch. 447 ; Patman v. Harland, 17

being notice has been carried too far ; Ch. D. 353.

and see Nelthorpe v. Holgate, 1 Coll. (y) Darlington v. Hamilton* Kay,

203 ; and Flight v. Barton, 3 M. & 550.

K. 282 ; but in Vignolles v. Boiven, (z) Adamson v. Evitt, 2 R. & M.

12 Ir. Eq. R. 194, a power in the lease 72.

for the tenant to cut timber was held (a) Davies v. Cooper, 5 M. & C.

to fall within the rule, see 197, and 270.

RELATIVE DUTIES OF VENDORS AND

Chap. III.
Sect. 1.

Delusive
reference to
covenants.

So, if a vendor describe the property as let upon lease
under certain specified covenants, beneficial to the reversion,
but which he knows could not be enforced, this would probably
be considered delusive (b) ; so, if he say that there are no
unusual covenants, when in fact there are (c).

The mere preparation of an annuity deed by the grantor's
solicitor does not place him in any confidential relation
towards the grantee, even although no other solicitor be
employed in the transaction (d) .

Misrepresen- ^ solicitor, however, is liable to the purchaser, who has

tation by

vendor's been induced by his misrepresentation to purchase his client's
estate with a defective title (e).

His liability
under 22 & 23
V. c. 35.

And now (/), any seller or mortgagor, or his solicitor or
agent, who conceals any settlement, deed, will, or other
instrument material to the title, or any incumbrance from
the purchaser (#), or who falsifies any pedigree, on which the
title does or may depend, in order to induce him to accept
the title, with intent to defraud, is guilty of misdemeanour,
and also liable to an action for damages, at the suit of the
purchaser or mortgagee ; but no prosecution is to be com-
menced without the sanction of the Attorney-General, or, if
that office be vacant, of the Solicitor-Greneral.

Inquiry
should be
made of

We may also, in connection with the above head, observe,
that a purchaser suspecting that a third person has a claim on

(b} Flint v. Woodin, 9 Ha. 621.

(c) Andrew v. Aitken, 22 Oh. D.
218.

(d) Adamson v. Evitt, 2 B. & M.
72.

(e) Sug. 6 ; Arnot v. Biscoe, 1 V.
sen. 96 ; and see Evans v. Bicknell,
6 V. 193 ; Bowles v. Stuart, 1 Sch. &
L. 227 ; Craig v. Watson, 8 B. 427 ;
but see also Tylee v. Webb, 14 B. 14,
16. See, in connection herewith,

Whitmore v. MacTceson, 16 B. 126.

(/) 22 & 23 V. c. 35, s. 24. See
Re Ford and Hill, 10 Ch. D. 365, 370.

(g] The word "mortgagee" is in-
advertently omitted in the statute;
see now 23 & 24 V. c. 38, s. 8. As
to whether the concealment of an
incumbrance prior to the stipulated
commencement of title is within the
Act, see Smith v. Robinson, 13 Ch. D.
148, 151.

PURCHASERS PRIOR TO SALE. 109

the estate, should (/?), in the presence" of witnesses (who may Chap. III.
take notes of what passes) (i)9 inquire of him whether such
be the fact, and the amount of the claim ; at the same time

stating his own intention to purchase (k) : and if such person claimant,
deny the existence of the claim, or assert that it is confined to
a special sum, he will be bound by his denial or assertion (/) :
but, although bound to answer truly, if at all, a mortgagee, it
would appear, may decline to answer, unless the intending
purchaser offer to redeem him (m). But it has been more
recently held, that where property cannot be obtained, without
a particular person saying whether he claims it or not, it is
not sufficient that he should hold his tongue, but he must
state expressly whether he claims or not (n).

So, if the interest contracted for be merely equitable, the Inquiry and
purchaser should inquire of the trustees in whom it is vested purchase of
whether there are any and what incumbrances ; and, on e(iultable

J estate.

completion, should give them notice of the sale ; and where
an interest held under a derivative trust is purchased, the
inquiry and notice should be made of, and given to, the
trustees of the original trust, if the property remains under
their control (0) ; and, though not absolutely necessary, it is
desirable that in every case the notice should be formal (p).
Such inquiry and notice are advisable for the sake as well of
avoiding litigation with future, as of discovering the existence
of present, incumbrancers ; but on the purchase of an equitable Priority,
estate in land, no priority is obtained thereby (<?).

The trustees will be liable in Equity if they give false Trustee liable

(A) Sug. 7 ; Ibbottson v. Rhodes, 2 (m) See Bugden v. Bignold, 2 Y. &

Vern. 554. C. C. C. 390.

(i) Doe v. Perkins, 3 T. R. 749 ; (n) Re Primrose^ 23 B. 590, where

Burrough v. Martin, 2 Camp. 112; the stranger was visited with costs.

Wood v. Cooper, 1 C. & K. 645. (o) Bridge v. Beadon, 3 Eq. 664.

(k) 2 Vern. 554. See Lee v. Howktt, 2 K. & J. 531.

(I) Pearson v. Morgan, 2 Br. C. C. (p) Lloyd v. Banks, 3 Ch. 488,

388 ; and see Evans v. Bicknell, 6 V. overruling in effect Re Brown' s Trusts,

183, andik p. Carr, 3 V. & B. 111. 5 Eq. 88.

(q) Vide post, p. 943.

110

Chap. III.
Sect. 1.

for false
information.

Purchase of
a legacy
fund ii

RELATIVE DUTIES OF VENDORS AND

information, either fraudulently, or merely through forget-
f ulness (r) .

In every case the purchaser of a legacy should inquire
whether it is free from all claims and demands in respect of
the testator's estate (s) ; and, where the fund is in Court, the
assignee should obtain a stop order, but this will not give
him priority over an incumbrancer, who has already given
notice of his charge to the trustees (t). The mortgagee of an
undivided share of a fund in Court, who has obtained a stop
order on the fund, has priority over a subsequent incum-
brancer who obtains a stop order over the share, after it has
been carried over to a separate account (u).

Section 2. (2.) As to commendatory and other similar statements by a

vendor.

It may be laid down, as a general rule, that mere expres-

As to com-

mendatory

statements by sions of praise or affirmations of value, such as, that an estate,

Vendor not
bound by

mere puff.

as a renewa^e leasehold, is "nearly equal to free-
hold"(V); that land, in fact imperfectly watered, is " un-
commonly rich water-meadow land " (y) ; or that a house of
mean character is " a desirable residence for a family of dis-
tinction " (z) ; will not, however objectionable they may be
in point of morality, render the contract voidable by the
purchaser ; although their tendency would doubtless be to
indispose the Court to enforce specific performance at the
suit of the vendor. Thus, where the lessor of a quarry
stated that the limestone in it was " fit for the London
market " (an expression restricted in the trade for lime of the
best quality), and it was in fact of a very inferior descrip-

(r) Burrowes v. Lock, 10 V. 470.
See, too, Slim v. Croucher, 1 D. F. &
J. 518 ; Barry v. Croskey, 2 J. & H.
1 ; Brownlie v. Campbell, 5 Ap. Ca.
935.

(s) Noble v. Brett, 24 B. 499.

(t) Livesey v. Harding, 23 B. 141 ;
Day v. Lay, 1 D. & J. 144. See

and consider Dearie v. Hall, 3 Russ. 1 .

(u) Lister v. Tidd, 4 Eq. 462.

(x) Fenton v. Browne, 14 V. 144.

(y} Scott v. Hanson, 1 Si. 13, sed
queer e.

(«) Magenms v. Fallon, 2 Moll.
687.

PURCHASERS PRIOR TO SALE.

tion, it was held that this, though a mere puffing statement Ch«p. III.

on his part, was a bar to a decree for specific performance (a) . — —

So, an untrue statement by a vendor (though made in ignor-
ance), that the house which he was selling was not damp, was
held fatal in Equity (&), and a false statement, that " the
property is now held by a very desirable tenant at a rent of
400/.," was held sufficient ground for rescission (c). But in
each of these cases there was an actual mis-statement of facts :
so also there was in the " water-meadow " case, the decision
in which would probably not now be followed.

And the rule, perhaps, extends to any statement by a Unless
vendor, which is equivalent to a mere expression of his own to misstate-
opinion, and does not amount to an assertion of an indepen- x J 8}

dent and ascertainable fact ; such as, a statement on the sale
of an advowson, that an avoidance is " likely to occur
soon" (d) ; or on the sale of renewable leaseholds, that the
fine payable is " small " (e): if a purchaser choose to rely on
the vendor's opinion as to what is a small fine, or a proba-
bility of speedy avoidance, he does so at his peril.

So, where the purchaser is aware that the vendor's lauda- which the
tory statements are in fact untrue, and yet enters into the doesno^know
contract, the maxim " caveat cmptor " applies : as where pro- to be untrue*
perty was described as standing on " a fine vein of anthracite
coal," and it was within the purchaser's knowledge that it had
been worked, and was almost exhausted (/).

But, in Equity, where on the sale of a life interest, the Effect in
particulars described the tenant for life as a very healthy m?s™stetement
gentleman aged forty-eight, whose life was insurable, and ^•t°0.li^e lfh
an insurance was guaranteed at five guineas per cent., and and insurable.

(a) Higgins v. Samels, 2 J. & H. (b) Strangways v. Bishop, 29 L. T.

460. See this case as to the narrow 0. S. 120.

boundary which separates a puffing (c) Smith v. Land Property Co., 28

speculative statement from misre- Ch. D. 7.

presentation ; and see further as to (d) Trower v. Newcome, 3 Mer. 704.

misrepresentation, post, pp. 898 et (e) Fenton v. Browne, 14 V. 144.
seq. (/) Colby v. Gadsden, 34 B. 416.

112

Chap. III.
Sect. 2.

As to cove-
nants.

As to cesser
of charge.

RELATIVE DUTIES OF VENDORS AND

it turned out that the vendors had recently insured the life
at a rate less than five guineas per cent., but exceeding the
rate usually charged on healthy lives, their bill for specific
performance was dismissed with costs, although the purchaser
admitted that he knew five guineas to be more than the
usual premium (g).

80, on a sale of property on lease, a reference to the existence
of covenants beneficial to the reversion, but which, to the
vendor's knowledge, cannot be enforced, would probably be
held to be deceptive (h) ; or a false statement that there are
no unusual covenants (i) . So, on a sale of a reversion in
property, subject to an annuity, a condition that a recital
in a former deed which stated that the annuity — described
merely as "a life annuity " — had not been claimed for
twenty-one years, should be evidence of its having deter-
mined, whereas, in fact, the annuity was for four lives, and
was charged merely on the reversion, and was therefore not
claimable during the period referred to, was held to be unfair,
and void (k) . And it may be laid down, generally, that if
there is anything in the nature of the tenancies which affects
the property sold, the vendor is bound to tell the purchaser,
and that if he fails to do so specific performance will not be
decreed (/).

Valuation And a false statement, by a vendor, of an independent

of estate by

surveyor. fact — as, that the property has been valued by a surveyor
at a specified sum — will, if relied on by the purchaser (m),
enable him to avoid the contract at Law and in Equity (ri) ;

(g] Brealey v. Collins, You. 317.

(A) Flint v. Woodin, 9 Ha. 621.

(**) Andrews. Aitken, 22 Ch. D. 218.

(A-) Drysdale v. Mace, 5 D. M. &
G. 103.

(1) See Jones v. Rimmer, 14 Ch. D.
588.

(in) See Clapham v. Shillito, 7 B.
146 ; and cf. Roots v. Snelling, 48
L.T. 216.

(n) Buxton v. Lister, 3 Atk. 386 ;
Small v. Attwood, You. 407 ; Att-
wood v. Small, 6 C. & F. 232 ; Par-
tridge v. Usborne, 5 Russ. 195 ; Sug.
4 ; Lord Brooke v. Rounthwaite, 5
Ha. 298; Pike v. Vigers, 2 D. &
Wai. 1, 150; Redgrave v. Hurd, 20
Ch. D. 1 ; and see particularly the
observations of Jessel, M. R., on
At t 'wood v. Small.

PURCHASERS PRIOR TO SALE. 113

and might, perhaps, sustain an action for damages (o) : but a Chap. III.
vendor is not liable to such action for the false assertion that 1_ ! —

a third person has offered a specified sum for the estate (p). purchaseby
His statement, however, that he " will guarantee " a specified third Person-
income to arise from the property, although not amounting to
a contract, would, it appears, if made fraudulently, support an
action for the tort (q) .

The two former of the three cases last referred to seem to
be distinguishable ; for a purchaser might naturally consider
the opinion of a surveyor to indicate something like the
market value of the property, although he might be supposed
to attach little importance to the bare offer by an individual,
possibly made hastily, and soon repented of: though, cer-
tainly, in the cited case, the purchaser seems to have been
directly influenced by the mis-statement : and such a mis-
statement would probably be a defence to an action for specific
performance.

And a false statement that a specified rent is paid for the Vendor when
premises (r), has been held to subject the vendor to an action
at Law, although the purchaser did not rely on his statement,
but made inquiries of other persons ; who, it is presumed,
also deceived him. Nor, in a case of fraud, is the action
necessarily barred by the fact of his having paid the purchase-
money in an action for specific performance («).

And the same liability is incurred by a stranger, who, Stranger
even from mere wantonness, intending to deceive, although for mi8.8tate-
without any view to gain, makes a false representation to ment-
a purchaser as to the value or rent of the property : nor is
it material that the sale is by auction instead of by private

(o) Powell v. Edmunds, 12Ea. 6. (r) Lysney v. Selby, Raym. 1118 ;

(p) Sug. 2 ; 1 Rolle's Abr. 101, see Dobell v. Stevens, 3 B. & C. 623 ;

pi. 16. Wilson v, Fuller, 3 Q. B. 68.

(?) Gerhard v. Bates t 2 E, & B. (*) Jcndwine v. Sladc, 2 Esp. 573.
476.

D. VOL. I. I

RELATIVE DUTIES OF VENDORS AND

Chap. III. contract (t). Lord St. Leonards says (M), citing Sir W. Grant,

• " In cases of this nature it will be sufficient to show, 1st, that

the fact as represented is false ; 2ndly , that the person making
the representation had knowledge of a fact contrary to it" (x).
The rule is more broadly laid down by Mansfield, C. J.,
who says, that "it signifies nothing whether a man repre-
sents a thing to be different from what he knows it to be, or
whether he makes a representation which he does not know at
the time to be true or false, if in point of fact it turns out to
be false "(y) : and the better opinion seems to be, that, in
order to sustain an action for deceit, it is sufficient to show
There must be actual fraud; consisting in either an assertion (with or without
motive) of what the party knows to be false (s), or a commu-
nication, for a deceitful or fraudulent purpose, of that which is
in fact false, and which, although he may not know it to be
false, he represents himself as knowing to be true (a).

And it has been held at Law, that where a man, by his
words or conduct, wilfully causes another to believe in the
existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act
on that belief, so as to alter his previous position, the former
is concluded from averring against the latter a different state
of things as existing at the same time (b). And in Equity,
where a stranger has by such a fraudulent misrepresentation
induced a party to enter into the contract, the Court will
compel him to make good his misrepresentation to the best of

Must in
Equity make
good his
misrepro •
eentation.

(t) Bardett v. Spin fa, 2 C. & K.
646.

(u) Sug. 4.

(x) Burrowes v. Lock, 10 V. 476 ;
Lake v. Brutton, 8 D. M. & G-. 440.

(y) Schneider v. Heath, 3 Camp.
506 ; and see Neville v. Wilkinson, 1
Br. C. C. 546 ; Exp. Can-, 3 V. & B.
Ill, and Pearson y. Morgan, 2 Br. C.
C. 388.

(z) See Lord Campbell's judgment
in Wilde v. Gibson, 1 H. L. C. 633,
and cases infra, n. (a) ; Watson v.
Poulson, 15 Jur. 1111.

(a) See Adamson v. Jarvis, 4 Bing.

66 ; Pasley v. Freeman, 3 T. R. 61 ;
and 2 Sm. L. C. ; Gascoyne's case,
cited Dougl. 632 ; Powell v. Edmunds,
12 Ea. 6, 11 ; Foster v. Charles, 6
Bing. 396 ; Corbettv. Brown, 8 Bing.
33 ; Polhill v. Walter, 3 B. & Ad.
114; Shrewsbury v. Blount, 2 Man.
& Gr. 475 ; Freeman v. CooJce, 6 D. &
L. 187; Taylor v. Ashton, 11 M. &
W. 401 ; Evans v. Edmonds, 13 C. B.
786 ; Milne v. Marwood, 15 C. B.
781.

(b} PicJcard v. Sears, 6 A. & E. 469,
474. See, too, Shepherd v. Gillespie,
5 Eq. 293.

PURCHASERS PRIOR TO SALE. 115

his ability (c) : and conduct which is calculated to induce a Chap. III.

false belief as to the actual facts, may, if relied on, amount to — — ,

a fraudulent misrepresentation, even though there may have
been no intention to deceive ; as e. g. where, on full informa-
tion being required, documents, which are known to be insuf-
ficient, are furnished as containing it (d). A suit in Equity,
in the nature of an action for misrepresentation, is analogous
to the Common Law action for deceit, and is governed by the
same principles (e) ; " mere non-disclosure of material facts,
however morally censurable, however that non-disclosure
might be a ground in a proper proceeding at a proper time
for setting aside an allotment or purchase of shares, forms no
ground for an action in the nature of an action for misrepre-
sentation. There must be some active mis-statement of fact,
or, at all events, such a partial and fragmentary statement of
fact, as that the withholding of that which is not stated
makes that which is stated absolutely false"(/). But it
would probably now be held that this statement of the law
requires qualification, and that where there is a duty to make
disclosure, as in the instance above given, and a man in breach
of that duty remains silent, with the intention of inducing the
other party to act upon the belief that the reason why he did
not speak was because he had nothing to say, he is liable to
an action of deceit (g).

A representation that a man is able to answer an obligation Guarantee of

, i . ,. , . ... /7X solvency must

is not binding unless in writing (li) . bo ^ Citing.

(c) Pulsfordv. Richards, 17 B. 95. Smith v. Chadwick, 20 Ch. D. 27; 9

(d) Conybeare v. New Brunswick, Ap. Ca. 187.

$c. £. Co., 1 D. F. & J. 578 ; New (g) Brownlie v. Campbell, 5 Ap.

Brunswick, $c. R. Co. v. Muggeridge, Ca. 925, 950.

1 Dr. & S. 363, which see as to (h) 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, s. 6 ; see

what concealment or ambiguity will Haslock v. Fergusson, 7 A. & E. 86 ;

amount to misrepresentation. Swann v. Phillips, 8 A. & E. 457 ;

(e) Peek v. Gurney, L. R. 6 H. L. Devaux v. Steinkcller, 6 Bing. N. C.
p. 390. 84 (representations of the credit of

(/) Per Lord Cairns in Peck v. a firm, by a partner) ; and see Sent-
Gurney, ubi supra, p. 403 ; and see pie v. Pink, 1 Ex. 74 ; and see now
Redgrave v. Surd, 20 Ch. D. 1, 13 ; 19 & 20 V. c. 97, s. 3.

i2

Chap. III.
Sect. 2.

Rescinding
contract in
Equity.

116 EELATIVE DUTIES OF VENDORS AND

Where either of the parties to the contract has procured the
other to enter into it by means of a material misrepresentation
or such a concealment of a material fact as is considered in
Equity equivalent to a misrepresentation (£), the Court will
not merely decline to enforce, but will even rescind, the
contract (k)9 unless, it seems, the party defrauded elect to
have the misrepresentation made good (7) : and, in a suit
by a purchaser, will direct his deposit to be returned, and
declare a lien for it on the property (m) : but it cannot
award damages by way of compensation to the plaintiff
under its general jurisdiction (n) : nor does Lord Cairns'
Act, 21 & 22 Yict. c. 27, apply to a case where the suit is not
for the specific performance, but for the rescission, of the con-
tract; and since the Judicature Acts, although the Courts
have power to administer all kinds of relief (0), it is plain that
there is no substantive right to damages, where, as in the
present case, there was none before the Acts.

Change of Where an offer to purchase has been made to the know-

circumstances i I n ,1 i ,r P «n £ • J

between offer ledge oi the vendor on the laith 01 circumstances connected

and accept- with the property, and these circumstances change between
the making of the offer and its acceptance by the vendor, it is
conceived that the vendor is bound to disclose the fact and
nature of the change, and that if he accept the offer without

(fy As to what is sufficient to evoke
the interference of the Court, see
Torrance v. Bolt on, 8 Ch. 118; see
p. 124, where Lord Justice James
lays it down that the Court will
interfere ' ' where it is unconscien-
tious for a person to avail him-
self of the legal advantages which
he has obtained" by his misrepre-
sentation or concealment.

(k) See Turner v. Harvey, Jac.
169 ; Edwards v. M'Leay, G-. Coop.
308 ; Berry v. Armistead, 2 Ke. 221 ;
Lovell v. Sicks, 2 Y. & C. 46 ; Stain-
lank v. Fernley, 9 Si. 556 ; Atlwood
v. Small, 6 C. & F. 232, 395, 444 ;
Wilde v. Gibson, 1 H. L. C. 605,

635 ; Reynell v. Sprye, 1 D. M. & G-.
660 ; Pulsford v. Richards, 17 B. 95 ;
Jennings v. Broughton, 5 D. M. & Gr.
126; Bartlett v. Salmon, 6 D. M. &
Gr. 33 ; Conybeare v. New Brunsicick
R. Co., 1 D. F. & J. 578 ; New
Brunswick, $c. R. Co. v. Muggeridge,
1 Dr. & S. 363 ; Torrance v. Bolton,
8 Ch. 118; Stanleys. McGauran, 11
L. R. Ir. 314.

(t) Rawlins v. Wickham, 3 D. &
J. 304.
• (m) Torrance v. Bolton, 8 Ch. 118.

(») Gwillim v. Stone, 14 V. 128 ;
Sainsbury v. Jones, 5 M. & C. 1.

(0} See Manners v. Mew, 29 Ch. D.
725.

PURCHASERS PRIOR TO SALE. 11?

doing so, specific performance will be refused, or the contract Chap. III.
rescinded (p).

A voidable contract may be set up by a subsequent con- How voidable

contract may

firmation, or even by mere waiver or abandonment of the bo set up.
right to rescind it (q) ; but the confirmation must be clear,
amounting, in fact, to a new contract by reference to the
terms of the original contract, when such original contract is
tainted with actual fraud (r). But in the absence of fraud,
the Court will not entertain a suit for the delivery and cancel-
lation of the contract, except perhaps in cases wherp to allow
it to remain in the defendant's possession might prejudice the
plaintiff's title (s).

a.

If the vendor procure payment of a deposit from the pur- Vendor's
chaser, by means of a false and fraudulent representation as obtaining01
to the state of the property, he may, it seems, be convicted of ^eeyr^
obtaining money by false pretences (I). tences.

The same rules as to false or deceptive statements, which Misrepro-
are applicable to a contract between individuals, have an equal a pubiic corn-
application to a contract between an individual and a public
company. If a person has been induced to take shares in a
company by means of a fraud, which is in point of law the
fraud of the company, he may repudiate the shares as between
himself and the company, though as regards creditors he will
still, under the present system of winding up, be liable to be
placed on the list of contributories (u). The right, however,

(p) See Traill v. Baring, 4 D. J. C. &F. 225, 230, vide supra, pp. 55, 56.

& S. 318 ; Davics v. London and Pro- (s) Onions v. Cohen, 2 H. & M.

vincial Marine Insurance Co., 8 Ch. 354; and see the V.-C.' s remarks on

D. 469 ; Re Scottish Petroleum Co., Gwillim v. Stone, 14 V. 128 ; but see

23 Ch. D. 413. contra, Panama Telegraph (70. v. In-

(?) See Cole v. Gibbons, 3 P. W. diarubbcr Co., 32 L. T. 279.

290 ; Chesterfield v. Janssen, 2 V. sen. (£) Reg. v. Burgon, 2 Jur. N. S.

125 ; Morse v. Royal, 12V. 355 ; 596, case of mortgagee ; Reg. v.

Roche v. O'Brien, 1 B. & B. 355 ; Roebuck, ib. 597.

Campbell v. Fleming, 1 A. & E. 40 ; (u) Central R. Co. of Venezuela v.

Attwood v. Small, 6 C. & F. 424, 432 ; Kisch, L. R. 2 H. L. 99 ; Re Reese

Flint v. Woodin, 9 Ha. 618. River Mining Co., 2 Ch. 604, 609 ;

(r) De Montmorency v. Devereux, 1 Ross v. Estates Investment Co., 3 Ch.

118

RELATIVE DUTIES OF VENDORS AND

Chap. III.
Sect. 2.

Innocent
misrepresen-
tation binds
in Equity.

to be relieved of shares on the ground of misrepresentation in
the prospectus, stands on a different footing from the right
to rescind an ordinary contract. The shareholder who seeks
to be discharged must have done two things : he must have
repudiated his contract, and have got his name off the register
of shareholders, subject to the qualification that if he has,
before the commencement of the winding up, taken proceed-
ings to have his name removed, this will be sufficient. The
explanation of this rule would seem to be, that in the case of
a shareholder, the legislature has created, as it were, a statutory
status (#).

And in Equity a misrepresentation, although made in per-
fect good faith, if made in order to induce others to act upon
it, or under circumstances in which the party making it may
reasonably suppose that it will be acted on, primd facie binds
the party making it, as between himself and those whom he
has thus misled .

Section 3.

As to con-
cealment, &c.,
by purchaser.

He need not
disclose
concealed
advantages.

(3.) As to concealment and disclosure of advantages by the

purchaser.

A purchaser need not disclose any fact, unknown to the
vendor, which increases the value of the property itself ; e. g.,
the existence of a mine (z) ; or the existence of negotiations
for an advantageous sale of part of a mortgaged estate, sup-
posed to be a short security, upon the purchase by the first
mortgagee of a previous charge for less than its nominal
value (a). Where, however, the owners of a colliery entered
into a contract with an adjoining landowner for the purchase
of his estate without disclosing the fact, of which he was

682 ; Re Estates Investment Co.,
McNielVs case, 10 Eq. 503.

(x) Ee Scottish Petroleum Co., 23
Ch. D. 413.

(y) West v. Jones, 1 Si. N. S. 205,
208 ; A.-G. v. Stephens, 1 K. & J.
748 ; Peek v. Gurnet/, L. K. 6 H. L.

p. 412.

(z) Fox v. HacJcreth, 2 Br. 0. C.
420 ; Turner v. Harvey, Jac. 178 ;
see and consider our Lord's parable
of the treasure hid in a field, Matt.
xiii. 44.

(a) Dolman v. Notes, 22 B. 402.

PURCHASERS PRIOR TO SALE. 119

ignorant, that they had without authority got a considerable Chap- in.

quantity of coal from under it, the Court, in a suit by the L-l^,.

purchasers, refused to enforce the contract, although there
was no proof of undervalue ; and, in a suit by the landowner,
held that he was entitled to the value of the coals got from
under his land (6) ; and the case was attempted to be distin-
guished from those which we have just been considering on
this ground, viz., that where a person, having committed a
serious trespass on his neighbour's land, proposes to buy it
so as to screen himself from the consequence of his own
wrongful act, the proposal which he makes is not a simple
proposal for the purchase of the property, but involves a
buying up of rights which the owner has acquired against
him, and of which the owner is not aware (c) ; but whether
the distinction rests on any solid ground seems doubtful.

But anything, even a mere word, which tends to mislead But must not
the vendor upon such a point, will deprive the purchaser of vendor,
the assistance of a Court of Equity (d) ; and would, it is
conceived, be a fraud, avoiding the contract at Law, at the
election of the vendor.

The duties of a purchaser in this connection may be Summary of
summed up in the words of Lord Selborne (e) : " Every pur- purchaser as
chaser is bound to observe good faith in all that he says or ^c> ' xe'
does, with a view to the contract, and of course to abstain from
all deceit, whether by suppression of truth or suggestion of
falsehood. But inasmuch as a purchaser is, generally speak-
ing, under no antecedent obligation to communicate to his
vendor facts which may influence his own conduct or judg-
ment, when bargaining for his own interest, no deceit can be
implied from his mere silence as to such facts, unless he
undertakes or professes to communicate them. This, how-
ever, he may be held to do, if he makes some other communi-
cation which, without the addition of these facts, would be

(b) Phillips v. ffomfray, 6 Ch. 770. and see Davies v. London Marine Ins.

(c) See Lord Hatherley's judg- Co., 8 Ch. D. 475.

ment, p. 779. (<?) Coaks v. Boswell, 11 Ap. Ca.

(d) Turner v. Harvey, Jac. 178; 232,235.

120:

Phap. III.
Sect. 3.

RELATIVE DUTIES OF VENDORS AND

necessarily or naturally and probably misleading. If it is a"
just conclusion that he did this intentionally, and with a view
to mislead in any material point, that is fraud ; and it is
sufficient ground for setting aside a contract, if the vendor
was in fact so misled. A man is presumed to intend the
necessary or natural consequences of his own words and acts ;
and the cvidentia rei would therefore be sufficient without
other proof of intention. If the vendor was not in fact
misled, the contract could not be set aside ; because a dolus
which neither induced nor materially affected the contract is
not enough."

Section 4. (4^ ^s j0 depreciatory remarks, 8fc., by the purchaser.

_A fl fo

depreciatory A purchaser who has misrepresented the property to a
third person desirous of purchasing it, cannot enforce the

Their effect in contract in Equity (/) : so, at Law, when a purchaser, by
his statements in the sale room, prevented others from bid-
ding, the sale was held voidable by the vendor (g).

and at Law.

Slander of
title by
stranger.

A purchaser, however, is not liable to an action at Law for
having depreciated to the vendor the value of the property,
or its chance of sale (h) ; nor will an action lie against a
stranger for preventing a sale by giving notice of his claim
upon the estate, unless it be shown that such notice was
given maliciously (i) : and, in any case, in order to support
an action for slander of title, the plaintiff must prove false-
hood, malice, and special damage (k). If the defendant acted
bond fide, the action cannot be maintained, although a man of
sound sense and a knowledge of business would not have

(/) Howard v. HopJcyns, 2 Atk. (i) See Hargrave v. Le Breton, 4

371 ; Buxton v. Lister, 3 Atk. 383,
386.

(g] Fuller v. Abrahams, 3 Br. & B.
116 ; and see Mason v. Armitage, 13
V.38.

... (K) Vernon v. Keys, 12 Ea. 632,
638.

Burr. 2422 ; Malachy v. Soper, 3
Bing. N. C. 371, 382 ; Blackham v.
Puffh, 2 C. B. 611, 620, 624 ; Pater v.
BaJcer, 3 C. B. 831, 862, 868 ; Sug.
357.

(k} Brook v. Rawl, 4 Ex. 621 ; see
Bignett v. Buzzard, 3 H. & N. 217.

PURCHASERS PRIOR TO SALE.

121

uttered the slander (/). And it may be laid down that where Chap. III.
a person claims a right which he intends to enforce against a _ '
purchaser, not only is he entitled, but he is in common fair-
ness bound, to give prompt notice of his intention ; and,
consequently, that no action will lie for giving such prelimi-
nary warning, unless it can be shown, either that the threat
was made mala fide, only with the intent to injure the
vendor, and without any purpose to follow it up, or that the
circumstances were such as to make the bringing of an action
altogether wrongful (m). And it is of course not necessary
that such a warning should be followed up by bringing an
action.

It appears that an agreement between two persons, not to Agreement

with, not to

bid against each other at an auction, is legal ; and forms a bid against,
valuable consideration for an agreement giving to the party
withdrawing his opposition at the auction a right of pre-
emption over other property («) ; and such an agreement has
been held valid, where the sale was made by order of the
Court (o) .

It may be remarked, that, when a written agreement Effect of
between the parties has once been signed all previous repre- agreement
sentations, unless fraudulent (p), become immaterial (q), ex-
cept for the purpose of defence in Equity (r), or of rebutting
a defence, and so maintaining the written contract.

on

(I) Pitt v. Donovan, 1 M. & S. 639.

(m) Wren v. Weild, L. R. 4 Q. B.
730 ; Halsey v. Brotherhood, 15 Ch.
D. 514.

(») Galton v. Emms, 1 Coll. 243.

(o) Re Carey?* Estate, 26 B. 187.

(p) Supra, sect. 1.

(q} Pickering v. Dotcson, 4 Taunt.
779, 783 ; Knight v. Barber, 16 M. &
W. 69, 70.

(r) Ilaynes v. Hare, 1 H. Bl. 664.
And see Woollam v. Hearn, 2 Wh. &
T. L. C.

( 122 )

Chapter IV.

Section 1.

Doubtful

particulars,

conditions,

and contracts

construed

strictly

against

vendor.

CHAPTEE IY.

AS TO PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS O¥ SALE.

1 . General matters relating to particulars and conditions, and
their construction.

2. Preparation and contents of particulars.

3. As to conditions.

4. As to what special conditions are generally requisite in
various specified cases.

5. General remarks on special conditions.

(1.) PARTICULARS and conditions of sale, if intended to ex-
clude the purchaser from that to which he would otherwise
be entitled, must be expressed in terms most clear and
unambiguous (a) ; if there be any chance of reasonable doubt
or misapprehension as to their meaning, the construction will
be in his favour (b) . And the same principle of construction,
as regards questions of title, applies as well to private con-
tracts for sale and purchase, settled on behalf of both parties,
as to ordinary conditions for sale by auction, which, of course,
are settled exclusively on behalf of the vendor (c).

But not so as But general expressions may not, it seems, be so read by a

rule of law or purchaser as to make them contravene a well known rule of

custom^ law> or universal custom, if they be capable of bearing a

modified meaning ; as where the particulars stated that the

fines of a manor about to be sold were arbitrary, it was, in

(a) Symons v. James, 1 Y. & C. C.
C. 490.

(b} 8. C.; Taylor v. Martindale, ib.
661 ; Seaton v. Mapp, 2 Coll. 562 ;
Nouaille v. Flight, 7 B. 521 ; Brumfit
v. Morton, 3 Jur. N. S. 1198 ; Swais-

and Earl Granville, 24 Ch. D. 11.

(c) Modes v. Ibbetson, 4 D. M. &
G-. 787 ; Bulkeley v. Hope, 1 K. &
J. 482 ; and see as to vague con-
ditions, Taylor v. Gilbertson, 2 Dr.
391 ; Cruse v. Nowell, 2 Jur, N. S.

land v. Dearsleyy 29 B. 430 ; Re Marsh 536.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 123

the opinions of Lords Campbell and Brougham, no misde- Chap. IV.

scription, when it was shown that (the fines on alienation -

being arbitrary) those on the admission of a widow to free-
bench were certain ; inasmuch as such latter fines never are
arbitrary (d).

And conditions such as would not, under ordinary circum- And may bind
stances, be enforced in Equity, may bind a purchaser if his ^ose^tten-
attention be drawn to their objectionable nature before he *\on V* , ,

J directed to

buys ; as where, upon a sale under catching conditions as to their objec-
title, he inquired, " whether a good and marketable title character,
could be made ? " and the auctioneer and vendor's solicitor
refused to insert any such statement in the contract, but said
that a good title could be made under the existing conditions,
the purchaser was held to his bargain (e) .

Any undertaking on the part of the vendor will, it is con- Vendor's
ceived, as a general rule, be construed strictly in favour of £^ strictly0
the purchaser ; in fact, where, in an agreement for a twenty- construed'
one years' lease of a house in Highbury Place, it was stipu-
lated, that there should be a " covenant by lessor for quiet
enjoyment by the tenant, and not to let any of the land near
Highbury Place for the purpose of making and burning
bricks," it was held by V.-O. Wigram, that the lessor must
show his title to bind the adjoining land by such a covenant
during the proposed term ; although it appeared, on the face
of the agreement, that the lease was to be granted under a
power contained in a will (/) : but this decision was reversed
by Lord Cottenham (g).

As a general rule, the particulars and conditions cannot be Cannot be
contradicted, explained, or added to, by any verbal declara- verbal de-
tions at the time of sale (h) : evidence of such declarations claratlons:

(d} White v. Cuddon, 8 C. & F., (/) Dawesv. Setts, 12 Jur. 412.

see pp. 786 and 796. (g) S. C., 12 Jur. 709.

(e) Hyde v. Dallaway, 4 B. 606 ; (K) Anson v. Towgood, 1 J. & W.

and see Heyivood v. Mallalieu, 25 Ch. 639; Sug. 15; Higginson v. Clowes,

D. 357. 15V. 521 ; and see Manser v. Back,

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 1.

Except for
purpose of
defence in
Equity.

Case of sub-
purchaser.

Verbal decla-
rations at
sale.

Should be
reduced into
writing.

is inadmissible at Law on behalf of either plaintiff or de-
, fendant (i), and in Equity on behalf of the plaintiff; even
although the defendant (the purchaser) has agreed to abide
by the conditions and declarations at the sale (A1) ; but in
Equity such evidence is admissible for the purposes of de-
fence (/).

And the same rules apply between the original purchaser
at a sale, and his sub-purchaser (m).

When the auctioneer has, at the sale, made verbal declara-
tions at variance with the particulars, &c., a purchaser would
seem to be under this disadvantage : viz., that if the Court
were clearly satisfied that he heard and understood the effect
of the verbal declarations, he probably would not obtain a
decree for specific performance without the variations, sup-
posing them to be to his prejudice (ri) ; nor, on the other hand,
could he enforce specific performance with the variations,
supposing them to be in his favour ; a purchaser buying under
such circumstances should have the requisite alterations made
in the printed particulars or conditions before the agreement
is signed by himself and the vendor : although, in cases where
the vendor is selling under a power or trust, this might occa-
sionally give rise to questions with the parties beneficially
interested.

6 Ha. 443 ; Cross v. Lord Nugent, 5
B. & Ad. 58.

(i) See Gunnis v. Erhart, 1 H. Bl.
289 ; Greaves v. Ashlin, 3 Camp. 426 ;
Ford v. Tates, 2 Man. & G-. 549 ;
Eden v. Blake, 13 M. & W. 614, 617;
Powell v. Edmunds, 12 Ea. 6 ; Brett
v. dowser, 5 C. P. D. 376, 385. See
post, Ch. XVII. s. 4, as to the ad-
mission of such evidence to explain
ambiguity.

(&) Higginson v. Clowes, 15 V. 521 ;
Jenhinson v. Pepys, cited 15 V. 521 ;
Clowes v. Higginson, 1 V. & JB. 524.
But see Swaisland v. Dearsley, 29 B.

430, where evidence of these declara-
tions appears to have been improperly
admitted on behalf of the plaintiff.

(1) Swaisland v. Dearsley, 29 B.
430. And see the notes to Woollam
v. Hearn, 2 Wh. & T. L. C.

(m) Shelton v. Livius, 2 C. & J.
411.

(n) Gunnis v. Erhart, supra. See
Pcmber v. Mathers, 1 Br. C. C. 52;
post, p. 1149; Ogilvie v. Foljambe, 3
Mer. 53; Woodward v. Miller, 2 Coll.
279; Sug. 16; Farebrotherv. Gibson,
1 D. & J. 602; and cf. Cato v.
Thompson, 9 Q. B. D. 616.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 125

But any particular personal information given to the pur- Chap. IV.
chaser, as to incumbrances, or the title, or even declarations

on such points by the auctioneer, may be eriven in evidence by Particular

/ J information

vendor or purchaser as a defence in a suit for specific per- to purchaser,
formance according to the particulars, &c. ; but, as a general ^ Equity,
rule, do not seem to be admissible on behalf of the plaintiff (o).
In one case ( p) , where the vendor expressly agreed to deduce
a good marketable title, and the property (freehold) was
subject to restrictive covenants which made the title un-
marketable, he was not allowed, by way of defence to an
action for the return of the deposit, to rely on the fact (which
was proved) that the purchaser, when he entered into the
contract, knew of the defect of the title ; and it seems to have
been considered that evidence of such fact was not admissible.
But if the contract is silent as to the title which is to be
shown by the vendor, and the purchaser's right to a good
title is merely implied by law, the legal implication may be
rebutted by showing that the purchaser had notice before the
contract that the vendor could not give a good title (q) . In
this case there is no contradiction of the plain terms of a
written instrument by parol evidence.

Where an alteration was made in the printed particulars, Alteration of
and the altered copies were first produced in the auction-room unaltered
on the morning of sale, and the auctioneer, having read and copy
sold by an altered copy, inadvertently signed agreements
indorsed on unaltered copies, it was held, that a purchaser
could not enforce specific performance according to the par-
ticulars as originally published; although it did not appear
that he had heard the auctioneer read the altered copy, or had
any knowledge of the alteration (r) .

(6) Higginson v. Clowes, 15V. 623 ; this case by Jessel, M. R., in Cato v.

Clowes v. Higginson, 1 V. & B. 524. Thompson, 9 Q. B. D. 616.

And see the notes to Woollam v. (p) Cato v. Thompson, 9 Q. B. D.

Hearn, 2 Wh. &T. L. C. ; and Hey- 616 ; and see post, p. 1203 ct seq.

Wood v. Mallalieu, 25 Ch. D. 357, (q) Per Fry, J., in Gkag and Mil-

365 ; cf. Farebrother v. Gibson, 1 D. ler's Contract, 23 Ch. D. 321, 327.

& J. 602 ; and the explanation of (r) Manser v. Hack, 6 Ha. 443.

126

PAKTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV. The Sale of Land by Auction Act, 1867 (s), has made it

' unlawful, in every case where a sale is stated to be without

Sale "with- reserve for foe vendor to employ a person to bid at the sale.

out reserve , * *

or for the auctioneer to take knowingly any bidding from
In Equity : such person. Prior to this enactment if the sale was stated to
be made " without reserve," the employment of a bidder to
protect the estate (tf), or any private arrangement equivalent
to a reserved bidding (u), would have vitiated the sale in
Equity : but it was generally considered that where the sale
was not expressly made " without reserve," a single bidder
was allowable in Equity to prevent a sale at an undervalue.
But in Mortimer v. Bell (x) , the validity of this practice, and
the authority on which it was supposed to rest, were both
questioned. At Law, after a considerable fluctuation of the
authorities, the doctrine was carried still further than in
Equity; and in the absence of a stipulation, expressly re-
serving the right, the employment of a single puffer would
have vitiated the sale (?/) . The statute has put an end to this
conflict between the rules of Law and Equity ; and has pro-
vided that the particulars or conditions of sale by auction of
any land shall state whether such land will be sold without
reserve, or subject to a reserved price, or whether a right to
bid is reserved (z) . The omission of such a statement from
the particulars or. conditions is not provided for, but it is
conceived that in such a case the sale would be treated as
without reserve.

At Law.

The provisions of the Act, it will be observed, are expressed
in the alternative ; but it seems that on the same sale, not
only may a reserved price be fixed, but a right of bidding

(*) 30 & 31 V. c. 48.

(t) Meadows v. Tanner, 5 Mad. 34 ;
assuming, of course, that the bidder
acts.

(u} Robinson v. Wall, 2 Ph. 372.

(x) 1 Ch. 10, 14, 16, and vide post,
Ch. V. s. 6.

(y) See Thornett v. Haines, 15 M.

& "W. 371, 372, and Mortimer v. Bell,
supra, where Lord Cranworth treats
the rule as well settled; and vide
post, Ch. V. s. 5, and cases there
cited ; and 30 & 31 V. c. 48, s. 4.

(z) 30 & 31 V. c. 48, s. 6, and see
as to "land" the interpretation
clause.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 127

may be also reserved (a). Where, however, the sale is made Chap. IV.

" subject to a reserved bidding," a person cannot bo employed '

to bid up to the reserved price, unless the right to do so is
expressly stipulated for(&). And the stipulation must be
strictly adhered to ; thus, where a right was reserved by
the vendor to bid once by himself or his agent, and the
auctioneer bid three times with the sanction of the vendor, it
was held that the stipulation had been exceeded, and that the
sale was voidable at the option of the purchaser (c) .

A person not a party, but consenting to the sale, may be Rights of

111 -i T • • stranger —

bound by statements in the conditions or particulars dero- how bound,
gating from his rights over other property (d).

(2.) As to the preparation and contents of the particulars. Section 2.

The particulars should fairly and accurately (e) describe the Particulars,
estate ; if, although grammatically correct, they are so obscure in> to be fair
as to be likely to deceive an ordinary purchaser, the sale will **'

be liable to be set aside (/) : nor is it sufficient for them
merely just to tell what is not actually untrue, omitting a
great deal that is true, and leaving the purchaser to ascertain
the existence of any error or omission ; but they should de-
scribe everything which it is material for him to know in ^
order to judge of the nature or value of the property (g) : and
the vendor, before he sells, is bound to make himself ac-
quainted with its peculiarities and incidents (h) , so far as may
be necessary in order to avoid serious error in the description :
and a plan, if referred to in aid of the description, should be

(«) Gilliatt v. Gilliatt, 9 Eq. 60. Swaisland v. Dcarsky, 29 B. 430 ;

(b) Ibid. as to annual value, see Lowndes v.

(c) Parjitt v. Jepson, 46 L. J. C. P. Lane, 2 Cox, 363 ; and White v.
629. Cuddon, 8 C. & F. 766 ; and as to a

(d) Wood v. Manley, 11 A. & E. deceptive statement as to occupancy,
34. Lachlan v. Reynolds, Kay, 62.

(e) See Calverley v. Williams, 1 V. (g) Baskcomb v. Beckwith, 8 Eq.
210, 213. 100.

(/) Taylor v. Mart'mdale, 1 Y. & (h) See Brandling v. Plummer, 2

C. C. C. 658 ; Symons v. James, ib. Dr. 430 ; Heywood v. Mallatieu, 25
490 ; Martin v. Cotter, 3 J. & L. 496; Ch. D. 357, 364.

128 PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV. perfectly accurate ; thus where the sale plan showed what was

U an apparent, but not the real boundary of the property, and

a personal inspection by the purchaser failed to correct the
misapprehension caused by the plan, the vendor's bill for
specific performance was dismissed (i). On the sale of a
partial interest, any substantial (k) variation from the descrip-
tion will, at Law as in Equity, render the contract voidable (/).

What parti- It is the proper office of the particulars to describe the
state. subject-matter of the contract, and of the conditions to state

the terms on which it is sold (m) ; and the omission from the
particulars of some fact which ought to have been stated there
will not necessarily be remedied by a statement of it, however
explicit, in the conditions ; unless of course it can be shown
that the purchaser's attention was expressly directed to it.
Thus, where a printed particular described the property as
an immediate absolute reversion falling into possession on
the death of a lady aged 70, and it appeared from the written
conditions, which were read but not distributed at the sale,
that the property was sold subject to three mortgages, the
purchaser, who did not understand that he was buying an
equity of redemption, was held entitled to have his contract
rescinded, and under the special circumstances the vendor was
condemned in costs (n).

Agreement to - An agreement to sell land is, in the absence of any restric-

what it in- tive expressions, an agreement to sell the wrhole of the ven-

cludes. dor's interest therein (o) ; and such interest, if not described,

will be implied to be an estate in fee simple (p)9 free from

(i} Denny v. Hancock, 6 Ch. 1; Hilbert v. Shee, 1 Camp. 113.

Brewer v. Brown, 28 Ch. D. 309. (m) Per V.-C. Malms, in Torrance

See Arnold v. Arnold, 14 Ch. D. v. Bolton, 14 Eq. 130.

270. - (») Torrance v. Bolton, 8 Ch. 118;

(k) See Belworth v. Hassell, 4 Tate v. Gardiner, 10 I. R. C. L.

Camp. 140 ; and in Equity, Vignolles 460.

v. Bowen, 12 Ir. Eq. R. 194. . (0} Bower v. Cooper, 2 Ha. 408.

(1) See Thompson v. Miles, 1 Esp. (p) Hughes v. Parker, 8 M. & W.

184 ; Farrer v. Nightingal, 2 Esp. 244 ; and see Cattell v. Corrall, 4 Y.

639 ; Hearn v. Tomlin, 1 Pea. 253 ; & C. 228, 236 ; Sug. 298.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 129

incumbrances (q) : but the legal implication may be rebutted Chap. IV.

by showing that the purchaser knew that the estate he was '

contracting for was not freehold (r), or that it was subject to
restrictions which he knew to be incapable of removal or
release (s). Where, however, the agreement to give a good
title is not a matter of legal implication merely, but is an
express provision of the contract, evidence of the purchaser's
knowledge is inadmissible to contradict the express terms of
the contract (t). Unless the contrary be expressed, the in- All legal
terest offered for sale (whether it be absolute or qualified), presumably
will be presumed to be accompanied by all those advantages
which are legally incidental to it (it) . Therefore, an infringe-
ment of the rule, Ciy'us cst solum cjus est usque ad ccelam (#),
is (if not mentioned in the particulars) sufficient to render
the contract voidable by the purchaser (?/) : so, where there
was no title to an underground cellar, the defect was held
fatal (z) : so, where there was a want of title to such a proper
access to a house as, under the description, the purchaser was
justified in expecting (a) ; so, where on a sale of arable land
no right of way was shown thereto for carts and carriages (b) ;
so, where on a sale of ground rents proper powers of distress
and entry could not be conferred on the purchaser (c). And
where a lessee agreed to buy the house leased to him, and
described as being then in his own occupation, it was held
that he was not bound to complete except upon the terms of

(?) Doe v. Stanion, 1 M. & "W. 095 ; (x) " Et ad inferos," see Lewis v.

Ogilvie v. Foljambe, 3 Mer. 53, 64 ; Sraithwaite, 2 B. & Ad. 437 ; Keyse

Phillips v. Caldckugh, L. R. 4 Q. B. v. Powell, 2 E. & B. 132; Sparroiv

159. v. Oxford, $c. E. Co., 2 D. M. & GK

(r) See Cowley v. Watts, 17 Jur. 108.

172 ; Cox v. Middleton, 2 Dr. 217. (y) Pope v. Garland, 4 Y. & C. 403.

(*) Re Gloag and Miller's Contract, (z) Whittington v. Corder, 16 Jur.

23 Ch. D. 320, 327 ; Ellis v. Rogers, 1034.

29 Ch. D. 661, 666. (a) Stanton v. Tattershall, 1 S. &

(t) Cato v. Thompson, 9 Q. B. D. G. 529.

616. (b) Denne v. Light, 3 Jur. N. S.

(u) Skull v. Gknister, 16 C. B. N. 627 ; see and distinguish Curling v.

S. 81, case of right of way appurte- Austin, 2 Dr. & S. 129.

nant, though not mentioned, passing (c) Langford v. Selmes, 3 K. & J.

by a parol demise ; Cato v. Thomp- 220.
son, supra.

D. VOL. I. K

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 2.

Minerals,
•when not
included.

Allotments.

Restrictions
against on

pames.

his having a cellar which passed by the lease, but which was
not in his occupation at the date of the contract (d).

But an agreement to sell land to a Railway (<?) or Water-
works Company (/), or other Company, subject to the pro-
visions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts, does not
include the minerals (</), unless they are expressly comprised
in the purchase : and the mere agreement to sell a house and
land has been held not to pass the right to an unascertained
allotment under a recent Inclosure Act (h) ; but by the General
Inclosure Act (i) it is now provided that if an interest in
land is sold before the allotment in respect of it is made, the
allotment shall be made to the purchaser.

It must be borne in mind that, although a conveyance of
land to a Railway Company, under the 81st section of the
Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, destroys all rights and
interests in the land purchased, if compensation is paid for
them, yet if no compensation is made under sect. 68, they
still exist and are binding on a purchaser from the Com-
pany (k). So, where a Railway Company purchased land,
which had been allotted under an Inclosure Act, with a con-
dition annexed that the land so allotted should never be used
for building purposes, and afterwards sold it to a purchaser

(d} Whittington v. Corder, 16 Jur.
1034.

(«) 8 V. c. 20, s. 77.

(/) 10 V. c. 17, s. 18.

(g] Stone is such as between ven-
dor and purchaser for the purposes
of an exception of minerals. See
Bell v. Wilson, 1 Ch. 303 ; M. R. Co.
v. ChecTcley, 4 Eq. 19, 25 ; so, also,
china clay, Hext v. Gill, 7 Ch. 699 ;
but the surface owner was held en-
titled to an injunction against work-
ing the clay so as to destroy the sur-
face. So, also, coprolites under a
copyhold tenement, A.-G. v. Tom-
line, 6 Ch. D. 750. See also M.
It. Co. v. Haunchwood Brick and Tile
Co., 20 Ch. D. 552 ; Jamieson v. N.

B. R. Co., 6 Scot. L. R. 188 ; Dixon
v. Ceil. R. Co., 5 Ap. Ca. 820, where
a bed of clay used for making a pecu-
liar kind of brick, freestone worked
by an open quarry, and a limestone
quarry worked by open workings,
were respectively held to be mines
within sect. 77 of the Railway
Clauses Consolidation Act. And cf .
A.-G. for Isle of Man v. MylcTireest,
4 Ap. Ca. 294 ; Tucker v. Linger,
8 Ap. Ca. 508; A.-G. v. Welsh
Granite Co., 35 W. R. 617.

(K) Fife v. Clayton, 1 Coop. t. Cott.
351 ; and see Williams v. Phillips, 8
Q. B. D. 437.

(i) 8 & 9 V. c. 118, s. 84.

(k) Ellis v. Rogers, 29 Ch. D. 661.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 131

as superfluous land, it was held to have become again subject Chap. rv.
to the restriction (/). '

Any charge upon the estate, or right restrictive of the pur- Permanent
chaser's absolute enjoyment of it, and the release of which restrictive
cannot be procured by the vendors, should be stated in the £f noticed,
particulars ; or the omission may, in many cases, render the
sale voidable by the purchaser (m), c.g.j a right of sporting
over the estate (w), a right of common every third year (0), a
right to dig for mines (;;), a liability to repair the church
chancel (?), or (it is conceived) a liability to heriots — unless
capable of being immediately enfranchised (r) — or any other
right or liability which cannot fairly admit of compensation,
would, if undisclosed, have that effect.

Bights of way or water (s) (if any) should be referred to ; Rights of
for although a mere non-disclosure of their existence might water?1
not, in general, avoid the contract (t) , the Court would readily
lay hold of anything in the particulars, &c., at all inconsistent
with their existence, as a ground for relieving a purchaser.

So, if the vendor's interest be in any way determinable, And anything
the fact should appear ; for when a redeemable annuity was determine
offered for sale, simply as an annuity (w), and leasehold houses Merest?
were sold, without any mention being made of a private Act
of Parliament which gave a Company the right to purchase
them (#), the sales were held invalid.

The vendor, however, is not bound to mention in the par- But not

matter of

(I) Birdv.Eggleton,1§ Ch. D. 1012. (q) Forteblow or Horniblow v. Shir-

(m) Sug. 5, 6, 311, 312 ; and see ley, 2 Sw. 223 ; 13 V. 81.

Torrance v. Bolton, 8 Ch. 118 ; Not- (r) See 15 & 16 V. c. 51, s. 27;

tingham Brick Co. v. Sutler, 16 Q. B. but see sect. 48.

D. 778. («) See Shackleton v. Sutclife, 1 De

(n) Burnett v. Brown, 1 J. & W. Gr. & S. 609 ; Eeyivood v. Mallalieu,

172. 25 Ch. D. 357.

(o) Gibson v. Spurrier, Pea. A. C. (t) Oldfield v. Round, 5 V. 508.

50. (u) Coverley v. Burr ell, Sug. 27.

(p) Seaman v. Vawdrey, 16 V.. 390. (x) Ballard v. Way, 1 M. & "W.

See Ramsden v. Hirst, 6 W. R. 349. 520.

K2

132

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 2.

which pur-
chaser has
notice ; e. g.
stringent
covenants
on sale of
leaseholds :

Or fines or
customs on
sale of copy-
holds :

Or quit
rents, &c.,
on sale of
manorial
freehold :

Or statutory
local taxes :

Or notorious
local customs :

ticulars any matter affecting the property, and of which the
purchaser has notice in the legal sense of the word : e. g., on
the sale of leaseholds, the fact that the covenants and restric-
tions in the lease are unusually stringent need not be stated ;
for the purchaser, having notice of the lease, should satisfy
himself as to the contents before he buys (y) : but in such a
case a reasonable opportunity ought to be allowed the pur-
chaser of examining the lease (z).

So, on the sale of copyholds, the particulars need not refer
to the fines or customs of the manor ; these being generally
incidental to copyhold tenure (a) : nor need they refer to the
fact that the minerals cannot be worked without the lord's
consent (5), nor to the fact that timber cannot be cut without
his consent.

So, where, on the sale of freeholds, it distinctly appears by
the particulars that the land is held of a manor, the vendor
need not, it is conceived, refer to the existence of quit rents,
or even heriots (c). At Law their non-disclosure has been
treated as constituting a fatal objection (d), although in
Equity they might, if small, be treated as matter for compen-
sation (e). The fair and proper course, however, is to men-
tion their existence. So, where land is sold as fen land, the
particulars need not refer to embanking and drainage taxes,
to which it is subject under a local but public Act of Parlia-
ment (/).

So, on the sale of lands within the mining districts, any
reference to the rights of mining (g) under the local customs

- (y} Hall v. Smith, 14 V. 426 ; Pope
v. Garland, 4 Y. & C. 394 ; Paterson
v, Long, 6 B. 590 ; Lewis v. Bond, 18
B. 85 ; but see ante, pp. 105, 106.

(z) Brumjit v. Morton, 3 Jur. N. S.
1198 ; Hyde V. Warden, 3 Ex. D.
72, 80.

(a) See and consider White v. Cud-
don, 8 C. & F. 766.

; b) Hayfordv. Griddle, 22 B. 480.

. (c) See Darner ell v. Protheroe, 10
Q. B. 20, showing that heriots may
be due in respect of freeholds ; Lord
Chichesterv. Sail, 17 L. T. O. S. 121.

(d} Turner v. Beaurain, Sug. 312.
'(e) Tide post, p. 1205.

(/) Barraud v. Archer, 2 R. & M.
751.

(g} As to which, see Rogers v. Br en-
ton, 12 Jur. 263 ; Rowe v. Brenton,
3 Man. & R. 247, 339, 341, 344.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 133

would, it is conceived, be unnecessary ; as their existence is Chap. IV.
matter of notoriety (h). -

But the particulars must contain no misrepresentation ; But no mis-
e.ff.y if, on the sale of leaseholds, the terms of the lease are allowable:
mis-stated, the sale may be set aside ; even although the g^^nt Of
auctioneer read the lease at the sale (t) . So, where on a sale lease :
by the Court of leasehold properties held under a corporation,
which usually reserved mere nominal rents, a full detailed
description was given of one of the lots, which did not state
that it was subject to a heavy ground rent, the purchaser was
discharged from his purchase (k).

So, where property thirty-three feet in depth was described 9r °*
as forty-six feet deep, the purchaser was allowed an abatement property :
of the price, although he was the occupying tenant (/).

So, where redeemed land tax, consisting of several sums Or as to re-
charged on distinct tenements, was described as an aggregate tax :
sum issuing out of all, the misdescription was held to be a
fatal objection to the title (m).

And the effect of what would otherwise be notice may be Nor anything
destroyed, not only by actual misdescription or misstatement, deceive, &c.

but by anything calculated to deceive, or even lull suspicion, Reference to

.» . deceptive

upon the particular point ; as where lot A. (building land) plan.

was expressed to be sold subject to the rights of way reserved
by the existing leases of adjoining property B., and a plan,

(h) And see now, as to the Hun- 379 ; Jones v. Edney, 3 Camp. 285 ;

dred of High Peak, Derbyshire, 14 and see Van v. Corpe, 3 M. & K. 269 ;

& 15 V. c. 94 ; and Wake v. Hall, 8 Flight v. Barton, ib. 282 ; Stanley v.

Ap. Ca. 195. In the Forest of Dean McGauran, 11 L. R. IT. 314.

the customs have been regulated by (k) Jones v. Rimmer, 14 Ch. D.

1 & 2 V. c. 43, amended by 24 & 25 588. In this case there was no actual

V. c. 40, and 34 & 35 V. c. 85. See mis-statement, and yet the particular

Wood on Dean Forest ; MacSwinney, was held to be misleading.

c. 20. As to the customs of Devon (1] King v. Wilson, 6 B. 124. See

and Cornwall, see Stannary Laws, Whittington v. Corder, 16 Jur. 1034.

and MacSwinney, c. 18. (m) Cox v. Coven ton, 31 B. 378.

(i) Ilight v. Sooth, 1 Bing. N. C.

134 PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV. specially referred to in the particulars, disclosed a carriage-

! ! way reserved over A. to B., and also a way reserved over A.

to another lot C., but gave no indication of another way
reserved over A. to B., the particulars and plan were treated
as deceptive ; and the purchaser was held not hound, under the
particular circumstances, to have inspected the leases (n) .

Or deceptive So, where a lessee sold, (by way of underlease.) part of a

statement as

to covenants, demised estate, and the particulars mentioned that the original

lease contained a power of re-entry on breach of a covenant
against certain trades being carried on upon the premises, and
that the purchasers must enter into similar covenants, but did
not state the fact — which is a serious defect in the title (o) —
that some underleases, already granted of parts of the pro-
perty, contained no such covenants, the purchaser recovered
his deposit at Law (p). So, in Equity, a vendor of property
on lease is not justified in parading upon his particulars the
existence of covenants beneficial to the estate, but which he
knows, or has good reason to believe, cannot be enforced (q) :
although he is not, as a general rule, bound to show who are
nominatim the parties liable upon such covenants (q) .

On sale of Where a lease, which contains the usual covenant to deliver

lease, removal . .

of buildings up the premises in good repair at the end of the term, is sold,
and any of the demised buildings have been removed, the fact
should be stated : the omission of the buildings from the par-
Sale of part ticulars is not sufficient (r). So, where other property is corn-
property, or prised in the lease (s) , or the interest offered for sale is an

n -j -I

se' underlease (t), the fact should appear in the particulars or

(») Dykes v. Blake, 4 Bing. N. C. 412, 709 ; and Spunner v. Walsh, 11

463 ; and see Gibson v. D'Este, 2 Y. Ir. Eq. R. 597.

& C. C. C. 542 ; Basfaomb v. Beds- (q) Flint v. Woodin, 9 Ha. 618.

w.ith, 8 Eq. 100 ; Arnold v. Arnold, (r) Granger v. Worms, 4 Camp. 83.

14 Ch. D. 270. See also Jones v. («) Tomkins v. White, 3 Smith, 435 ;

Simmer, 14 Ch. D. 588. Leuty v. ffillas, 2 D. & J. 110, 122 ;

(o) Darlington v. Hamilton, Kay, Brmnfit v. Morton, 3 Jur. N. S. 1198 ;

550; Bartlett v. Salmon, 6 D. M. & which see as to "derivative lease"

Gr. 33. and "underlease" being convertible

(p) Waring v. Hoggart, Ry. & Mo. terms.

39; and see Dawes v. Betts, 12 Jur. (t) JlfflriWyv..B0o*A,2DeG.&S.7l8;

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 135

conditions : and its omission may be considered a sufficient Chap. rv.
ground for refusing specific performance (u). ...._!_ _ —

Where the particulars refer to the lease, and there is a dis- Discrepancy
crepancy between the two, and the terms of the lease are the ticuTanTamT
more favourable to the purchaser, the vendor is bound by the lease'
description in the lease, and must show a title in conformity
therewith (a?).

As respects commendatory statements and descriptions in Puffing-
the particulars, which are separated from actual misdescription
by a very narrow boundary, we may refer to the observations
already made in Ch. III. ; a fair and correct description will
be found to be as agreeable with sound policy as it is with
morality.

When a plan of the estate is attached to, or accompanies, Reference to
the particulars, or is so incorporated in the contract as to I
control the description (y), and is incorrect, it will be a material
consideration with the Court whether the purchaser was thereby
misled : but, if accurate, it is merely tantamount to a view of
the property : so that when an estate was sold in lots, and it
correctly appeared by the plan that lot 1, an Inn, was sup-
plied with water by a drain leading from a well in lot 4, this
was held to be merely expressive of the physical fact, and not
to amount to any engagement on the part of the vendor that
there should be a reservation of a right to water in the con-
veyance of lot 4 : and a bill filed by the purchaser of lot 1 for
compensation, was dismissed with costs (z). But where the
plan so represents adjoining land as to make it apparently part

but see Sir G. Jessel's comments on underlease ; Flood v. Pritckard, 40 L.

this case in Camberwell and South T. 873. See, too, Darlington v.

London Building Society v. Holloway, Hamilton, Kay, 550, where the point

13 Ch. D. 754, 760. was considered doubtful ; and cf.

(u) Brumfit v. Morton, 3 Jur. N. Camberwell, $c. Building Society v.

S. 1198; Crcswell v. Davidson, 56 Hollo way, supra.

L. T. 811, which decided that the (x) Bentleyv. Craven, 17 B. 204.

relief afforded by s. 14 of Conv. (y) Nene Valley Commissioners v.

Act, 1881, has not altered the Dunkley, 4 Ch. D. 1.

rule. See, too, Hayford v. Grid- (z) Fewster v. Turner, 6 Jur. 144 ;

die, 22 B. 477, where, however, the and see Dykes v. Blake, 4 Bing. N.

purchaser knew he was buying an C. 463.

136

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 2.

To plan
showing
intended ad-
jacent roads
and improve-
ments.

Statement
that adjoin-
ing land is
building land.

of the property, and the purchaser is thereby misled, this may
be a ground for refusing a decree for specific performance
against him (a) . Thus, where an estate was sold in lots, sub-
ject to restrictive covenants as to the trades to be carried on
upon the estate, and the vendor retained a small plot which,
though shown on the plan, was not coloured, or marked with
his name, as in the case of other adjoining owners, the Court
refused to enforce the contract against a purchaser of one of
the lots, unless the vendor entered into similar restrictive
covenants as to the excepted plot (b).

So, on the sale or lease of building ground, the exhibition,
on the plan, of intended roads or other improvements on the
adjacent land does not bind the vendor or lessor to make or
execute such roads or improvements (c), nor entitle the pur-
chaser or lessee to a grant of right of way over any roads so
laid down on the plan, except such as form the direct means
of communication with the nearest highway (d) ; but a
vendor would not, it appears, be allowed to divide and
appropriate the land in a different manner, so as to attract
an occupancy and population entirely different from that
which would probably have been produced by acting on the
plan proposed and held out at the sale (e). On the other
hand, when a house is sold " with all its lights," a statement
in the particulars that adjoining land, belonging to the
vendor, is building land, does not authorize the vendor, or
a purchaser from him, to build upon the adjoining land, so
as to obstruct such lights (/).

(0) See Weston v. Bird, 2 ~W. R.
145 ; Denny v. Hancock, 6 Ch. 1 ;
Arnold v. Arnold, U Ch. D. 270;
Brewer v. Brown, 28 Ch. D. 309 ; and
ante, pp. 127, 128.

(b) BasTccomb v. Beckwith, 8 Eq.
100.

(c) Feoffees of Harlot's Hospital v.
Gibson, 2 Dow, 301 ; Squire v. Camp-
bell, 1 M. & C. 459 ; Nurse v. Lord
Seymour, 13 B. 269 ; see Schreiber v.
Creed, 10 Si. 9 ; but see also Beau-
mont v. Duke, Jac. 422 ; and see

Nicholson v. Rose, 4 D. & J. 10.

(d) Randall v. Hall, 4 De G. & S.
343; but qucere, whether the vendor,
refusing to grant a right of way, at
any rate over such roads as might
eventually be made, could enforce
specific performance. See judgment.

(e) Peacock v. Penson, 11 B. 355;
upon the construction of covenant
to make roads, see Mason v. Cole, 4
Ex. 375.

(/) Swansborough v. Coventry, 9
Bing. 305 ; but see and distinguish

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 137

We may here remark it to be well established that where Chap. IV.
a person owns a house, having the actual use and enjoyment
of certain lights, and also holds the adjoining land, and sells
the house, he cannot, although the lights be new. nor can tainingad-

. . ... joining land

any one who claims under him, build upon the adjoining cannot
land so as to obstruct or interrupt the enjoyment of those jjghts!0
lights (g).

Care should be taken upon the sale of house property or Reference to

Til ATlfl

building land which has been described in the title-deeds
by reference to indorsed plans and a scale of measurement, to
ascertain that the measurement is correct : a slight variation
may lead to serious difficulty with a purchaser.

In the construction of particulars of sale, the Courts have Meaning of

. . particular

attached the following meanings to the following expressions : expressions,
viz : —

A house described as "brick-built" is understood to be " Brick-built'

llOliSG *

brick-built in the ordinary sense of the words ; not composed
externally partly of brick and partly of timber and lath and

plaster (h) : but the description of a house as "substantial "Sub-
stantial,
and convenient " is merely relative ; and in one case, where a

house was so described, the purchaser was held to his bargain,
although one of the external walls was only half a brick in
thickness (i) .

By "clear yearly rent," is understood a rent clear of all "Clear yearly
outgoings (k), &c., usually borne by the tenant; but subject r
to such (e.g., land tax) as are borne by the landlord (/).

Booth v. Alcock, 8 Ch. 667 ; Wheeldon (h) Powell v. Doubble, Sug. 29.

v. Burrows, 12 Ch. D. 31 ; Allen v. (i) Johnson v. Smart, 2 Gif. 151.

Taylor, 16 Ch. D. 355 ; and see this (k) As to what is included in the

subject fully considered, post, p. 408 word "outgoings," see Lawes v. Gib-

et seq. As to the use of general son, 1 Eq. 1 35 ; Crosse v. Haw, L. R. 9

words, see post, p. 605 et seq. Ex. 209 ; Midgley v. Coppock, 4 Ex.

(gr) Per curiam, 9 Bing. 309; and D. 309 ; Aldridgev. Feme, 17 Q. B.

see as to new windows, Compton v. D. 212.

Richards, 1 Pr. 27 ; and Blanchard v. (I) Sari of Tyrconnell v. Duke of

Bridges, 4 A. & E. 176. Ancaster, 2 V. sen. 500.

138

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 2.

"Farm;"

"Public
house : ' '

" Free public
house; "

Ground
rent."

The expression "farm," includes woodland, part of the
estate, although not in the occupation of the tenant (m).

A. house where beer was sold by retail under a licence
" not to be drunk on the premises," has been held not to be
a public house for the sale of beer (n) . But a house used
exclusively for the sale of beer to be drunk off the premises,
although held not to be "a beer-house " (0), is a "beer-
shop " (p) ; and a covenant not to build anything but
dwelling-houses, except on a certain part, where " shops "
might be erected, does not entitle the purchaser to sell the
excepted part as a site for "taverns" (q).

The expression " free public house," is a misdescription
when the lease contains a covenant to take beer from the
lessor (r).

By the expression " ground rent," if unexplained, is to be
understood a rent less than the rack rent of the premises :
its proper meaning is the rent at which land is let for the
purpose of improvement by building («) : but the expression
is very carelessly used. Where what was called a ground
rent was in fact a sum in gross, paid for the right of user
of a pleasure ground, the purchaser was allowed to rescind
his contract and recover his deposit (t).

On the sale of a manor, care should be taken to ascertain
accurately what are its constituents. Minerals under tene-
mental freeholds, or under lands formerly copyhold of the

(*») Portman v. Mill, 3 Jur. 356.

(n) Pease v. Coats, 2 Eq. 688, sed
qu. See Feilden v. Slater, 7 Eq. 523 ;
and Jones v. Bone, 9 Eq. 674.

(o) L. % N. W. E. Co. v. Garnett,
9 Eq. 26.

(p) Hishop of St. Albans v. Sat-
tersby, 3 Q. B. D. 359 ; and see Lon-
don and Suburban Co. v. Field, 16 Ch.
D. 645 ; and Holt v. Colhjer, ib. 718;
Nicoll v. Fanning, 19 Ch. D. 258, 267.

(q) Coombs v. CooJc, 1 C. & E. 75.

(r) Jones v. Edney, 3 Camp. 285 ;
Modlen v. Snowball, 29 B. 641; 4 D. F.
& J. 143.

(s] Stewart v. Alliston, 1 Mer. 26 ;
but see JJartlett v. Salmon, 6 D. M.
& GT. 33 ; and cf . Lecoy v. Mogford,
2 Jur. N. S. 1084.

(t) Evans v. Robins, 1 H. & C.
302 ; and see Langford v. Selmes, 3
K. & J. 220.

PARTICULAKS AND CONDITIONS. 139

manor but since enfranchised, an advowson, or allotments Chap. IV.

made to the lord upon inclosure of wastes, may form parcel '

of the manor without the fact being suspected: and would
pass under the ordinary words of conveyance of the manor,
unless specially excepted (u).

(3.) As to the Conditions. Section 3.

The conditions of sale should be printed and circulated some Conditions
time previously to the sale, or at any rate in the auction- printed,
room, so as to give each person an opportunity of ascertaining
the terms on which the property is sold. The system which
is adopted by many of the provincial Law Societies, of having
printed common-form conditions which are used on every
sale, and to which are prefixed the special conditions under
which the particular property is sold, has much to recommend
it ; the effect of the common-form conditions is well under-
stood, and the attention of the purchaser and his solicitor is
at once directed to the special restrictive conditions. The
practice, which still prevails in some parts of the country, of
having written conditions which are merely produced and
read over, but not circulated in the auction-room, cannot be
too strongly reprobated; and, if the purchaser is thereby
misled, or not fully informed, on a material point, may result
in the rescission of the contract (#).

In the absence of stipulation, a bidder at an auction may, Against re-
audibly, before the fall of the hammer, retract his bidding (y) ; tiddfo'Ss
a condition negativing this right is almost always inserted, Whether or
and is recommended by Lord St. Leonards, who nevertheless r
expresses his opinion that it cannot be enforced (z) : such a

(u) See A.-G. v. Ewelme HospL, 17 formerly belonging- to the owner

B. 366 ; Hicks v. Sallitt, 3 D. M. & were held not to pass with the farm.

Gr. 782 ; Hicks v. Hastings, 3 K. & J. (x) Torrance v. Bolton, 8 Ch. 118 ;

701 ; and sect. 6 (3) of the Conv. Act, and vide ante, p. 128.

1881. As to the case of the sale of (y) Payne v. Cave, 3 T. R. 148;

a copyhold farm, see Williams v. Routledge v. Grant, 4 Bing. 653, 660.

Phillips, 8 Q. B. D. 437, where allot- (z) Sug. 14; referring to Jones v.

ments made in lieu of common rights Nanney, 13 Pr. 99.

140 PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Scot* 3 condition, however, was held to hind a mortgagee's solicitor,
% - — who hid at the sale of the mortgaged property made h y the
Court with the mortgagee's concurrence (a) .

For with- jn some cases it may he desirahle that the vendor should

drawing lots.

reserve to himself the option of withdrawing any lots from

the sale, whether they shall have heen offered to puhlic com-
petition or not, as, e.g., in the case of a disputed hidding, or
where there is not an adequate demand for the lots which are
heing "brought into the market, or where, on the sale of a
huilding estate, the lots which are first offered, and which
from their position or other circumstances materially affect
the value of the remaining lots, do not fetch the price put
upon them, and are in consequence hought in.

For reserved Qn sales hy auction, where the property is offered for sale

bidding.

subject to a reserved price, this must he expressly stated; and
if the vendor is desirous of reserving the right to hid, either
hy himself or his agent, this must he expressly provided
for (b), and the hidding strictly confined within the powers
reserved hy the condition (c) .

Payment and On a sale hy auction, it is usual to require payment of a

investment of ,.,,,, , , ,,. „, V

deposit. deposit by the purchasers ; and this may often he a prudent

precaution on a sale hy private contract : if the deposit will
he of large amount, it may he well to provide for its invest-
ment, e.g. in Exchequer Bills or upon deposit with Bankers
of repute, in order that there may he no loss of interest, nor
liability in respect to the depreciation of securities. It has
heen recently held that the custom of auctioneers to accept
the purchaser's cheque is reasonable (d).

°f ^ *s a^so ^e or(^mary Practice to provide that the vendor
shall, within a specified time, at his own expense, make and

(«) Freer v. Rimner, 14 Si. 391. (c} Parfitt v. Jepson, 46 L. J. C. P.

(b) 30 & 31 V. c. 48, and ante, 529.

p. 126 ; Gilliatt v. Gilliatt, 9 Eq. 60 ; (d) Farrer v. Lacy Hartland, 31

and post, Ch. V. s. 5. Ch. D. 42.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

deliver to every purchaser an abstract of the title to the lot Chap. IV.

or lots purchased by him ; but the vendor is, independently L_! —

of any condition, bound to deliver an abstract ; a delivery of
the title deeds is not sufficient (<?) ; the condition, however, is
useful as fixing the time for delivery. But if there is any
doubt as to the vendor's ability to make out and deliver a
sufficient abstract by the specified day, it is better to omit the
condition : for if he fail to deliver the abstract within the
period appointed, or if the abstract delivered be very imperfect,
any condition binding the purchaser to make his objections
within a specified time will fail of effect (/).

When the lots are small, and the title is voluminous, it may Restrictive of
be well to stipulate that no purchaser, whose aggregate pur- rlght to
chase-money shall not amount to a specified sum, shall be abstract-
entitled to an abstract, (or an abstract going back beyond a
certain date,) except at his own expense : but in such case it
may be prudent to state that a full abstract will be deposited
with the vendor's solicitor, or elsewhere, for inspection by
purchasers and their solicitors. Before the Conveyancing Act, Where he

"bllVS SGVGrfll

1881, it was generally considered that a purchaser at the same lots under
auction of several lots held under the same title was entitled, same ^ 0<
in the absence of express stipulation to the contrary, to several
abstracts ; and it was therefore usual to provide by the con-
ditions that a purchaser of several lots should be entitled to
only a single abstract, except at his own expense. Under the
recent Act, this is now the general rule as respects future
sales, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the con-
tract (g). It may sometimes also be desirable to preclude a
purchaser of several lots from requiring separate conveyances ;
which, as it is conceived, he may require, if not so precluded.
Such a condition, however, is rare in practice.

If any other condition refer to "the delivery of the "Abstract"

means "per-

(e) Sug. 406 ; Home v. Wingjield, & G. 517 ; Upperton v. Nicholson, 6

3 Sc. N. R. 340. Ch. 436 ; and see 1 Dav. 525 ; which

(/) Southby v. Hutt, 2 M. & C. see as to conditions of sale generally.

207 ; Sherwin v. Shakspcar, 6 D? M. (g) 44 & 45 V. c. 41, s. 3, sub-s. 9.

142

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

foct ab-
stract."

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

abstract," this, in any question as to time, will be held to mean
the delivery of & perfect abstract (h) : i. e., an abstract as per-
fect as the vendor could furnish at the time of delivery (i) ;
although it may be an abstract of a defective title (A*) ; and if
it contains, with sufficient fulness, the effect of every instru-
ment which constitutes the title, it will be deemed sufficient to
satisfy the condition ; and time will begin to run against the
purchaser as from the date of its delivery (7) ; and an abstract
as delivered is presumed to be perfect, unless the contrary is
shown (m) .

Effect of non- If the vendor fail to deliver a perfect abstract within the

on conditions time specified, the purchaser is relieved from any condition

as to time. binding him to object to the title within a given period after

delivery of the abstract (n) : it is not unusual to guard against

this rule, by providing, (in the condition as to objections,)

that " an abstract shall, as regards any objection or requisition,

be considered perfect, if it supply the information suggesting

the same, although it may be otherwise defective " (6).

Condition as
to completion,
and interest.

It is usual, and proper, in every case to specify the day on
which the purchase is to be completed, and from which the
purchaser is to have possession (p)9 or (if it be in lease)
receipt of the rents and profits of the estate, and to pay in-
terest (which may be reserved according to an ascending
scale) (q) upon the purchase-money, if not then paid; and up
to which day the vendor is to pay the outgoings (r) . This

(h) Hobsm v. Sell, 2 B. 17.

(i) Morleyy. Cook, 2 Ha. 111.

(k) Blackburn v. Smith, 2 Ex. 789 ;
see Want v. Stallibrass, L. R. 8 Ex.
175, 179.

(J) OaJcden v. Pike, 34 L. J. Ch.
620.

(m) Ward v. Ghrimes, 9 Jur. N. S.
1097. See Gray v. Fowler, L. R. 8
Ex. 249 ; and see p. 279, where the
passage in the text is cited with ap-
proval by Blackburn, J.

(n) Blacklow v. Zaws, 2 Ha. 40 ;

Southby v. Hutt, 2 M. & C. 211 ;
Gray v. Fowler, L. R. 8 Ex. 279.

(0) And see also Ch. VIII. s. 2.

(p) As to the meaning of "pos-
session," vide post, p. 145.

(q) Herbert v. Salisbury and Yeovil
R. Co., 2 Eq. 221.

(r) The word "next," as an attri-
bute of the day for completion is
generally to be read not with the
month which immediately precedes
it, but with the whole description ;
e. gr., "the 25th day of December

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 143

condition, as to time, will not, however, in ordinary cases, be Chap. IV.
binding in Equity, unless time bo declared to be of the

essence of the contract («) . A different rule formerly pre-
vailed at Law; but now by the Judicature Act, 1873 (t),
stipulations in contracts as to time and otherwise, which
would not before the Act have been deemed to be or to have
become of the essence of such contracts in a Court of Equity,
are to receive in all Courts the same construction as they
would have formerly received in Equity. It is generally
thought best to provide that the arrangement as to payment
of interest and receipt of the profits, &c. shall hold, whatever
may be the cause of delay in completion (u) : and it was
always considered that the purchaser must, under such a con-
dition, pay interest during the time spent in clearing up the
title (x) : although, of course, it would not justify the vendor
in wilful delay (y) ; but where the expression was, " if from Delay " from
any cause whatever the purchase-money shall not be paid ^^tTver!"
on, &c., the purchaser making default shall pay interest," &c.,
it was decided that the purchaser was exempted from pay-
ment of interest when the delay arose from the state of the
title ; inasmuch as he had made no default (z). In a modern
case, at Law, where the agreement was that the purchaser
should pay interest from the day fixed for completion, if
completion " should be delayed on his part," and the vendor
and his trustee were ready to complete on the day named,
but the purchaser was not prepared, and afterwards, when
the purchaser was ready, the vendor's trustee refused to
concur, it was held that interest was not payable after the
latter date (a) : in another case which has been much dis- De Visme v.

De Visme.

next" means the next 25th day of 10 Ha. 113.

December, not the 25th day of next (x) See Greenwood v. Churchill, 8

December; Datces v. Charsley, W. B. 413; Esdaile v. Stephcnson, 1 S.

N. (1886) 78. & S. 122.

(«) Vide Ch. X. s. 1. (y) S. G. ; tee the judgment in De

(t) 36 & 37 V. c. 66, s. 25 (7). See Visme v. De Visme, 1 M. & G. 336.

Noble v. Edwardes, 5 Ch. D. 378. (z) Denning v. Henderson, 1 De G.

(u) "Completion" in such condi- & S. 689.

tions means payment of the purchase- (a) Perry v. Smith, Car. & M.

money ; Lewis v. South Wales 21. Co., 554.

144

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

How the
condition
should be
framed.

" Receipt of
rents and
profits."

cussed (6), where the purchase was to be completed and the
money paid on a certain day, " but if the purchaser should
fail in making such payment, then, from whatever cause the
delay might have arisen," interest was to be paid at five
per cent.; and considerable delay arose in making out the
title, it was held, either that the purchaser was not bound to
pay interest until a good title was shown, or that, if bound
by the condition to such payment, he was entitled to an
equivalent compensation from the vendor : this doctrine, as
we shall hereafter see, has been much broken down by later
cases (c) ; and it may now be taken as well established, that
the ordinary condition, whether with or without the words
" from any cause whatever," will apply to every case, except
where the vendor, notwithstanding the purchaser's active
remonstrances, is guilty of wilful default, or of such gross and
persistent negligence as is tantamount to wilful default. In
order, however, to avoid all possible question as to the scope
and meaning of the condition, it may be prudent to frame it
thus : "if from any cause whatever, other than the wilful and
capricious refusal of the vendor to make out his title or to
convey the estate, the purchase shall not be completed on the
specified day, the purchaser shall thenceforth pay interest on
so much of his purchase-money as for the time being shall
remain unpaid, and shall have no claim to compensation in
respect of the delay in completion."

The common condition that a purchaser, " upon completion,
shall be let into the receipt of the rents and profits," prima
facie refers only to rents reserved on an ordinary tenancy;
and where property was described as " now or late in the
several occupations of H. B. and others," and parts of the
property were subject to leases for lives at low rents, of which

(b) De Visme v. De Visme, I M. &
G-. 336 ; vide infra. See as to in-
terest, Rowley v. Adams, 12 B. 476.

(c) See, among others, Bannerman
v> Clarke, 3 Dr. 632 ; flickers v. Hand,
26 B. 630 ; Lord Palmerston v. Tur-

ner, 33 B. 524 ; Williams v. Olenton,
33 B. 528; 1 Ch. 200; and vide
post, p. 719 et seq., where the
effect of this condition is fully con-
sidered.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

145

the purchaser had no notice, it was held that the ordinary Chap. IV.

condition as to letting him into receipt of the rents and

profits did not apply, and that he could not be compelled to
accept the title without compensation (d). But the words
" rents and profits " may include an occupation rent (e). And
in a recent case where the condition was that the purchaser
should he entitled to " possession, or to the receipt of the
rents and profits," and the vendor was in actual possession,
the latter words were held to be " otiose " (/).

The word "possession" is a flexible term, and does not "Posses-
necessarily import a personal occupation. Thus, where the
property, an orchard, was described "as in occupation of
L. P.," and the purchaser was to have possession on the day
fixed for completion, it was held that he could not insist on
being put into personal occupation of the property (g) .

We may here remark that an agreement that if the pur- Usury,
chase-money were not paid at the time fixed for completion,
the purchaser should pay " in lieu of interest upon the same a
clear rent of /. per annum" was not, while the laws against
usury (Ji) were in force, deemed usurious by reason of the
rent exceeding the amount of interest at 51. per cent, on the
purchase-money (?) ; nor will the Court now relieve against an
agreement to pay interest on an increasing scale varying with
the continuance of the delay in completion (j) : but a bond
for the purchase-money carrying interest at more than 5/. per

(d) Hughes?. Jones, 3 D. F. & J. 1 Man. & R. 143, 151, where the
307. Court held that future payments re-

(e) Metr. R. Co. v. Dcfries, 2 Q. B. served under the name of interest,
D. 387. were in fact principal ; Harry v.

(/) Anker v. Franklin, 43 L. T. Nesham, 3 C. B. 641, 654. See, how-

317. ever, as to usury, Lane v. Horlock,

(ff) Lake v. Dean, 28 B. 607. 5 H. L. C. 580 ; James v. Rice, Kay,

(h) Repealed by 17 & 18 V. c. 231; rev. on other grounds, 5 D. M.

90. & G. 461 ; Thomas v. Cooper, 18

(t) Spurrier v. Mayoss, 1 V. 527 ; Jur. 688.

4 Br. C. C. 28 ; and see Dowling v. (J) Herbert v. Salisbury R. Co.,

Legh, 3 J. & L. 716 ; Belcher v. Var- 2 Eq. 221.
don, 2 Coll. 162 ; smdBeete v. Bidgood,

]). VOL. I. L

146

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV. cent, was formerly usurious (k), unless protected by the 2 £ 3
Sect' 3> Yict. c. 37. "We may also remark that the repeal of the usury
laws has not affected the jurisdiction of the Court to grant
relief against unconscionable bargains (/).

Conveyance. It is usual, on a sale by auction, to provide that the vendor
shall, upon payment of the purchase-money, execute proper
conveyances to the respective purchasers of the lots purchased
by them respectively ; such conveyances, &c., to be prepared
by and at the expense of the respective purchasers, and by
them tendered for execution at a specified time and place.
The condition is scarcely necessary ; for the contract in itself
gives the purchaser a right to a conveyance upon payment of
his purchase-money ; and he is, primd facie, bound at his own
expense to prepare and tender it (m). It may sometimes,
where time is intended to be of the essence of the contract, be
well to stipulate that, in accordance with the universal prac-
tice, a draft of the proposed conveyance shall, at a specified
time before the day fixed for completion, be furnished for
perusal by the vendor's solicitor.

Covenants by
trustees and
mortgagees.

So, it is usual on a sale by mortgagees or trustees (n) , to
stipulate that they shall be required to covenant only against
incumbrances ; but the condition is unnecessary, provided that
the particulars or conditions give the purchaser notice of the
fiduciary character of the vendors (0) ; and were it omitted, the
purchaser could neither insist upon any further covenants, nor
refuse to complete upon the ground of the vendors declining to
enter into them.

Apportion-
cndng rents.

So, it is usual to stipulate that the rents will be received,
an(^ ^e outgoings discharged, by the vendor up to the day

(*) Dewar v. Span, 3 T. K. 425.

(f) Tyler v. Yates, 6 Ch. 665 ; Mil-
ler v. Cook, 10 Eq. 641 ; Earl of
Aylesford v. Morris, 8 Ch. 484 ; post,
p. 851.

(m) Sug. 541 ; Poole v. Hill, 6 M.

& W. 835.

(M) See now the Conv. Act, 1881,
s. 7 (f).

(0) Worley v. Frampton, 6 Ha. 560 ;
Onslow v. Lord Londesborough, 10 Ha.
74 ; see post, p. 622.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 147

fixed for completion, and as from that date by the purchaser, Chap. IV.

and that if necessary an apportionment of such rents and out- -

goings shall be made between them. It may be desirable to
add, especially when the property is in hand, that the out-
goings to be paid by the purchaser shall include all rates
made before, but not demanded till after, completion (p).

Where land subject to a rent-charge is sold in lots, and the Apportion-

„ , , , . ,, .,,. . ment of rent-

Owner 01 the rent is unable or unwilling to concur in an ap- charge.

portionment thereof under the provisions of the Inclosure
Acts (//), or to release the land offered for sale under the
22 & 23 Viet. c. 35, it is usual to stipulate that each purchaser
shall pay a specified portion of the rent-charge ; and, if he
desires it, shall procure an apportionment at his own expense.
In such a case, the amount apportioned to each lot should be
stated in the particular.

If, where property is sold in lots, any part comprised in Apportion-
two or more lots be upon lease at one entire rent, or if all or service.
any part of the property comprised in one lot, be let together
with other property at one entire rent, and the consent of
the tenant to an apportionment of the rent cannot be obtained
prior to the sale, the conditions must provide for its apportion-
ment (r) ; and, although perhaps not strictly necessary, where
the intended apportionment of the rent is clearly specified («.),
it may, by way of precaution, be well to stipulate that the
concurrence of the tenant, who is not bound by an apportion-
ment made without his consent, shall not be required (t) .

It may be well to remark here that where the reversion on Apportion-
a lease is severed, and the rent is legally apportioned, the On severance
assignee of each part has now, in respect of the apportioned of reversion'
rent allotted to him, the benefit of all conditions or powers of

(p) See Midgley v. Coppock, 4 Ex. (r) SeeHarnicellv. Harris, 1 Taun.

D. 309. As to what is included in 430.

" outgoings," see ante, p. 137. (*) Walter v. Maunde, 1 J. & "W.

(q) See 17 & 18 V. c. 97, as. 10, 14. 181.

(0 1 Dav. 547.
L2

148 PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV. re-entry for non-payment, and of every other condition con-

ftnpf Q

. ' tained in the lease, as if they had heen reserved to him as

incident to his part of the reversion in respect of such appor-
tioned rent (t).

Apportion- Where leasehold property held under one demise at an

and liabilities entire rent is offered for sale in lots, provision must be made

iS-sTholds in -^or ^e apportionment among the several purchasers of the

lots- rent and liabilities under the lease. The lessor is seldom

likely to concur in an arrangement, which, while it increases

the trouble of collection, may lessen his security for the rent.

There is no plan by which such an apportionment may be

effected which is wholly free from objection. Sometimes cross

powers of entry and distress are given to the several purchasers

over the other lots ; but where the lots are numerous this is a

complicated process ; and the most approved plan is to assign

the lease to the largest purchaser in value, and to require him

to grant derivative leases for the whole term, wanting one

day, to the purchasers of the remaining lots at the apportioned

Brents (u).

Crops, &c. Upon the sale of land used for agricultural purposes, it

may be often necessary to insert a condition as to the growing
crops being taken and paid for by the purchaser : or as to
allowance being made for seed, manure, tillage, and such
other things as, according to the local custom, are usually
matters for allowance between an outgoing and an incoming
tenant (x) .

Right to, if If the property be in lease at the time of sale, the pur-
no conditior. .. .

chaser will, 01 course, be subject, in these respects, to the

rights of the tenants : if, however, it be in hand, and nothing
be said as to the crops, they will belong to him from the day

(t) Conv. Act, 1881, s. 12, extend- the whole subject to underleases of

ing- the provisions of 22 & 23V. c. 35, the other lots previously granted by

s. 3. the vendor to the respective pur-

(u) Sometimes the purchaser of the chasers. See 1 K. & E. 251.

largest lot takes an assignment of (x) See post, pp. 233 ct seq., 285.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 149

fixed for completion ; and it is conceived that the vendor will Chap. IV.

not be at liberty previously to remove them in an immature '

state : and of course, in the absence of stipulation, the vendor
himself could make no claim in respect to seed, manure,
tillage, &c.

There should be a condition as to fixtures (y), if the pur- Fixtures,
chaser is to pay for any. In the absence of any express
stipulation, common fixtures (s), including such as are not
strictly fixtures, will be held to be included in a contract for
sale ; and will pass by the conveyance, unless a contrary
intention can be collected from the instrument (a).

Payment for timber by the purchaser, if intended, must be Timber,
provided for by the conditions (b) . The effect of the general
condition has been held to be destroyed, as to lots A. and B.,
by a particular statement being appended to the descriptions
of lots 0. and D., that the timber on them was to be paid
for(c).

The expression " timber," which means trees fit to be used As to what is

"

in building and repairing houses (d), includes oak, elm, and
ash, everywhere ; and, by local custom, beech (e), and various
other trees, even trees which are primarily fruit trees, as
cherry, chesnut, and walnut (/) ; no wood, however, is timber
until of twenty years' growth (g). As a general rule, pollards

(y) As to what are fixtures, vide ley, 3 D. F. & J. 587 ; Boydv. Shor-

post, p. 607. rock, 5 Eq. 72 ; Turner v. Cameron,

(z) See, however, Ex parte Quincy, L. R. 5 Q. B. 307, and vide post,

1 Atk. 477. p. 257 et seq., as to valuation, and

(a) Conv. Act, 1881, s. 6 (2). And post, p. 606 et seq., as to fixtures,

see Colegravev. Dias Santos, 2 B. &C. (b) Sug. 32. See Higginson v.

76 ; Hitchman v. Walton, 4 M. & W. Clowes, 15 V. 516.

409, and cases cited, 411 ; Manning (c) Higginson v. Clowes, supra.

v. Bailey, 2 Ex. 45 ; Ex parte Lloyd, (d) Woodfall, 616.

1 M. & A. 494 ; Hare v. Horton, 5 (e) Aubrey v. Fisher, 10 Ea. 446.

B. & Ad. 715; Sug. 33; Wiltshear (/) Duke of Chandos v. Talbot, 2

v. Cottrell, 1 E. & B. 074 ; Mather v. P. W. 606 ; see Craig, 11 et seq.

Fraser, 2 K. & J. 536 ; Hutchinson v. (g) Foster v. Leonard, Cro. Eliz. 1.

Kay, 23 B. 413; Haley v. Hammers* As to what are and what are not

150

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

Timber -like
trees.

Timber must
be paid for
under con-
ditions,
although pur-
chaser may
have no right
to feU it.

Misdescrip-
tion.

What it
extends to.

PAKTICULAKS AND CONDITIONS.

would seem not to be timber ; if sound, however, they may be
timber by local custom. A grant of " timber and timber-like
trees " includes not only ordinary timber, and such trees as
by local custom are considered timber, but even "thinnings,"
and the right of determining what are proper thinnings (h) ;
so also it would seem to include sound pollards (i) . An excep-
tion in a lease of " all timber and other trees, but not the
annual fruit thereof," would seem not to include garden or
orchard fruit trees, unless by local custom (k) ; the term
" fruit " being considered to refer to the mast of timber trees.

Where, on the sale of intermixed freehold and copyhold
land, it was provided, that the purchaser should not be
entitled to have the quantities or boundaries of the two
tenures distinguished, and he was to pay a specified sum
for the timber, this was held to bind him to the purchase
without an abatement, although the boundaries not being
distinguishable, he could not fell a single tree. And in
another case, arising under the same conditions, there was a
like decision, although the entire lot was shown to be copy-
hold : the Court holding that the contract was entire, and that
there was often much value and enjoyment in the possession
of trees apart from their selling value as timber (/).

It is a common condition, upon a sale by auction, and often
upon a sale by private contract, that any misdescription, mis-
take, or error in the particulars, either way, shall not avoid
the sale, but shall be the subject of compensation : and the
condition usually proceeds to fix the mode in which the
amount of compensation shall be settled (m) .

It has been held that such a condition, so far as it affects

timber trees, see Honywood v. Hony-
wood, 18 Eq. 306 ; Dunn v. Bryan,
7 I. R. Eq. 143.

(A) Gordon v. Woodford, 27 B. 603.

(i} Rabbett v. Raikes, "Woodfall,
617 ; and see 2 P. W. 606.

(k] Bullcn v. Denning, 5 B. & C.

842.

(1} Crosse v. Laivrcnce, and Crosse
v. Keene, 9 Ha. 462, 469 ; compare
Daioson v. Brinckman, 3 M. & G. 53.

(tn) See this condition discussed,
post, p. 740. As to its effect after
completion, seej^os^, p. 904.

PAKTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 151

the vendor's right to specific performance, must be taken to Chap. IV.
contemplate and provide for only such misdescription, mistake, __!!LLJ__
or error, as, in the absence of the condition, would be a ground
for avoiding the contract (H) ; but, notwithstanding the con-
dition, the misstatement, if wilful or designed, as it amounts
to fraud, will, even at Law, render the contract voidable at
the option of the purchaser : and, if it arise simply from
negligence, Equity will refuse a specific performance at the
suit of the vendor, if the error be not a fair subject for com-
pensation (0).

In the absence of any condition, where there was a bond Misdescrip-
fide mistake in a matter essential to the contract, an estate material
being inadvertently stated to contain 21,750 acres, whereas it po:
contained only half that quantity (p), the Court refused even
the purchaser's suit for specific performance, holding it not a
case for compensation, but for avoiding the contract alto-
gether. At Law, cases have occurred, in which the opinion
was entertained that, however gross the negligence, the pur-
chaser is bound, if there be no fraud (q) ; but this opinion has
not been followed (r) : and the rule, both at Law and in
Equity, seems now to depend on the principle that the Court
will not make a new contract by compelling a purchaser to
take the property with compensation when it is substantially
different from what he was induced by the representations
made to him, whether fraudulent* or not, to believe that he
was purchasing. In such a case the contract will be set aside

(«) Leslie v. Tompson, 9 Ha. 273 ; (p) Earl of Durham v. Lcyard, 34

and see and consider Hay v. Smithies, B. 611 ; and see Price v. North, 2 Y.

22 B. 510. In Orange to Wright, 51 & C. 620, where, however, there was

L. J. Ch. 590, and Bourne v. London a condition for compensation ; but

Land Co., W. N. 1885, 109, Bacon, see CordingUyv. Cheeseborough, 4 D.

V.-C., refused the vendor the benefit F. & J. 379 ; McKenzie y. Hesketh, 1

of the condition, which was in the Ch. D. 675 ; and English v. Murray,

ordinary form that compensation 49 L. T. 35.
should be given or allowed. (q) Wright v. Wilson, 1 M. & R.

(o) Sug. 28. Hey wood v. Mallalieu, 207 ; and see Mills v. Oddy, 6 C. &

25 Ch. D. 357 ; Fry, ss. 1204 et seq. P. 728.

And see Re Terry and White, 32 Ch. (r) Sug. 31. And see Flight v.

D. 14, 28. Booth, 1 Bing. N. C. 370, 377. See

White v. Cuddon, 8 C. & F. 766.

152

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Sect. 3.

Chap. IV. in toto (s) . But where the misdescription is as to a compara-

fi™4- O , A J-

tively small and unimportant part of the property purchased,
specific performance will be decreed, at the instance of the
vendor, subject to compensation (*).

Or caused by
gross negli-
gence.

Purchaser

bound

although

misled by a

correct and

bondjide

description.

And where a vendor, who has the means of knowledge, and
is bound to use due diligence, misdescribes his property in
any important particular, it seems probable that the facts
would in themselves be deemed conclusive evidence of a
fraudulent intention (t) : e.g., a statement that the estate was
about one mile from Horsham, when in fact it was upwards
of three miles distant (u) ; and, in another case, a material
misstatement, upon the sale of a house, as to the amount
of the ground rent (x) ; and, in a later case, a description of
dilapidated property, as " good and substantial but unfinished
buildings" (?/), seem to have been considered, at Law, to be,
in their very nature, fraudulent.

But a sale of property merely by its usual and known
description, without alteration, addition, or comment, will
bind the purchaser, although such description may in fact
accidentally mislead him : for instance, where a house long
known and rated as No. 39, Regency Square, Brighton, was
sold in London by auction by that description, and the pur-
chaser bought it without previous inquiry, and then found
that it was not actually in the square, but in a side street,
commanding no sea view, and was a smaller house than the
houses in the square, he was held by Sir James Parker, Y.-C.,
to his bargain (z).

(s) Torrance v. Bolton, 8 Ch. 118;
Gardiner v. Tate, 10 I. R. C. L. 460;
Arnold v. Arnold, 14 Ch. D. 270;
Pulsford v. Richards, 17B.96; Swais-
land v. Dearsley, 29 B. 430 ; and see
notes to Seton v. Slade, 2 Wh. & T.
L. C., and post, p. 1205.

(t) See Sug. 23 et seq.; Brownlie
v. Campbell, 5 Ap. Ca. 925.

(M) JJuJce of Norfolk v. Worthy, 1

Camp. 337.

(x) Mills v. Oddy, 6 C. & P. 728.

(y] Robinson v. Musgrove, 8 C. & P.
469; Loyes v. Rutherford, Sug. 331 ;
but, in general, a misstatement as to
the state of repairs would seem to be
a matter for compensation in Equity ;
Dyer v. Hargrave, 10 V. 505, 508.

(z) White v. Bradshaw, 16 Jur.
738.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 153

In this case there was that degree of apparent hardship Chap. IV.
and mistake which might, without much difficulty, have

induced the Court to decline to exercise its discretionary iuris- Remarks °n

White \.

diction : hut the decision, it is suhmitted, was correct. It was, Uradshaw.
no douht, a hardship upon the purchaser to he obliged to take
property of a less valuahle kind than that which he fancied he
was huying; hut it might have been an equal or greater
hardship on the vendor to throw the property back upon his
hands, and so to deprive him of the advantage of those bond
fide biddings at the auction, which immediately preceded the
bidding upon which the house was knocked down to the pur-
chaser. If a man chooses to enter a public sale room, and to
bid for property without previous inquiry, and therefore
evidently not with a view to personal occupation, but as a
mere speculative investment, relying on his own imperfect
knowledge or recollection of its particular features, and then
finds that he has made a mistake, all that can be said is, " qui
vult decipi, decipiatur" If, however, the advertisement or
particulars had contained any reference to Regency Square as
possessing those peculiar advantages— such as a sea view —
which, although enjoyed by the houses generally, were not
enjoyed by No. 39 in particular, such reference, although
strictly correct in fact, would probably have been held to
savour sufficiently of deception to deprive the vendor of the
assistance of a Court of Equity.

Where a house known as No. 58, Pall Mall, but which in Stanton v.
fact was built at the back of No. 57, and communicated with distinguished,
the street merely by a passage, was sold by auction, not
merely as " No. 58, Pall Mall," but as " No. 58, on the north
side fl/Pall Mall, opposite Marlborough House" the Court held
the case to be one of misdescription, and not to fall within the
authority of the Regency Square case (a) : and the cases seem
to be distinguishable on this ground, viz., that in the former
there was a mere description of the property in those terms in
which alone it could be properly described ; whereas, in the

(a) Stanton v. Tattersall, 1 S. & G. 529.

154

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

So if he test
accuracy of
particulars.

Cases of
material mis-
description.

Where

property is
of different
nature ;

latter, the ordinary description was so amplified, as apparently
to involve an assertion by the vendor that the premises
actually occupied a specified desirable locality.

If the intending purchaser do not rely upon the particulars
or statements of the vendor, but examine the property in
person or by his agents, he cannot, in the absence of direct
fraud, contend that he is deceived by the representations of
the vendor as to any point upon which he has thus tested
their accuracy (b) ; but if the misrepresentation be of such a
nature as not to be apparent on a personal inspection, and
the purchaser relies upon it, the mere fact of his having
examined the property does not necessarily make the contract
binding upon him (c) ; nor is it any defence to an action to
rescind a contract on the ground of misrepresentation that
the purchaser might with reasonable diligence have ascertained
that the statements were untrue (d).

It may, however, be collected from the cases at Law and
in Equity, that, independently of fraud, and on the mere
ground of the materiality of the misdescription, the usual
condition as to compensation will not entitle the vendor to
enforce the contract against an unwilling purchaser (e) in the
following cases, viz. : —

1st. Where the property is not of the same description as
it appears to be in the particulars ; as where long leasehold is
described as freehold (/) ; or copyhold is described as free-
hold (g) : unless, by reason of the fine, &c., being fixed and
nominal, and the right to minerals and timber being in the
tenant, the customary tenure is in fact equivalent to free-

(b) See Attwood v. Small, 6 C. & F.
232 ; see the judgment in Clap ham
v. Shillito, 7 B. 149 ; and Jennings
v. Broughton, 6 D. M. & GL 126.

(c) Denny v. Hancock, 6 Ch. 1 ;
Brewer v. Brown, 28 Ch. D. 309.

(d) Redgrave v. Surd, 20 Ch. D. 1.

(e) As to the rights of a purchaser
under such a condition, see post, p.
740.

(/) See and consider Browne v.
Fenton, 14 Ves. 144.

(g} Ayles v. Cox, 16 B. 23 ; Upper-
ton v. Nicholson, 6 Ch. 436 ; and vide
post, p. 1199.

PARTICULAB8 AND CONDITIONS.

155

hold (h) ; or where land which was formerly copyhold and has Chap. IV.

been enfranchised under the Enfranchisement Acts but re- .

mains subject to the rights of the lord in respect of minerals,
is described as freehold (/) ; or where an underlease is sold as
an original lease (j) ; or as where, upon the sale of an estate
let on lease at a rack rent, such rent is described as a ground
rent (k) ; or where the occupation rent is overstated, or so stated
as to mislead (/) ; or what is described as a freehold ground
rent is in fact only a sum in gross secured by personal
covenant (m) ; or as where a house, composed externally partly
of brick and partly of timber and lath and plaster, is described
as a brick-built house («) .

2ndly. Where the property, as described, is not identical or not
with that intended to be sold : as when a vendor, intending
to sell No. 2 in a street, described it as No. 4, the purchaser,
although No. 2 was the same description of house as, and in
better repair than, No. 4, recovered his deposit at law (0).

3rdly. Where a material part of the property described or material
has no existence, or cannot be found (p) ; or where no title wanting, or
can be shown to it ; as when, upon the sale of a leasehold has no tltle »*

(h) Price v. Macaulay, 2 D. M. &
G-. 339 ; and in such cases the effect
of the Copyhold Enfranchisement
Act, and the provision as to the re-
servation of minerals, must now be
considered.

(0 Upper ton v. Nicholson, ubi supra.
But distinguish Kerr v. Paw son, 25
B. 394, where on a contract for the
sale of copyholds there was a stipu-
lation that the vendor should procure
their enfranchisement, and it was
held that the purchaser must be
taken to have known that on an en-
franchisement the lord could reserve
the minerals, and therefore that he
could not rescind on the ground of
such a reservation.

(j) Madeky v. Booth, 2 De G. & S.
718; Law v. Urlwin, 16 Si. 377;

but see Darlington v. Hamilton, Kay,
550 ; Bartktt v. Salmon, 6 D. M. &
G-. 33 ; Brumflt v. Morton, 3 Jur. N.
S. 1198; cf. Hay ford v. Griddle, 22
B. 477 ; Camberwdl Building Society
v. Halloway, 13 Ch. D. 754 ; and
flood v. Pritchard, 40 L. T. 873.

(&) Stewart v. Alliston, 1 Mer. 26.

(I) Dimmock v. Hallett, 2 Ch. 21 ;
but cf . Davenport v. Charslcy, 34 W.
R. 390.

(m) Evans v. Robins, 1 H. & C. 302.

(n) Powell v. Doubble, Sug. 29 ;
and see Arnold v. Arnold, 14 Ch. D.
270 ; and English v. Murray, 49 L.
T. 35.

(o) Leach v. Mullett, 3 C. & P.
115.

(p) Robinson v. Musgrove, 2 Mo. &
R. 92.

156

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

or its due
enjoyment is
materially-
affected ;

house and small yard adjoining, the yard was not included in
the lease, but held from year to year at a separate rent (q) ;
or where the vendors had only a title to an undivided part of
a small but material portion of the property (r) ; or where a
term, which in the particulars purports to have twenty-six
years to run, has, in fact only nine (*).

4thly. Where the misdescription is upon a point material
to the due enjoyment of the property ; as when, upon the
sale of a lease of a house and shop, the particulars merely
stated that the lease contained a restriction against certain
specified trades being carried on upon the premises, whereas
in fact several other trades were forbidden (€) : so, also, where
on the sale of the residue of a term of which twelve and a-half
years were unexpired, no notice was taken of an option on
the part of the lessors to determine the lease after five years
had expired («) : so, also, where upon the sale of a piece of
land described as " a first-rate building plot of ground," no
notice was taken of a right of way passing over it (0), or of
an underground watercourse which third parties had liberty
to open, cleanse, and repair, making satisfaction for damage
thereby occasioned (x) : or where a right to use the kitchen of
the tenement sold was not disclosed (y) ; or a covenant mate-
rially restricting the user of the land (z) : or where a reser-
voir and waterworks were described as yielding a specified
yearly rent exclusively of the land and buildings, and it ap-
peared that this rent consisted of water rents paid by the
occupiers of houses separated from the reservoir by property

(q) Dobett v. Hutchinson, 3 A. & E.
355.

(r) Arnold v. Arnold, 14 Ch. D.
270.

(*) Nash v. Wooderson, 33 W. R.
301.

(t) Flight v. Sooth, 1 Bing. N. C.
370 ; see Vignolks v. Bowen, 12 Ir.
Eq. R. 194, 196 ; Stanley v. McGau-
ran, 11 L. R. Ir. 314.

(u) Weston v. Savage, 10 Ch. D.
736.

(v) Dykes v. Blake, 4 Bing. N. C.
463 ; and see Gibson v. D'Este, 2 Y.
&C. C. C. 542.

(x) Shackkton v. Sutcliffe, 1 De Gr.
& S. 609. As to the importance of
such an easement, see Goodhart v.
Hyett, 25 Ch. D. 182.

(y) Heywood v. Mallalieu, 25 Ch.
D. 357.

(2) Nottingham Brick Co. v. Butler,
16 Q. B. D. 778.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 157

over which the vendors had merely a right of waterway Chap. IV.
under a yearly licence (a) : or where a manufactory in a town '
abounding in springs was described as " well supplied with
water," when in fact there was only an artificial supply from
a waterworks company upon payment of a heavy annual
rate (b) : or where property is described as " freehold," and it
is in fact subject to undisclosed restrictive covenants (c).

5thly. Where the misdescription as to quantity is so or where
serious that it is no longer a fit subject for compensation ; description as
as where the estate was said to contain " 14 acres more or
less," and it was found to contain 27 acres (d) ; or where the
acreage was given as 21,750 acres, when it was in fact only
half that quantity (e) ; and there may be cases where from
the use intended to be made of the property by the pur-
chaser, or from its being material to the enjoyment of other
adjoining property of the purchaser (/), or from other cir-
cumstances, ev«n a trifling deficiency in quantity, may not
be a fit subject for compensation.

Gthly. Where the misdescription is of such a nature that °r amount of

. compensation

the amount of compensation cannot be estimated ; as where, cannot be
on the sale of a reversion, expectant on the decease of A. in
case he should have no children, his age was described as 66
instead of 64 (g) ; or as where, on the sale of a wood, the
particulars erroneously stated that the average size of the
timber approached 50 feet, the number of trees not being
stated (h) ; or as where the particulars stated the premises to
be in the joint occupation of A. and B. as lessees, when in
fact A. was only assignee of the lease, and B. was a mere

(a) Price v. Macaulay, 2 D. M. & (e) Earl of Durham v. Legard, 34
Q-. 339. B. 611 ; but see Cordinglcy v. Cheese-

(b) Leyland v. Illingworth, 2 D. F. borough, 4 D. F. & J. 379.

& J. 248. (/) Arnold v. Arnold, 14 Ch. D.

(c) See Phillips v. CaldcUugh, L. 270.

B. 4 Q. B. 159 ; Cato v. Thompson, (g) Sherwood v. Robins, M. & M.

9 Q B. D. 616 ; Ellis v. Rogers, 29 194 ; and see White v. Cuddon, 8 C.
Ch. D. 661. & F. 792.

(d} Price v. North, 2 Y. & C. 620. (h) lord Brooke v. Rounthivaite,

5 Ha. 298.

158 PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV. joint occupier (i) ; or as where the right to coal under the

11.J estate was shown to be in other parties, and no means existed

of determining its value (k) ; or as where property was
described as "now or late in the occupation of H. E. and
others," and it was in fact subject to leases for lives at low
rents which were not disclosed (/).

Action lies for The condition as to compensation usually provides that the

orpnori OT i"rifi

condition. amount shall be settled by arbitration ; and, frequently, that
any dispute arising under the contract shall be similarly re-
ferred. It has been held that an action lies for breach of
such a stipulation (m) .

Whether And it may be observed, that where the vendors are trustees

use it. they are not justified in allowing compensation for their own

errors, and a Court of Equity has refused to act upon a clause

to that effect in the conditions (ri) .

Condition Instead of the usual condition providing; for compensation

that no

compensation in the event of any omission or misdescription in the par-
allowed by ticulars, a condition is frequently inserted that in such a case
the vendor. no compensation shall be allowed by the vendor. In one case,
where land was described as containing la. 2r. 8p., and the
vendor showed a title to only 3r. 24p., it was held that, under
such a condition, the purchaser was bound to complete with-
out compensation (o) . So where, by an unintentional error,
land was stated to contain 7,683 square yards, but in fact
contained only 4,350 square yards, and the purchaser, not-
withstanding the conditions, insisted on compensation, though
the vendor offered to vacate the sale, specific performance was
decreed at the suit of the purchaser, but upon payment of the •

(•*) Ridgway v. Gray, 1 M. & G-. (m) Livingston v. Ralli, 5 E. & B.

109 ; but see Grissett v. Peto, 2 S. & 132.

G-. 39 ; larebrothcr v. Gibson, 1 D. & («) White v. Ciiddon, 8 C. & F.

J. 603. 766. But see Hill v. Buckley, 17 V.

(k] Smithson v. Powell, 20 L. T. 394; Hobson v. Sell, 2 B. 17; Dunn

0. S. 104. v. Flood, 28 Ch. D. 586, 591.

(I) Hughes v. Jones, 3 D. F. & J. (o) Nicoll v. Chambers, 11 C. B.

307. 996 ; and see Lethbridge v. Kirkman,

2 Jur. N. S. 372.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

159

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

Condition
that no com-
pensation
shall bo
allowed either
by vendor or
purchaser.

whole of the purchase-money and costs (p). But such a
condition, if relied on "by a vendor seeking to enforce
specific performance, can he held to apply only to trivial
errors ; and not to preclude a purchaser from the right to
compensation for a material deficiency in the quantity stated,
as where the property was stated to contain 753 square yards,
hut in fact contained only 573 square yards (<?) ; or from
avoiding the contract where the misdescription is of such a
nature as not to he a fit subject for compensation.

In the ahsence of stipulation, a vendor is hound to produce As to deeds
the originals of all deeds and other instruments necessary to copies,
verify the ahstract (r), except copies of court rolls, and such
instruments as are upon record («), or have been lost (f) or
destroyed ; as respects all which he may verify his ahstract by
secondary evidence (M) : he must, however, as a general rule,
in order to render copies admissible in evidence, prove the
execution, and delivery of the originals (#) ; which, when deeds
are lost and the witnesses are unknown, is often an insuperable
difficulty. Formerly, the vendor, in the absence of stipula-
tion, had to bear the cost of production, whether the documents
were in his possession or not; but by the Conveyancing Act,
1881 (?/), the expenses of the production and inspection of all

(p) Cordingley v. Cheeseborough,
4 D. F. & J. 379 ; lie Terry and
White, 32 Ch. D. 14.

(q) Whittemore v. Whittemore, 8
Eq. 603.

(r) Berry \. Young, 2 Esp. 640, n.;
Sug. 447.

(s) Cooper v. Emery, 1 Ph. 388.
It seems doubtful whether the rule
extends to deeds inrolled merely for
safe custody, and not under any sta-
tutory provision ; 9 Jarm. Conv. 10.

(t) Harvey v. Phillips, 2 Atk. 541 ;
as to what is sufficient evidence of
loss, see Green v. Bailey, 15 Si. 542 ;
litzwalter Peerage, IOC. & F. 953 ;
Hart v. Hart, 1 Ha. 1 ; Stubbs v.
Sargon, 4 B. 90 ; Richards v. Lewis,
11 C. B. 1035; Reg. v. Saffron Hill,

1 E. & B. 93 ; Abbott v. Geraghty, 6
Ir. Jur. 49.

(u) See as to a recital being under
the circumstances sufficient secondary
evidence of the recited deed, Moulton
v. Edmonds, 1 D. F. & J. 24G.

(x) Bryant v. Busk, 4 Rus. 1. See,
however, as to this, post, p. 353.

(y) Sect. 3, sub-s. 6. This sub-
section does not relieve the vendor
from the duty to furnish a complete
abstract of title ; but only from the
expense, when he has furnished a
complete abstract, of producing
documents not in his possession for
the purpose merely of verifying it ;
Johnson to Tustin, 30 Ch. D. 42 ; Re
Moody and Yates, ib. 344. It seems,
too, that the sub-section only relates

160

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

What docu-
ments the
purchaser is
entitled to
have cove-
nanted to be
produced.

Statutory
acknowledg-
ments.

Acts of Parliament, inclosure awards, records, proceedings of
courts, court rolls, deeds, wills, probates, letters of administra-
tion, and other documents, not in the vendor's possession, are
thrown on the purchaser. "When the sale is completed, the
purchaser, if he cannot have the original title deeds, is entitled
to a covenant to produce them, and, at his own expense (s),
to attested copies of the originals (a) : this right, however,
does not seem to extend to old deeds not necessary to make a
title (b) ; or to copies of court roll (c) , or instruments on record,
unless (as respects the covenant for production) they are in
the vendor's possession or power (d) ; or to documents used
merely as negative evidence (e) ; and now by the Vendor and
Purchaser Act, 1874, in the completion of any contract of sale
of land made after the 31st December, 1874, and subject to
any stipulation to the contrary, the inability of the vendor to
furnish the purchaser with a legal covenant to produce and
furnish copies of documents of title, is not to be an objection
to title, in case the purchaser will, on the completion of the
contract, have an equitable right to the production of such
documents (/). It is by no means clear what is meant by an
" equitable right to production," or how such a right can be
enforced, except, perhaps, against a holder of the deeds who
took them with notice of the liability to produce them. The
Act does not contain any definition of the term "land;" and
this rule cannot, it is conceived, extend to a contract for sale
of an incorporeal hereditament.

By the Conveyancing Act, 1881, an " acknowledgment" of
right to production, the nature and effect of which are defined
by sect. 9, is, in cases occurring after the 31st December,
1881, substituted for the old covenant for production. Such

to documents which the vendor has
not in his possession, but of which
he can procure production ; and
therefore, if there are any documents
of which he cannot obtain produc-
tion, he must specially protect him-
self; see Wolst. C. A. 24, 200.
(c) V. & P. Act, s. 2, sub-s. 4.

(a) Boughton v. Jewell, 15 V. 176.

(b) Dare v. Tucker, 6 V. 460.

(c} Re Agg- Gardner, 25 Ch.D. 600.

(d) Vide post, Ch. XIII. s. 7.

(e) See Cooper v. Emery, supra; 1
Hayes' Conv. 573.

(/) 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 2, sub-s. 3.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 161

an acknowledgment binds the person having possession of the s^t' 3
documents to which it relates so long only as he has possession
thereof. The obligation so imposed may be enforced, after
request in writing, either by the person to whom the acknow-
ledgment is given, or by any person, not being a lessee at a
rent, having or claiming any estate, interest, or right through
or under that person, or otherwise becoming through or under
that person interested in or affected by the terms of any
document to which the acknowledgment relates ; and, by the
same section, a statutory undertaking is substituted for the
ordinary covenant for safe custody (g) . Such acknowledgment
and undertaking may, it is conceived, be given by any person
retaining possession of documents, whether as incident to the

title to land or not.

,,«• .. .. .. . . » *..*.•'•*

Previously to the Vendor and Purchaser Act, the attested At whose
copies and deed of covenant had to be prepared at the prepared.
expense of the vendor (h) : if he wished to exclude, or to
derogate from, the purchaser's rights in the above respects,
he must do so clearly and explicitly in the conditions : but in
one case a condition that all attested copies, &c., which the
purchaser might require, "for the purpose of examination
with, or verifying or proving the abstract, should be sought
for and procured at his expense," was held to preclude him
from requiring on completion attested copies of the title
deeds at the vendor's expense (i) . At Law, a condition that
the deeds of covenant shall be procured by, and at the expense
of, the purchaser, was held to throw upon him the risk of
being unable to obtain them, the vendors having procured
production of the deeds for the purpose of verification (k).
But now, in cases falling under the Vendor and Purchaser
Act, such covenants for production as the purchaser can and

(y) As to the nature of statutory N. S. 943 ; sedquare.
acknowledgments, Bee post, p. 627. (k) Gabriels. Smith, 16 Q. B. 847 ;

(h) Boughton v. Jewell, 15 V. 176. but cf. Osborncv. Harvey, 7 Jur. 229 ;

(i) Abbott v. Darnell, 2 Jur. N. S. Cotton v. Scudamore, 1 K. & J. 321.
631 ; and see Strong v. Strong, 4 Jur.

D. VOL. I. M

162 PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

€hap. IV. shall require are to be f urnislied at Ms expense ; and the
vendor is only to bear the expense of perusal and execution

on behalf of and by himself, and on behalf of and by neces-
sary parties other than the purchaser (/). By sect. 3 (6) of
the Conveyancing Act, 1881, the expense of making attested
copies of documents is, in the absence of stipulation, thrown
Provision as on the purchaser. Particular care to insert proper conditions
sale of part of as to deeds should be taken upon the sale of a part only of an
estate.^6 estate in mortgage, when the purchase-money is not likely to
pay off the incumbrance : a deposit of the deeds with some
third party, for the joint benefit of the mortgagee and
purchaser, will, if acquiesced in by the mortgagee, be the
most eligible arrangement (m) .

Custody of On a gale in lots, it is generally requisite to provide for

deeds, on sale i • -i • ' i i r»

in lots. the ultimate custody of the deeds, which, in the absence 01

stipulation, go to the purchaser of the lot largest in value (n) ;
or rather, it is conceived, to the purchaser whose aggregate
purchase-money of land, held under the same title, amounts
to the largest sum. If, however, there be any lot which
may fairly be considered a principal lot, the purchaser of it
is usually made to take the deeds and covenant for their
production : where the intention is that they shall belong to
the purchaser whose purchase-money amounts to the largest
sum, it may occasionally be well to provide for the con-
tingency of the two largest purchasers buying to an equal
amount. The expression "largest lot" in such a condition
means the lot of largest superficial area(«). Under a con-
dition giving the deeds to the purchaser of the " largest lot,"
he is of course entitled to them as against the purchaser
of lots of a larger aggregate area (o). Such a condition
fixes, by its acreage, though not by name, the lot which is
to carry with it the right to the deeds. When the vendor
retains any part of the estate to which the deeds relate, he

(I) 37 & 38V. c. 78,s. 2, sub-s. 4. (o) Scott v. Jackman, 21 B. 110,

(m) Sug. 435. following a decision of Lord Eldon

(n} See Griffiths v. Hatchard, 1 K. & in Kinnaird v. Christie, ib. Ill ; and

J. 19. vide post, p. 1348.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 163

is now, subject to any stipulation to the contrary in the Chap. IV.

o6Ct. o.

contract, entitled to retain them (/?).

Every condition intended to relieve the vendor from his Titi° and .

evidence of

prima facie (q) liability to deduce a marketable title, and title,
verify the abstract by proper evidence, must be expressed in
plain and unambiguous language (r).

For instance, a condition that he shall not be bound to Production of

deeds,
produce any original deed or other document than those in

his possession and set forth in the abstract, was held not to

relieve him from his liability to verify the abstract ; for non Must verify

* L i)H f" T* ?L f*f*

constat that, because he has only certain specified deeds in aliunde.
his possession, he cannot prove his title (s) . But in one case,
of more than doubtful authority, where the contract provided
that the purchaser should admit the vendor's heirship to the
last owner upon a copy of his pedigree, and should not re-
quire any further evidence, the purchaser was forced to accept
the title, although the copy of the pedigree failed to trace
the heirship (t) .

So, on an agreement by a vendor to sell a lease "as he Against pro-
held the same " for twenty-eight years, a condition that the lessor's title.

(p) 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 2, sub-s. 5, Nottingham Brick Co. v. Butler, 16

and vide post, Ch. XIII. s. 7. Q. B. D. 778.

(q) Souter v. Drake, 5 B. & Ad. (r) Osborne v. Harvey, 7 Jur. 229 ;

992 ; Doe v. Stanion, 1 M. & "W. 695, and see Clarke v. Faux, 3 Rus. 320 ;

701 ; Off il vie v. Foljambe, 3 Mer. 53, and Morris v. Kearsley, 2 Y. & C.

64 ; Hall v. Betty, 4 Man. & G-. 410 ; 139 ; Re Marsh and Earl Granvillc, 24

Worthington v. Warrington, 5 C. B. Ch. D. 11, 17.

636 ; alitcr, as regards goods, Morlcy (s) Southby v. Hutt, 2 M. & C. 207 ;

v. Attenlorough, 3 Ex. 500, see 514 ; and see Dick v. Donald, 1 Bli. N. S.

but see Simms v. Marryat, 17 Q. B. 655; Osborne v. Harvey, supra. The

281. The nature of the subject- effect of sect. 3 (6) of the Convey an -

matter of the contract may vary the cing Act, 1881, is not in any way to

rule, as on an agreement to buy the abridge the liability of a vendor to

benefit of a proposal for a lease, verify his abstract, but merely to

Baxter v. Conolly, 1 J. & "W. 576 ; alter the incidence of the expense of

and see as to restrictive conditions, so doing, Johnson to Tustin, 30 Ch. D.

Lethbridge v. Kirkman, 2 Jur. N. S. 42 ; Ee Moody and Tatcs, ib. 344.
372 ; Stronge v. Hawkes, ib. 388 ; (t) Nash v. Browne, 9 Jur. N. S.

Phillips v. Caldcleugh, L. R. 4 Q. B. 431 ; sed quare.
159 ; Mis v. Rogers, 29 Ch. D. 661 ;

M2

164 PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV. purchaser should not require the lessor's title, would not, it
appears, prevent him from showing that the lease was in-

underlease ; valid (u) . So on a sale of an underlease, a condition that
" no requisition or inquiry shall be made respecting the title
of the lessor or his superior landlord, or his right to grant
such underlease," was held not to preclude the purchaser
from objecting that the lessor, having mortgaged the pre-
mises, had no power to grant the underlease (x).

where simply g0 upon a sale of an underlease, described simply as a

described as

a lease. lease, a stipulation that the vendor should not be called upon

to prove his title, was held to be inoperative when it appeared
that the original lease comprised other premises, and con-
tained covenants embracing both properties and exposing the
purchaser to eviction through the default of the holder of
such other premises (y). And where the interest, being an
underlease, was offered for sale without intimation of the
fact, the defect was held fatal, although there was a con-
dition that the purchaser should not call for the lessor's
title (s), but this doctrine has been impugned in later
cases (a).

So where leaseholds were stated to be sold "by order of
the executors," but were in fact sold by the administrator
de bom's non of the testator durante absentia of his next of

(u) See Sug. 369, and see judg- latter act would now, unless excluded,

ment in Shepherd v. Keatley, 1 C. render this objection inapplicable.
M. & R. 127, 128, disapproving of (y] Blake v. Tlnnn, 3 C. B. 976;

Spratt v. Jeffery, 5 Man. & R. 188; see Hides v. Hooker, 3 Mad. 193;

see Wheeler v. Wright, 7 M. & "W. Darlington v. Hamilton, Kay, 650.
359, 362 ; Duke v. Barnett, 2 Coll. (2) Madeley v. Booth, 2 De G. & S.

337; and Hume v. Bentlcy, 5 De GL 718; see also Brumjit v. Morton, 3

& S. 525; Musgrave v. McCullagh, Jur. N. S. 1198.
14 Ir. Ch. R. 496 ; Hume v. PococJc, 1 («) See Darlington v. Hamilton,

Ch. 379 ; Jones v. Clifford, 3 Ch. D. Kay, 557 ; Bartktt v. Salmon, 1 Jur.

779 ; Re Banister, 12 Ch. D. 131. N. S. 277, reversed, 6 D. M. & G.

(x) Waddellv. Wolfe, L. R. 9 Q. B. 33 ; Camberwell and South London

515, and vide post, p. 173; and Building Society v. Holloway, 13 Ch.

37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 2 ; Conv. Act, D. 754 ; and Flood v. Pritchard, 40

1881, s. 3 (1). And sect. 18 of the L. T. 873.

. PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 165

kin. it was held that the title could not be forced upon the Chap. rv.

Sect. 3.

purchaser (o).

So where the conditions stated that the property was settled For concur-

rcnco of

on A. for life, with remainder to her children, with a trust for parties who
sale on her death, and that, the sale being in her lifetime, the hJi^mpetent.
children, their assigns or trustees, should join in the con-
veyance, and it appeared that the children had settled their
shares, and their trustees had no power to concur, the pur-
chaser recovered his deposit (e) : and an express agreement
to make a good title has, at Law, been held to bind the
vendor to remove defects in title, which were known to both
parties at the date of the contract, and which were in their
nature removable (d).

So where on a sale of freehold property it was a condition Where con-
that the title to the beneficial ownership should commence completed,
with the will of A. C., and the purchaser was bound to
assume that A. C. was, at the date of his death, beneficially
entitled in fee, when he had, in fact, only a contract for
purchase, which was not completed till many years after-
wards, it was held that the purchaser was not bound by the
condition (e).

And even where there is no misrepresentation, but only a Mistake as
common mistake as to the title appearing on the conditions, fron^misre^
not only will specific performance be refused(ee), but if the Pre8entatlon»
contract has been completed the purchaser may recover his
purchase-money as paid under mistake of fact (/).

(b) Webb v. Kirby, 7 D. M. & N. R. Co. v. Sanderson, 25 Ch. D.

G-. 376 ; and see, too, Cruse v. Nowell, 788.

2 Jur. N. S. 536, where the condition (e) Harnett v. Baker, 20 Eq: 50 ;

did not point directly to the objection. and see Boyd V. Dickson, 10 I. B.

(e) Mosley v. Side, 17 Q. B. 91. Eq. 239.

(d) Barnett v. Wheeler, 1 M. & W. (ee) Post, p. 1153 et scq.

364 ; Cato v. Thompson, 9 Q. B. D. (/) Jones v. Clifford, 3 Ch. D.

616 ; and see now the means of 779 ; cf . Cooper v. Phibbs, L. R. 2

getting rid of incumbrances afforded H. L. 149 ; and see post, p. 907 et

by the Conv. Act, 1881, s. 5 ; Re seq.

166

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

As to recitals
belt; g evi-
dence.

As to deeds
twenty years
old being
evidence.

As to statu-
tory declara-

In the absence of express stipulation, the common con-
dition (g) as to recitals being evidence would not, it is
conceived, bind the purchaser to accept recitals as evidence
of conclusions of law (h) : nor would it seem to preclude the
purchaser from proving aliunde the inaccuracy of the recitals
as to matters of fact. "Whether this would be precluded even
by the expression " conclusive evidence," may be doubtful ;
at any rate such a condition would not avail, if it contained
any misrepresentation upon the point in question (i) .

The conditions usually provide that deeds more than
twenty years old shall be conclusive evidence of every-
thing stated, noticed, assumed, or implied therein. Where
the condition was that they should be evidence of every-
thing recited or stated, it was held that, in order to bind
a purchaser, the statement ought to be something alleged
by way of direct recital, and not mere matter of infer-
ence (A;). Of course such a condition would not be suffi-
cient to make sub-recitals evidence. And now, in the
completion of any contract for the sale of land, made
after the 31st December, 1874, and subject to any stipu-
lation to the contrary in the contract, recitals, statements,
and descriptions of facts, matters, and parties contained in
deeds, instruments, Acts of Parliament, or statutory decla-
rations twenty years old at the date of the contract, are,
unless and except so far as they shall be proved to be
inaccurate, to be taken to be sufficient evidence of the
truth of such facts, matters, and descriptions (/) ; but this
rule, which does not bind the purchaser to accept mere
matters of inference, is less comprehensive than, and in
practice is not likely to supersede, the ordinary condition.

Where the evidence of some fact on which the title

(g) See sect. 3 (3) of the Conv. Act,
1881.

. (K) 9 Jarm. Conv. 4 ; Goold v.
White, Kay, 683.

(i) Drysdalc v. Mace, 5 D. M. & G.
103.

(k) Buchanan v. Popplcton, 4 C. B.
N. S. 40.

(1} 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 2. See as
to this section, Bolton v. London
School Board, 7 Ch. D. 766.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

depends is insufficient, and there are no better means of Chap. rv.

. . Sect. 3.

verification, it is frequently provided that the purchaser -

shall be satisfied with a statutory declaration confirmatory accepted as
of the title in the point in which it is defective. If such evidence<
declaration has been actually made, it should be referred
to and identified as a subsisting instrument. If it has
yet to be made, its proposed effect should be clearly stated ;
or, which is better, a draft should be referred to : and, if
practicable, the proposed declarant should be specified; a
clause being added, providing for the substitution of some
other competent person in the event of the death, refusal,
or incapacity of the person so specified : and there should
be no question as to the competency of the declarant to
speak to the facts which he alleges (m) . Where, as fre-
quently happens, the declarant states what he cannot pos-
sibly know except by hearsay, his declaration is of small
value as evidence.

And the author conceived it to be a general rule, and Vendor bound
it is one which he constantly enforced in practice, that a relevant
vendor, to the best of his information, is bound to answer <lue8tlons'
all relevant questions put to him in respect to the property
which he has contracted to sell, or the title thereto (n) ; unless
the prima facie liability in this respect is expressly nega-
tived by the conditions : and that a condition that a pur-
chaser shall be satisfied with certain specified evidence
merely provides for an assumed absence of better evidence ;
and does not enable the vendor to keep back such better
evidence if he actually has it, or to withhold any informa-
tion which may be in his possession.

The following point often arises in practice. A large As to decla-
estate in the same locality has been acquired from time possession!
to time, and is held under a variety of early titles. Up- Pf00f-ff f

(in) See as to this, Nottv. Riccard, case of Ford v. Hill, 10 Ch. D. 365,

21 B. 307. decides nothing more than that every

(n) It is conceived that the prin- question must be specific,
ciple laid down in the well-known

111

168 PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV. wards of twenty years ago the whole was put into settle-
__!Ll_l_ ment, and has been since held under such settlement. It

imd^r^sev^ral *s now Pu^ UP ^°r Sa^6 *n numerous l°^s> an(l ^ ^s impossible
titles; to identify the modern with the ancient general descrip-

tions. The vendors accordingly sell under a mere condition
that evidence of twenty years' possession shall be evidence
of identity of parcels. The vendor's solicitor then, almost
at random, as respects each particular lot, selects from the
early titles such a title as he considers to be appropriate ;
and supplements it by the general settlement, and the
subsequent assurances (if any). The purchaser calls for
evidence of identity, and is offered a declaration of twenty
years' possession. Now such a declaration, referring as it
does merely to a possession subsequent to the union of the
titles, obviously cannot show, or tend to show, that the
lot is held under one rather than another of those several
prior titles, the assurances in which are expressed in terms
capable of comprising such lot. The declaration and con-
dition can, it is submitted, only bind the purchaser to
assume that the lot passed under some one or more of
the several possibly relevant prior titles ; and as the vendor
cannot show which in particular is the true prior title, it
may be well contended that he is bound to abstract all.
Such a liability might in many cases be very serious; and
should, where circumstances require it, be guarded against
by a condition more stringent than the one in ordinary
use. It must also be borne in mind that in a case such
as is above supposed the question, under which of several
titles a particular lot is held, affects it with the aggregate
imperfections of all such prior titles (o) .

Conditions, But though mere general or doubtful expressions, suggest-
willWnd* in£> ^u^ no^ specifying, a flaw in the vendor's title, may not
purchaser. bind the purchaser (p)9 he is bound by a clear (q) stipulation

(o) See 1 K. & E. 245, for form of 562 ; Forster v. Hoggart, 15 Q. B.

condition. 155 ; Worthington v. Warrington, 5

(j?) See Edwards v. Wickwar, 1 C. B. 636 ; Lethbridge r. Kirfanan, 2'

Eq. 68 ; Ee Banister, 12 Ch. D. 13lr Jur. N. S. 372.

(q) Seaton v. Mapp, 2 Coll. 556,

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

1G9

as to title (;•), c. #., an agreement by assignees of a bankrupt Chap. TV.

to sell his estate, " under such title as he recently held the _ '

same, an abstract of which may be seen " (*) ; or that the
purchaser should only have the receipt and conveyance of A.
(an equitable mortgagee), and the assignees (t) ; an agreement
by ordinary vendors to convey " such title as they have
received from A. and B." (n) ; and a condition that the
purchaser should accept the vendor's title " without dis-
pute" (#), or should accept " such title as the vendor has" (y) :
so, an agreement that the lessor's title shall " not be inquired
into," has been held to preclude objections arising on the
face of documents procured by the purchaser aUunde (z) ; so
where a breach of trust, invalidating the title, was clearly
stated in the conditions (a) ; so where a purchaser was pre-

(r) But see Darlington v. Hamilton,
Kay, 558 ; infra, n. (z), sed qu.

(n) Freme v. Wright, 4 Mad. 364 ;
Blenkhorn v. Tenrose, 29 W. R. 237.

(t) Grocm v. Sooth, 1 Dr. 548.

(u) Wilmot v. Wilkinson, 6 B. & C.
506 ; Ashworth v. Mounsey, 9 Ex.
175.

(x) Duke v. Barnett, 2 Coll. 337 ;
and Molloy v. Sterne, 1 D. & Wai.
585, agreement by A. to lease for
'"' the longest term he could grant ; "
and see Anderson v. Higgins, 1 J. &
L. 718; and Lord St. Leonards'
remarks, V. & P. 310, on Cattell v.
Corrall, 3 Y. & C. 413; and see
Corrall v. Caltell, 4 M. & W. 734 ;
but see also Smith v. Ellis, 14 Jur.
682.

(y) Keyse v. Heydon, 20 L. T. 0. S.
244 ; Tweed v. Mills, L. R. 1 C. P. 39.

(z) Hume v. Bentley, 5 De G. & S.
520 ; see, however, Darlington v.
Hamilton, Kay, 550 ; but there, the
stipulation in the condition did not
preclude "inquiry" in other quar-
ters ; it was merely directed against
requisitions on the vendor to prove
the title. And see comments on
Hume v. Bentley, and Darlington v.
Hamilton in Waddell v. Wolfe, L. R.

9 Q. B. 515, where the word "in-
quiry ' ' was treated as convertible
with "requisition," and the condi-
tion was held not to preclude inquiry
aliundc. The doctrine laid down in
the second paragraph of the judg-
ment in Darlington v. Hamilton that
whatever may be the terms of the
condition of sale, if the purchaser
obtain information aliunde that the
title of the vendor is not clear and
distinct, he has a right to insist upon
the objection, appears to be too
broadly stated. In Smith v. Robin-
son, 13 Ch. D. 148, a condition that
the title should commence with a
deed dated the 30th December, 1867,
and that no earlier or other title
should bo required or inquired into,
was held not to preclude the pur-
chaser from insisting on an objection
to the prior title, which was not dis-
covered through any inquiry made
by him, but was accidentally dis-
closed by the vendor. See also Else
v. Else, 13 Eq. 196 ; Jones v. Clifford,
3 Ch. D. 779 ; Re Banister, 12 Ch. D.
131 ; Re Davys to Saurin, 17 L. R.
Ir. 334.

(a) Micholls v. Corbett, 3 D. J. & S.

170

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

Conditions
when mis-
leading.

Bight to call
for title may
be excluded
"by special cir-
cumstances.

eluded from objecting that no payment had been made for
twenty years of a rent the subject of sale (b) ; so, a condition
binding a purchaser, if he considered the legal estate out-
standing, to be at the expense of getting it in, was held to
throw on him the risk of making out in whom the legal estate
was vested (<?) ; so, on a sale of land which had been super-
fluous land of a railway company, a stipulation that the
purchaser should assume and admit that everything (if any-
thing were necessary) was done by the company to enable
them to sell the land as superfluous land, was held to preclude
the purchaser from objecting aliunde that the adjoining owners
had not waived their right of pre-emption (d). And, as a
general rule, if facts are fully disclosed, their legal effect need
not be stated (e).

It may be laid down as a general principle that a condition
is bad as misleading (1) if it requires the purchaser to assume
what the vendor knows to be false ; or, (2) if it affirms that
the state of the title is not accurately known to the vendor
when in fact it is known. And it must be borne in mind
that a vendor is not at liberty to require a purchaser to
assume as the root of his title that which documents within
his possession show not to be the fact, even though these
documents may show a title perfectly good on another
ground (/).

Even the special circumstances of the contract, indepen-
dently of express stipulation, may show that no title was
intended to be produced or called for (g) ; and in considering
whether an objection to the title is sufficiently brought before

(b) Hanks v. Patting, 6 E. & B.
659.

(c) Sheerness W. W. Co. v. Poison,
3 D. F. & J. 36. But conditions on
the sale of copyholds that the vendors
should give such, title as they then
possessed, and that the purchaser
should prepare his own conveyance
at his own expense, were held not to
relieve the vendors from the obliga-

tion to get in the legal estate and
pay the necessary fines ; Whitelcy v.
Taylor, 35 L. T. 187.

(d) Best v. Hamand, 12 Ch. D. 1.

(e) Smith v. Watts, 4 Dr. 338.
(/) Ee Banister, 12 Ch. D. 131.
(g) See Richardson v. Eyton, 2 D.

M. & Gr. 79, 88 ; Godson v. Turner,
15 B. 46.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 171

the purchaser's notice by the conditions of sale, the fact of Chap. IV.

his being an able and experienced member of the legal pro- '

f ession is not immaterial (h) ; and a purchaser must in all
cases be content to take only such a title as the conditions on
their face purport to give him. Thus, if the conditions
clearly show that only a possessory title is to be given, the
purchaser cannot ask for a marketable one (i).

Where a vendor of leaseholds agreed to produce a good and Condition
marketable title, commencing from the freeholder, but no conclusive,
title was to be called for prior to the lease from A. B. to the
vendor, and it appeared that the agreement for this lease had
been mortgaged, and otherwise dealt with, it was held that
the vendor, as plaintiff, could not refuse to produce this
equitable title (k). And it has been held that, if instead of
simply stating the material facts, and then stipulating that
the purchaser shall accept such title and interest as the de-
tailed circumstances confer on the vendor, and no other, — in
which case the purchaser would probably be bound to take
the title, whatever it might be — the conditions go on to state,
not as a conclusion of Law from the narrated circumstances,
but as a positive and distinct fact, that the vendor has a
right to sell the property, the purchaser, inasmuch as such
right may have arisen from separate and independent sources,
is entitled to require the right to be proved (I).

A condition that the abstract shall commence with a That abstract
specified document, the peculiarities or deficiencies of which
as a root of title are not noticed, seems merely to preclude
the purchaser from objecting to the title as commencing at
too recent a period ; so that if the instrument in question is
apparently an imperfect root of title, he may require the im-
perfection to be remedied : so, a mere condition against pro-
duction of the earlier title would not, it is conceived,

(h) See Minet v. Leman, 7 D. M. & v. Cook, 8 Q. B. D. 162.
G. 340. (k) Rhodes v. Ibbctson, 4 D. M. &

(t) Re Banister, 12 Ch. D. 131; Smith G. 787.
v. Robinson, 13 Ch. D. 148; Rosenberg (I) Bee Johnson v. Smiley, 17 B. 233.

172 PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

..
Chap. IV. preclude him from requiring the production of recited in-

'— '- — struments which, as recited, appear to be of a suspicious

character (m) . An agreement to accept a possessory title
merely points to the evidence by which it is to be supported,
and the vendor is still bound to prove sixty (or now forty)
years' possession (ri) .

Conveyancing By sect. 3 (o) of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, the pur-
s. 3' chaser of any property is not, in the absence of stipulation to

the contrary, to require the production, or any abstract or
copy, of any deed, will, or other document, dated or made
before the time prescribed by law, or stipulated for com-
mencement of the title, even though the same creates a power
subsequently exercised by an instrument abstracted in the
abstract furnished to the purchaser ; nor is he to require any
information, or make any requisition, objection, or inquiry,
with respect to any such deed, will, or document, or the title
prior to that time, notwithstanding that any such deed, will,
or other document, or that prior title, is recited, covenanted
to be produced, or noticed ; and he shall assume, unless the
contrary appears, that the recitals, contained in the abstracted
instruments, of any deed, will, or other document, forming
part of that prior title, are correct, and give all the material
contents of the deed, will, or other document so recited, and
that every document so recited was duly executed by all
necessary parties, and perfected, if and as required, by fine,
recovery, acknowledgment, inrolment, or otherwise. It must
be carefully borne in mind in settling conditions that neither
this provision, nor any condition to a like effect, modifies the
general principle, that the Court will not compel a purchaser
to take an estate with less than the ordinary title which the
law gives him, unless the stipulation, on which the vendor
relies for the purpose of excluding what would otherwise be
the purchaser's legal right, is fair and explicit. And the test
of its being fair and explicit is whether it discloses all facts

(in) See and consider SellicTc v. (n) Douglas v. Z. $ N. W. E. Co.,

Trevor, 11 M. & W. 722 ; Phillips v. 3 K. & J. 173.
Caldclcugli, L. B. 4 Q. B. 159. (o) Sub-s. 3.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 173

within the knowledge of the vendor which are material to Chap. IV.

enable the purchaser to determine whether or not he will buy

the property, subject to the stipulation limiting his right to
the ordinary length of title (p). Accordingly, where a con-
tract entered into in 1882, provided that the title should
commence with an indenture dated the 18th October, 1845,
and that the earlier title should not be investigated or
objected to, and it appeared from the abstract that the inden-
ture was a voluntary and revocable conveyance, it was held
that the condition was misleading, and did not bind the
purchaser (q).

Nor will a mere condition against production, except Does n°t •
perhaps in a very special case (r), prevent a purchaser from objections,
investigating and objecting to the earlier title, if he have
the collateral means of doing so («) : and, although bound
to accept the title as it stands, he may yet require to be
satisfied, to the best of the vendor's ability, as to what that
title really is (t). So, although a purchaser be bound by
the condition to accept certain specified evidence as sufficient
proof of a material fact, he may yet require to be satisfied
that the vendor has no better evidence in his possession ; and
may, it would seem, insist on a statutory declaration to that
effect (u). In one case where A., for his own purposes, in-
duced B. to buy from C., and shortly afterwards agreed to
purchase from B., who was only to produce the title from C.
to himself, A. was not allowed to prove aliunde that C. had
no title (x).

(p) The sub-s. has practically the 9 Q. B. 515 ; and see Else v. Else, 13

same effect as the ordinary condi- Eq. 196 ; Harriett v. Baker, 20 Eq.

tion precluding enquiry into the 50 ; Nottingham Brick Co. v. Butler,

earlier title, see sub-s. 11, and Not- 16 Q. B. D. 778 ; ReDavysto Saurin,

tingham Brick Co. v. Sutler, 15 Q. B. 17 L. K. Ir. 334 ; King v. Chamber'

D. 261, 272. layn, W.N. (1887), 158.

(q) Re Marsh and Earl Granvillc, (t) See Keyse v. Heydon, 20 L. T.

24 Ch. D. 11. O. S. 244 ; Morris v. Kearsley, 2 Y.

(r) Hume v. Pocock, 1 Ch. 379. & C. 139.

(*) Shepherd v. Keatley, 1 C. M. & (u) Bird v. Fox, 11 Ha. 48.

R. 117. See observations on this (x) Hume v. Pocock, 1 Ch. 379 ; but

case in Darlington v. Hamilton, Kay, see the special circumstances.
558, and Waddcll v. Wolfe, L. R.

174

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV. If, therefore, the earlier title be merely wanting, the con-

— . dition should provide for the abstract commencing with a

fcimed°when sPe°ine(l document, the nature and effect of which should be
early title lost stated, if it be of such a kind as not to form a satisfactory

or defective.

root of title (?/).

Production
of abstract
before sale
sometimes
advisable.

As to opinion
of counsel
being- bind-
ing-.

Identity of
parcels.

When part
of property
cannot be
found ;

In some cases it may be prudent, in using very special
conditions, to state, that an abstract may be inspected before
the sale (z).

"Where conditions provide that the opinion of Mr. A. B.,
an eminent counsel, in favour of a point in the title, shall
be conclusive on the purchaser, the vendor is not, it is
conceived, at liberty to suppress the fact that Mr. 0. D., a
counsel of, it may be, much less eminence, has given a
different opinion.

It is often requisite to insert conditions providing for
defects in evidence of the identity of the parcels ; such
conditions, however, will not relieve the vendor from the
necessity of pointing out what the entire property is which
he intends to convey ; nor (unless expressly framed to meet
the case) will they do more than provide for mere deficiencies
in evidence; that is, they will not provide for repugnances,
nor for an entire absence of evidence (a).

For instance, a condition that a certain plot of land could
not be properly identified by the vendor, but it being fairly
presumed that the purchaser, by inquiry in the neighbour-
hood, would be able to ascertain its true situation, he was to
accept the plot by the description only contained in the
conveyance deed of it, was held inoperative, even at Law,
when it appeared that the plot did not exist or could not be
discovered (b).

(y] Re Marsh and Earl Granville,
24 Ch. D. 11.

(z) Flood v. Pritchard, 40 L. T.
873 ; Hyde v. Warden, 3 Ex. D. 72.

(a) Curling v. Austin, 2 Dr. £ S.
129, q. v.

(b) Robinson v. Musgrove, 2 M. &
R. 92.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 175

So, a condition that " the purchaser is not to require any Chap. IV.
further proof of the identity of the property than is furnished

by the title deeds themselves," is insufficient in the absence of identified;
proof of identity as to the whole or part of the property (c).
It is, in effect, a contract that the deeds shall show identity ;
and if they do not, a good title is not made (d) .

So, a condition that no further evidence of identity of the or descrip-
parcels should be required than what was afforded by the inconsistent,
deeds, instruments, and other documents abstracted, did not
preclude a requisition for further evidence when the descrip-
tions of the parcels in the abstracted documents varied from
those in the particulars and from each other (<?).

Upon a sale of intermixed lands of different tenures, under on sale of
the common condition as to identity, the purchaser seems to different
be still entitled (/) to have the land of each particular tenure tenures,
pointed out and distinguished by its boundaries (g).

In the case of copyholds, the generalty and vagueness of Vague de-
the descriptions on the Court Bolls are unimportant, if the co^y folds °
vendor can show that the property has been actually held sufficient,
under such descriptions (h).

The Courts, it may be remarked, look with jealousy on stringent
conditions negativing a purchaser's right to a substantially foyo^a t,y
good title, or to the usual and reasonable evidences of title : Court,
it has in fact been observed by an eminent Judge (i), that in
some cases it would be almost a fraud for a vendor to bring
a title to market with a condition that the purchaser should
accept it. At any rate, such conditions should not be used

(c) Curling v. Austin, 2 Dr. & S. (t) Parker, V.-C., in Hume v.
129. Bentley, 5 De G. & S. 527. See, too,

(d) Ibid. Jackson v. Whitchead, 28 B. 154 ;

(e) Flower r. Hartopp, 6 B. 476. Smith v. Harrison, 5 W. E. 408 ;
(/) Monro v. Taylor, 8 Ha. 61. Warde v. Dickson, 7 W. R. 148 ;
(g) See Dawson v. Brinckman, 3 Edwards v. Wick war, 1 Eq. 68 ; Hoy

M. & Gr. 53 ; Crosse v. Lawrence, 9 Ha. v. Smythies, 22 B. 510 ; He Banister,
462 ; and ante, pp. 167, 168. 12 Ch. D. 131.

(h) Long v. Collier, 4 Buss. 267.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

to a greater extent than is necessary, as their tendency is to
damp the sale ; and this not so much by diminishing the
biddings of parties who actually attend, as by keeping away
others who are alive to their objectionable character. The
prejudicial effect of even the most stringent conditions is,
however, practically far less than might be reasonably an-
ticipated.

And it may be observed, that, on a sale in lots, the vendor
should either verify the abstract at his own expense, or the
•expense of verification should be divided among the pur-
chasers in some specified proportion ; otherwise the purchaser
who first calls for evidence may be at the sole cost of pro-
curing it.

Expense of A condition that the purchaser shall have a proper con-
concurrence , 1 • i ji i • ji
of necessary veyance at his own expense, does not throw upon mm the

parties ; expense of procuring the concurrence of necessary parties (k) .

Abstract on
sale in lots,
should be
verified at
vendor's
expense.

of getting in

outstanding

term.

It is also usual to provide that the purchaser shall be at
the expense of getting in and procuring the surrender or
release of any outstanding legal estate or term; but such a
condition does not extend to a mortgage term which is on
foot at the time of sale, even though provision may have
been made for satisfying the mortgage (I). It is conceived
that the necessity for this condition is not affected by sect. 5
of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, enabling the Court, upon a
sale, to declare the land sold free from incumbrances. The
section is probably intended to apply only in exceptional
cases, as where the incumbrancer cannot concur in the
ordinary way.

Condition A condition is usually inserted that the property shall be

perty shall be taken subject to all rents, rights of way and water, and other
tokaeileTseJ-eCt easements (if any) charged or subsisting thereon; the effect
ments, &c. Of such' a condition is not, it is conceived, to relieve the

(Tc) Paramore v. Greenslade, 1 S. &
G. 541.

(1} Strange v. HawJces^ 2 Jur. N. S.
388 ; vide ante, p. 163.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS,
vendor from the necessity of disclosing these liabilities, if he Chap. IV.

J Sect. 3.

is aware of them (w), but simply to protect him, if it should
afterwards transpire that the property is subject to some rent,
right, or easement, in favour of a third person, of which he
was ignorant at the time of sale ; and where one tenant has
acquired a right of way against another tenant, under the
same landlord, and both tenements are simultaneously sold
by the landlord under a condition that they are to be taken
subject to, and with the benefit of, all subsisting rights
of way, the purchaser of the one tenement gains no right of
way against the purchaser of the other (n) ; the meaning of
the condition being that if there are any rights of way as
against the vendor, the purchaser shall take subject to them.

If the estate be subject to incumbrances which cannot or Indemnity
are not intended to be discharged, they must be mentioned charges, &c.
in the particulars or conditions (o) . It often happens that
property is subject to charges which, from particular circum-
stances (such as there being other ample security), are never
likely to be enforced, although they cannot be immediately
released (p) ; in such cases it is advisable to state the facts as
clearly and openly as possible, and to stipulate that the pur-
chaser shall make no objection in respect of the matters so
mentioned : if, as may often be the case, an indemnity be
offered, its nature should be explicitly stated (q) . A condition
that a purchaser should presume the extinction of a charge
upon the ground of its non-recognition for a specified period
is not binding, if the charge, although not so described, is in

(m) Heywoodv. Mallalicu, 25 Ch. D. to be insufficient.

357 ; Nottingham Brick Co. v. Butler, (p) This difficulty can, where the

16 Q. B. D. 778. Court thinks fit, be got over by an

(«) Daniel v. Anderson, 8Jur. N. S. application under s. 5 of the Conv.

328; and see Suffield v. Brown, 33 Act, 1881; see Re G. N. It. Co. and

L. J. Ch. 249 ; Russell v. Harford, 2 Sanderson, 25 Ch. D. 788.
Eq. 507. But see and distinguish (q) See 1 Dav. 703. As to how a

Fahey\. Dwyer, 4 L. R. Ir. 271. general agreement to give an in-

(0) See Torrance v. Bolton, 8 Ch. demnity will be carried out, see Cot-

118, where the incumbrances were trellv. Watkim, 1 B. 361 ; Casamajor

mentioned in the conditions, but not v. Strode, 1 Wils. Ch. 428.
in the particulars, and this was held

D. VOL. I. N

178

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

Time for
objections,
and for
rescinding
contract.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

fact reversionary (r) . A condition to give a specified in-
- demnity will be specifically enforced in Equity (s).

It has become very usual to insert conditions (t) restrictive
of the time within which objections or requisitions may be
taken, or made by the purchaser ; and enabling the vendor
to annul the sale, if objections are taken, or requisitions
made, which he is unable or unwilling to remove or comply
with ; the latter condition is inserted by many practitioners,
as a matter of course, in all but the very plainest cases ; and
is now commonly introduced even on sales by the Court;
and is not such a depreciatory condition as may not be used
by a fiduciary vendor (it). The condition is usually framed
so as to entitle the vendor to rescind, not merely on the pur-
chaser insisting upon some objection as to title, but on his
insisting on any objection or requisition as to either title
or conveyance ; and should provide that the right may be
exercised notwithstanding any intermediate or pending nego-
tiation in respect of such objection or requisition, or any
attempt to remove or comply with the same. The extension,
however, of the condition to objections to conveyance has
been adversely criticised by Pearson, J., who stated that it
should only be employed where trustees are selling and wish
to preclude the strict right of the purchaser to the concurrence
of beneficiaries in the conveyance (x).

When vendor A vendor is entitled under such a condition to rescind the

rescinding. contract, notwithstanding that it provides for compensation in

case of any error or mistake in the description of the property

or of the vendor's interest therein (y) ; and he may do so even

(r) Drysdale v. Mace, 5 D. M. &

a. 103.

(s} Walker v. Barnes, 3 Mad. 247.

(t] Their validity recognized, Slack-
burn v. Smith, 2 Ex. 783 ; Powell v.
Smithson, 20 L. T. 0. S. 105.

(u) Falkner v. Equitable Eevy. So-
ciety, 4 Dr. 352. But see and dis-
tinguish, Moeser v. Wisher, L. R. 6
C. P. 120.

(*) Hardman v. Child, 28 Ch. D.
712.

(y) Mawson v. Fletcher, 6 Ch. 91 ;
where, according to the particulars,
the estate contained freestone and
limestone, which, however, belonged
to the lord, and not to the vendor ;
and see Heppcnstall v. Hose, 33 "W. R.
30 ; Re Dames and Wood, 29 Ch. D.
626 ; Re Ternj and White, 32 Ch. D. 14.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 179

after a bill has been filed by the purchaser for specific per- Chap. IV.
formance, and a subsequent waiver of the objection will not

revive the contract (z) ; and where the vendor himself brings
an action for specific performance he may, it seems, at any time
before the cause comes on for hearing, rescind under such a
condition, but only upon the terms of getting his bill dis-
missed with costs (a) . But where the vendor's right to
rescind arises on the purchaser's insisting on an objection,
which the vendor is unable or unwilling to remove, the latter
is not justified in rescinding, if the former, on being made
acquainted with the fact, at once waives his objection (b) ;
and the vendor must first answer the requisitions, even
though some of them may be untenable, and thus give the
purchaser an opportunity of waiving them (c). The con-
dition will not enable the vendor to rescind where he is
unable to make any title at all (d) ; or where the requisition
is that an incumbrance be discharged (e) ; or where the con-
dition relates to title only, and the requisition is as to con-
veyance, e. */., that an outstanding legal estate be got in (/) ;
and the vendor must exercise his option to rescind within a
reasonable time (g) ; and the institution by him of an action
for specific performance will be taken to be evidence of his in-
tention not to rescind (R) . If the condition be for rescinding
the contract, in case the title shall not prove " satisfactory " "Satisfac-
to the purchaser, this will not authorize him to make any
other than the usual objections (i). able" title.

The condition, in order to preclude questions on the point, Time should
should limit a time within which further requisitions or within which

(z) Hoy v. Smythics, 22 B. 510. Ch. D. 851.

(a) Warde v. Dickson, 5 Jur. N. S. (/) Kitchen v. Palmer, 46 L. J. Ch.

698 ; and see Gray v. Fowler, L. R. 611.

8 Ex. 249. (g) St. Leonard's, Shoreditch v.

(V) Duddell v. Simpson, 2 Ch. 102. Hughes, 17 C. B. N. S. 137 ; Ker v.

(c) Greaves v. Wilson, 25 B. 290 ; Crowe, 7 I. R. C. L. 181.

Turpin v. Chambers, 29 B. 104 ; Dud' (h) Gray v. Fowler, supra ; but his

dell v. Simpson, 2 Ch. 102, 107. right to rescind will revive on the

(d) Bowman v. Hyland, 8 Ch. D. purchaser raising a new, or an aban-
688. doned, objection ; S. C.

(e) He Jackson and Oalcshott, 14 - (i) Lordv. Stephens, 1 T. & C. 222.

N2

180

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

further objec-
tions axe to
be taken.

But the con-
dition does
not apply
where the
objections are
not apparent
on the ab-
stract.

Or where
vendor
knowingly
sells defec-
tive title.

objections, in answer to replies or further documents furnished
by the vendor, must be sent in by the purchaser.

But a condition restrictive as to the time within which
the purchaser's requisitions are to be made cannot be relied
on, where there are grave objections to the title, which are
not discoverable on the face of the abstract. In one case (&),
Y.-C. Kindersley, on dismissing the plaintiff's bill for
specific performance, said that under the ordinary condition
limiting the time for making requisitions, if facts were sub-
sequently discovered showing that the vendor had no title,
or a bad title, or one open to the greatest possible doubt,
he for one would never hold that the purchaser was precluded
from raising objections, if the facts on which they were
founded were not known to him when he delivered his
requisitions.

Nor can the condition be relied upon by a vendor who
knowingly enters into the contract with a clearly defective
title to a portion of the estate : for instance, where a person
entitled in remainder subject to a life estate, contracted to
sell the fee simple in possession, hoping that the tenant for
life would concur, which she refused to do, the purchaser
was allowed to take the reversion with a compensation,
although there was a condition for rescinding the contract
if a good title could not be made, which condition the vendor
wished to enforce (7) : nor does the condition apply where
the vendor has been guilty of wilful misrepresentation (m) :
whether or no it applies to a case which falls within a con-
dition as to compensation seems to be doubtful (n) ; and a
vendor cannot make use of such a condition for the purpose

(k) Warde v. Dickson, 6 Jur. N. S.
698; see, too, Boydv. Dickson, 101. R.
Eq. 255.

(/) Nelthorpe v. Holgate, 1 Coll.
203 ; but see Thomas v. Dering, 1 Ke.
729 ; and see also Mawson v. Fletcher,
6 Ch. 91, where the vendor, notwith-
standing the clause as to compensa-

tion, was held entitled to rescind;
cf . Gray v. Fowler, L. R. 8 Ex. 281
et seq., per Blackburn, J. ; and Re
Terry and White, 32 Ch. D. 14.

(m) See Price v. Macaulay, 2 D.
M. & a. 347.

(n) Hoy v. Smythies, 22 B. 510 ;
cf. Mawson v. Fletcher, 6 Ch. 91.

PAKTICULAKS AND CONDITIONS.

of getting rid of the duty which attaches to him upon the Chap. rv.
rest of his contract : thus if he has undertaken to give -
possession, he cannot avail himself of the condition to escape
compliance with the purchaser's requisition that a party
wrongfully in possession shall be ousted before comple-
tion (o).

Nor does the condition enable a vendor to refuse to show Or where

,.,-, ,, « .« T purchaser is

a title, or to procure the concurrence 01 a mortgagee, 11 he willing to
sells free from incumbrances (7;), even though he may have comPl€
been unaware of the existence of the mortgage when he
entered into the contract (q) ; or to rescind the contract,
as against a purchaser who is willing to waive the objection
or requisition, and take the property without compensa-
tion (r) : but it enables a vendor, who has in fact a good title, Where the
and who has duly performed his duties under the contract, apply,
to rescind upon a requisition being insisted on, which is
either frivolous or untenable, or which, on the ground of
expense, or for other sufficient cause, he cannot reasonably be
expected to comply with (s). Thus, where time was made of
the essence of the contract, and on the day named for com-
pletion, the vendor executed the conveyance, and demanded
payment of the purchase-money, which the purchaser refused
on the ground that two requisitions as to the registration of a
deed and the sufficiency of a stamp, (both of which the
vendor was able and had undertaken to comply with,) were
still unsatisfied, the vendor, having given notice of his
intention, was held justified in rescinding the contract (t).

(o) Engel v. Fitch, L. R. 3 Q. B. effect of s. 5 of the Conveyancing

314; and see Greaves v. Wilson, 25 Act, 1881, on the point raised here,

B. 290; and Powell v. Powell, 19Eq. and the principle of its application,

422, where the sale, though under laid down in Re G. N. R. Co. and San-

the direction of the Court, was in- derson, 25 Ch. D. 788.

valid by reason of its having been (r) See and consider Roberts v.

made before the filing and approval Wyatt, 2 Taun. 268 ; Page v. Adam,

of the certificate in answer to the 4 B. 269 ; Williams v. Edwards, 2

preliminary inquiries. Si. 78.

(p) Greaves v. Wilson, supra. (s) Greaves v. Wiko*i, supra; and

(q) Re Jackson and Oakshott, 14 Ch. see Page v. Adam, sujra.

D. 851. See p. 177, ante, as to the (t) Hudson v. Temple, 29 B. 536.

182

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

Conditions
precedent to
right of
rescission.

Form of
condition
denning
insistance.

The condition is usually framed so as to cover objections
and requisitions, " whether in respect of title, conveyance, or
otherwise" (u). Where, however, a purchaser required that
certain annuitants, whose concurrence was held unnecessary,
should join in the conveyance, it was considered that this
wras an objection to the title within the meaning of the con-
dition (a?). But the condition should in terms extend to
requisitions. Where ordinary leaseholds were erroneously
stated to be renewable by custom, this was held to be a mis-
description of the subject matter of sale, coming within
the compensation clause ; and not a defect in title within
the meaning of the condition for rescinding (y) : so, where
the amount of the fines was mis-stated on the sale of a
manor (z).

It was formerly laid down (a) , that three conditions must
have been fulfilled, before the right to rescind could be exer-
cised : viz. (1) an inability or reasonable unwillingness to
remove the purchaser's objection, or comply with his requisi-
tion : (2) a communication of that inability or unwillingness
to the purchaser : (3) an insistance by the purchaser on his
objection or requisition, which seems to imply the granting
of a locus penit entice, or reasonable time within which the
purchaser may withdraw his objection or requisition. But
it has recently been held by the Court of Appeal that no
locus penit entice need be given to the purchaser ; and that all
that is required of the vendor is that, if he exercises his
right, it shall be done reasonably and not capriciously, and
that he is not bound to give his reasons (b) .

A question, however, may still arise, as to what consti-
tutes such an insistance by the purchaser as will entitle the

(M) Greaves v. Wilson, 25 B. 290 ;
see as to the propriety of adding
"conveyance," ante, p. 178.

(x) Page v. Adam, 4 B. 269. And
see Kitchen v. Palmer, 46 L. J. Ch.
611, where the condition was held to
relate to title only, and not to relieve
the vendor from the obligation of

getting in an outstanding legal
estate.

(y) Painter v. Newly, 11 Ha. 26.

(z) Hoy v. SmytMes, 22'B. 510.

(a) Duddell v. Simpson, 2 Ch. 102,
107 ; Mawson v. Fletcher, 6 Ch. 91.

(b) Glenton to Hadcn, 53 L. T. 434,
436.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 183

vendor to exercise the right to rescind. This is a question Chap. IV.

on which the tendency of modern decisions seems to have •

been* in favour of the vendor (c). It is certainly fair to the
purchaser, and also desirable in the interest of both vendor
and purchaser, that any such question should be avoided ;
and it is therefore prudent in framing the condition to fix a
definite time within which the purchaser may withdraw any
objection or requisition which the vendor states himself to be
unable or unwilling to remove or comply with (d ) .

It has been held that a vendor by replying to the pur- Right to
chaser's objections or requisitions, waives the right to rescind by replying
the contract, and also the benefit of the condition limiting *° obJections-
the purchaser's time for taking objections, &c. (that is, sup-
posing them not to have been taken within such limited
time) (e) ; but according to modern decisions a vendor can-
not properly exercise his right to rescind, until he has first
answered the requisitions (/). And the right to rescind
may, of course, be lost by acquiescence in, or confirmation of
the contract (g) ; or by a parol variation of the condition, the
non-compliance with which gave the right to rescind (ti) ;
or by the institution of an action for specific performance (i),
unless the objection is raised for the first time by the de-
fence (/).

It seems, however, probable that mere argumentative Exceptions
replies would not amount to such a waiver : and that replies
of any description, if returned " without prejudice," or with
any similar reservation of the vendor's rights, would escape
the rule above referred to (k) : or it may, it is conceived,

(c) Re Dames and Wood, 29 Ch. D. M'Culloch v. Gregory, 1 K. & J. 294.
626 ; GUnton to Haden, 63 L. T. 434. (/) Vide ante, p. 179.

(d) Re Jackson and Oakshott, 14 (g) Ante, p. 117.

Ch. D. 851. (h) Dawson v. Yates, 1 B. 301.

(e) Tanner v. Smith, 10 Si. 410 ; (i) Warde v. Dickson, 9 Jur. N. S.
see the same case on appeal, 4 Jur. 698.

310; Cutts v. Thodey, 13 Si. 206; (/) Gfrayv..F0u7&r,L.R.8Ex.249.

Lane v. Debenham, 11 Ha. 188; (K) See Morley v. Cook, 2 Ha. 106.

184

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

Time runs
from delivery
of "perfect
abstract."

Objections on

subsequent

evidence,

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

be avoided, by the introduction, into the condition, of the
words "notwithstanding any intermediate negotiations," or
some equivalent expression.

For the purposes of such conditions, time runs from the
delivery of a perfect abstract (k) ; that is, an abstract as
perfect as the vendor, at the time of delivery, has in his
either actual or constructive possession (/) ; or (as a learned
judge has expressed it) an abstract " which contains with
sufficient clearness and sufficient fulness the effect of every
instrument which constitutes part of the vendor's title " (m) :
but a vendor would not be at liberty designedly to deliver
an imperfect abstract, or otherwise to neglect his duties
under the contract, for the purpose of rescinding the contract
under such conditions (n).

And the condition as to time does not preclude a purchaser
from taking subsequent objections arising out of evidence
called for before the expiration of the limited time (o) :
such objections must, however, it is submitted, be taken
within a corresponding period after the production of such
evidence (p).

As to resale, It is usual, and proper, to insert a condition providing for

of deposit^8 a resale of the property, and forfeiture of the deposit, in case

how far ^ purchaser fail to comply with the conditions (q) ; and

that any deficiency upon such resale, together with the costs

thereof (r), shall be borne by the purchaser. But even

(K) Hobson v. Bell, 2 B. 17.

(I) Morley v. Cook, 2 Ha. Ill;
Steer v. Crowley, U C. B. N. S. 337.

(m) V.-C. Kindersley, in Oakden v.
Pike, 11 Jur. N. S. 666; and see
Parr v. Lovegrove, 4 Dr. 170.

(n) Page v. Adam, 4 B. 269;
Morley v. Cook, ubi supra ; Roberts
v. Wyatt, 2 Taun. 268. In such a
case it seems that an action of deceit
would lie ; per Blackburn, J., Gray
v. Fowler, L. R. 8 Ex. 249, 282.

(o) Blacklow v. Laws, 2 Ha. 40;
Morley v. Cook, ibid. 112.

(p) See and consider Sherwin v.
Shakspear, 5 D. M. & G. 536 ; and
vide ante, p. 180.

(q) See Gee v. Pearse, 2 De Gr. & S.
341.

(r) It was held under the old
Bankruptcy Law that these costs
could not be proved in Bankruptcy,
although the vendor might apply the
proceeds of a resale in their discharge,

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 185

without such condition, the vendor will be entitled to retain Chap. IV.
the deposit if the purchaser makes default : the deposit being -
not merely a part payment, but also an earnest of the perfor-
mance of the contract (s) ; or he may resell and bring an
action for damages, i.e., the amount of the loss on the resale,
against the purchaser (t).

If, upon a resale, the estate were to produce more than the
original purchase-money, the purchaser who had violated his
agreement could not call for an account of the surplus (u).
A stipulation that the purchaser making default should pay Condition
a specified sum (exceeding the amount of the deposit,) as Of penalty
liquidated damages, was held at Law not to amount to a distm&uished-
condition for the forfeiture of the deposit (x) : nor is the
usual condition for forfeiture of the deposit any bar to an
action for general damages, if the purchasers refuse to
complete (y] ; but after a resale at a loss the vendor cannot
sue for the original purchase-money (z) . Where the deposit
has been forfeited, and the vendor claims for the deficiency
on the resale, the deposit will be taken into account in
assessing the damages (a). But where the vendor does not
succeed in effecting a resale, he is entitled to retain the
deposit paid by the defaulting purchaser, and to the costs of
the abortive sale (6). The omission by fiduciary vendors to
enforce the common clause, is not necessarily a breach of
trust (c).

and then towards the payment of the (t) Noble v. Edwardes, 5 Ch. D.

original purchase-money, and prove 378.

for the deficiency: Ex p. Hunter, 6 (u] Ex p. Hunter, 6 V. 97.

V. 98; andsee^cj?. Lord Seaforth, (x) Palmer v. Temple, 9 A. & E.

19 V. 235; Kn&Exp. Gyde, 1 G-l. & J. 508; but see the remarks on this

323; but see now 32 & 33 V. c. 71, case in Howe v. Smith, 27 Ch. D.

s. 31 ; 46 & 47 V. c. 62, s. 37, which 89, 100.

allow proof of unliquidated debts (y) Icely v. Grew, 6 N. & M. 467.

arising out of breach of contract; (z) Lamondv. Dai;all, 9 Q. B. 1030.

see Yate-Lee, 169 et seq. (a) Ockenden v. Henley, 1 E. B. &

(s) Ex p. Barrell, 10 Ch. 512 ; Best E. 485.

v. Hamand, 12 Ch. D. 1 ; Collins v. (V) Essex v. Daniell, L. E. 10 C.

Stimson, 11 Q. B. D. 142; Howe v. P. 538.

Smith, 27 Ch. D. 89, 101 et seq,; and (c] Thomson v. Christie, 1 Macq.

see Soper v. Arnold, 35 Ch. D. 384. 236.

186

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 3.

Facts stated
must be
proved.

Whether
purchaser
precluded
from evidence
may require
information.

In the preparation of special conditions it is important to
remember, that a purchaser, unless specially precluded from
so doing, may require evidence of all matters of fact stated
in any condition which goes to restrict his primd facie
rights (d). It has, in fact, been suggested (e), that the
ordinary condition throwing upon the purchaser the expense
of procuring evidence to verify the abstract, does not
preclude him from requiring all such information as to facts
as is necessary to complete the abstract : so that, although
precluded from requiring, except at his own expense, any
evidence of a death (material to the title), he may yet insist
on being informed when and where such death occurred : in
many cases the expense of obtaining such information would
be nearly the same as that of obtaining the usual evidence
of the fact ; and the point, although (it is conceived) not
often insisted or capable of being insisted on in practice, may
sometimes be usefully guarded against by the conditions.

Section 4.

As to what
special con-
ditions are
generally
requisite in
various
specified
cases.

What condi-
tions expe-
dient on sale
of inclosed
lands.

(4.) As to what special conditions are generally requisite
in various specified cases (/) .

Upon a sale of lands held under an Inclosure Act, it will
often be expedient to negative the purchaser's primd facie
right to evidence of the validity and regularity of the award ;
and attention must be paid to the rule which, when an
allotment has been made indiscriminately in respect of lands
held under different titles, requires the production and proof
of all such titles ; a rule which, if not guarded against, may
occasionally lead to expenses which will swallow up the
purchase-money (g) . This precaution, however, as to the
validity and regularity of the award, is not necessary
where the case falls within the 3 & 4 Yict. c. 31, which

(d) Symons v. James, 1 Y. & C. C.
C. 487. See Johnson v. Smiley, 17 B.
233.

(e) 9 Jarm. Conv. 52 n.

(/) See cases under this head more
fully discussed in Ch. VIII. under

the subject of the "Abstract to be
deduced in special cases" ; and see
1 Dav. 671 et seq. ; 1 K. & E. 244 et
seq.

(y) 1 Dav. 527.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 187

provides that all awards made in pursuance of that Act, Chap. IV.
or under the General Inclosure Act (6 & 7 "Will. IV.

c. 115), shall be conclusive evidence that all the provisions Of8 award! iy

of those Acts have been complied with, and that no other

evidence than the awards shall be requisite to establish the

title. The want of enrolment of the award is remedied by As to enrol-

the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 87, in cases where the award was

executed before the passing of the Act ; and by the 17 & 18

Viet. c. 97 (A), the commissioners are enabled to extend the

time for enrolment. Where the estate, in respect of which

the allotment is made, is conveyed to the purchaser prior to

the actual award, the right to the allotment goes with it (?') ;

and an allottee may, before the actual award, sell and convey

the legal estate in his allotment, apart from the right or

interest in respect of which it is allotted (k) .

It will also generally be proper to insert a condition in AS to reserva-
respect to any reservations or liabilities under the Act or a1W
award. Such a reservation, e. </., of mines and the right to
work them, or manorial rights generally, will, if expressed in
general terms, affect lands sold by the commissioners for the
payment of expenses, as well as ordinary allotments (/).

Where the property comprises strips of waste land re- Land for
cently inclosed, some special stipulations as to title will merl7
almost invariably be necessary (m).

In some districts it seems to have been a common practice
for parties to inclose such strips with the permission of the
lord of the manor, upon payment to him of a small annual
sum, but without any assurance or written agreement ; and

(h) See sect. 7. (/) Duke of Buccleuch v. Wakefield,

(t) Doe v. Willis, 5 Bing. 441 ; L. R. 4 H. L. 377 ; Love v. Bell, 10

Sug. 374 ; and see now 8 & 9 V. Q. B. D. 568 ; 9 Ap. Ca. 286.

c. 118, s. 84; William* v. Phillips, (m) See, as to the presumption of

8 Q. B. D. 437, 441. ownership of such strips, Steel v.

(A) See Kingsky v. Young, 18 V. Prickett, 2 Stark. 463; Doe\. Pcarsey,

207 ; Doe v. Sounder, 5 A. & E. 664, 7 B. & C. 304 ; Grose v. West, 7

and cases cited; and see 8 & 9 V. Taun. 39; and Scoones v. Morrell, 1

c. 118, s. 84. B. 251; et vide post, p. 379.

188

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 4.

Encroach-
ments.

Grants from
the Crown.

then to deal with them as freehold, subject to a chief rent.
In such a case the tenure seems to be merely that of a yearly
tenancy.

As between landlord and tenant, the former is presumably
entitled to encroachments made by the latter during his
tenancy (n) ; but this general presumption may be negatived
by evidence proving the tenant's title (o) ; and it is not
necessary that the encroachment should be contiguous to the
land held by the tenant ; but only that it should be in such
proximity as to lead to the presumption that his position as
tenant enabled him to approve (p). The title of the landlord
will not be affected by the circumstance of his mere assent to
the encroachments (q) ; but if the landlord subsequently to the
encroachment re-demises the original tenement by a descrip-
tion which excludes encroachment, it has been said that the
presumption of accretion is excluded (r). In the absence of
an express stipulation to the contrary, there is in Equity an
implied agreement that the tenant is to hold any encroach-
ment upon the same terms as his original lease (*) . Where
part of the property consists of an encroachment, and either
the ordinary presumption, or the evidence rebutting it, is
doubtful, a special stipulation as to title will be necessary.
It is doubtful whether the doctrine of encroachments applies
in the case of copyholds (t).

Upon a sale of tithes held as lay property, or of other
property held under a grant from the Crown, the vendor

(w) See Doe v. Jones, 15 M. & W.
580, and cases cited ; and see also,
as to encroachments, &c., by trustees,
A.-G. v. Corp. ofCashel, 3 D. & War.
294, 309.

(o) See Doe v. Massey, 17 Q. B.
373 ; Andrews v. Hailes, 2 E. & B.
349; Doev. Tidbury, 14 C. B. 304;
Kingsmillv. Millard, 11 Ex. 313.

(p) Earl of Lisburne v. Davies,
L. R. 1 C. P. 259.

(q) Whitmore v. Humphries, L. R.

7 C. P. 1.

(r) A.-G. v. Tomline, 15 Ch. D.
160.

(*) White v. WaUey, 4 Jur. N. S.
988 ; see, and distinguish, Drummond
v. Sant, L. R. 6 Q. B. 763. As to
validity of settlements by parties
holding by encroachment or other-
wise by a voidable title, see Yem v.
Edwards, 1 D. & J. 599.

(t) A.-G. v. Tomline, 15 Ch. D.
150, 160.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 189

should protect himself from being required to produce the Chap. IV.
original grant, if it is lost or not in his possession.

Where the property has been recently enfranchised (tt), it Enfranchised

J ^ n copyholds,

is no longer necessary to insert a condition negativing the

right to production of the manorial title (x) ; but, if produced,
it may sometimes be well to guard against any question as
to the right of the purchaser to require evidence of the
manor having, since the enfranchisement, been enjoyed con-
formably with the earlier title (y) . Where, however, the
enfranchisement has been effected under the General Enfran-
chisement Act, it neither was nor is necessary to show the
lord's title (z).

By the 4 & 5 Viet. c. 35, enabling enfranchisement by Whether a
voluntary arrangement, the word " lord " is to include a person assuming to
filling that character, or acting in that capacity, whether right- enfranchise?011
fully entitled or not (a) ; and by the 15 & 16 Yict. c. 51, it
is to include a person seised for life, or in tail, or in fee
simple, and the words italicized are omitted (b). Notwith-
standing the omission, it would seem that a compulsory
enfranchisement under the latter Act may be effectual, even
in cases where the person assuming to act as lord has no
title (c). The enfranchisement is not complete until con-
firmed by the commissioners (d) ; and, therefore, if a copy-
hold tenant dies before the award is confirmed, the lord is
entitled to a new tenant and a fine on his admittance ; but
the proceedings are not abated (e) .

Where, in the case of copyholds, the title depends upon Copyholds
grants, made by the lord of the manor, of part of the waste,

(M) Vide post, p. 330. (b) Sect. 52.

(x) Conv. Act, 1881, s. 3 (2). (c) See and consider Kerr v. Paw-

(y} See 1 Jarm. Conv. 83. son, supra, and 21 & 22 V. c. 94, s. 2,

(z) Kerr v. Pawson, 25 B. 394; repealing sect. 11 of 15 & 16 V.

and see 4 & 5 V. c. 35, s. 64 ; 6 & 7 c. 51.

V. c. 23 ; 7 & 8 V. c. 55; 15 & 16 (d) 21 & 22 V. c. 94, s. 10.

V. c. 51 ; 16 & 17 V. c. 57 ; 21 & 22 (e) Myers v. Hodgson, 1 C. P. D.

V. c. 94. 609.
(«) Sect. 102.

190

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 4.

Unstamped
and unregis-
tered docu-
ments.

Leaseholds.

it will, in general, be expedient to provide that no evidence
shall be required of such grants being authorized by the
custom of the manor : even although in some manors the
right is well established.

The vendor is primd facie responsible for his title deeds
being properly stamped ; so that, if there is any doubt of their
being so, he should protect himself (/) . So, too, where land
is in a register county, he should, in case of doubt, guard
against the deeds being unregistered. It has, however, recently
been held by Chitty, J. (g), that, where the condition was in
the ordinary form, viz., that no objection should be taken on
account of any document not being registered, the purchaser
was not entitled to rescind the contract, although the vendors
were aware that the will under which they claimed had not
been registered, and although this defect was, in the particular
circumstances of the case, irremediable. These conditions,
must, however, be to some extent depreciatory, and should
not therefore be used except where there is some reason to
believe that they will be required.

Upon a sale of leaseholds, the following points will require
attention : —

Against
Fetor's Se?

A condition that the lessor's title, whether express, or
implied by statute, shall not be objected to will not, it is con-
ceived, absolutely bind the purchaser if there is a material
flaw in the title, endangering his safety, which is not disclosed
by the vendor (A), as, for example, that the statutory powers
of leasing of a mortgagor or mortgagee of land have been
excluded.

Rule against The necessity for such a condition is superseded by the
V. & P. Act, Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1870, and the Conveyancing Act,

1874.

(/) Smith v. Wyley, 16 Jur. 1136;
Whiting to Loomes, 18 Ch. D. 10;
but see and distinguish, He Birkbeck
Society, 24 Ch. D. 119.

(g) Girling v. Girling, "W. N.
(1886), 18.

(h) Lecoy v. Hog ford, 2 Jur. N. S.
1085.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.
1881, the joint effect of which is to provide, as one of the Chap. IV.

. . •• -i Sect. 4.

rules which, subject to express stipulation, are to regulate the

obligations and rights of vendor and purchaser, that under a
contract for the sale of a term, whether derived or to be
derived out of a freehold or leasehold estate, the intended
lessee or assign is not to be entitled to call for the title to the
reversion, whether freehold or leasehold («'). It is conceived
that the purchaser is not precluded by this rule from making
any objection or requisition, not involving an actual produc-
tion, in respect of the freeholder's title, or from requiring
proof of his right to grant the lease ; and he will have construc-
tive notice of the lessor's title, just as he would formerly have
had where he stipulated not to inquire into it (A*). " To call
for the title " would seem naturally to mean " to call for its
production," or, "to require it to be deduced; " but even if the
rule could be construed as precluding the right to make any
requisition in respect of the title, it is still less comprehensive
than the condition in ordinary use ; which, when it is in the
form that the lessor's title shall not be inquired into, may, as
we have seen (I), preclude an objection taken aliunde.

The covenants in the lease should never be referred to as Covenants in
" usual : " except, perhaps, in the case of property forming bo n(5ticed.
part of a large estate, where the form of the lease is a matter
of notoriety : the preferable plan is, to produce an abstract or
copy of the lease at the time of sale ; and to state the inten-
tion so to do in the particulars or conditions, and to stipulate
that the purchaser shall be deemed to have full notice of its
contents : but a reasonable opportunity of examining it should
be allowed him (m) .

Covenants to pay land-tax, sewers rate, and all other taxes, What are

"usual cove-
nants.'

(i) 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 2; Conr. 1198; Flood v. Pritchard, 40 L. T.

Act, 1881, s. 3 (1). 873. As to what is implied by a

(&) Patman v. Harland, 17 Ch. D. statement that there are no unusually

353. restrictive covenants, see Andrew v.

(1) Ante,p.l69. Humev.Bcntky, Aitken, 22 Ch. D. 218; Hampshire

6 De a. & S. 520. v. Wickem, 7 Ch. D. 655 ; Hyde v.

(m) Brumfit v. Morton, 3 Jur. N. S. Warden, 3 Ex. D. 72.

192

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 4.

and a proviso for re-entry, if any but a specified business snail
be carried on, have been held to be " usual " (n) ; so, too, a
covenant that the lessee shall make good any damage occa-
sioned by fire (o) ; and where a landlord agreed to demise at
a yearly rent "free of all outgoings," and to grant a lease on
the above and other "usual" terms, it was held that the
liability to pay the land-tax and tithe commutation rent-
charge fell upon the tenant (p) ; so, too, an exceptional ex-
pense, incurred for a permanent improvement under the
Metropolis Management Acts, was held to fall within the words
of a tenant's covenant to pay all rates and assessments what-
soever in respect of the premises (q). It is, however, impos-
sible to lay down any general proposition upon this point, the
question in each case turning upon the wording of the parti-
cular covenant (r) . But a covenant restrictive of the right of
alienation is not a " usual " covenant (*) ; so, too, a covenant
not to mow meadow land more than once a year (t) ; so,
too, a condition of re-entry for breach of covenant (u) ; so,
a covenant that every assignment or underlease should be

(n) Bennett v. Womack, 7 B. & C.
627: Bradbury v. Wright, 2 Doug.
624.

(0) Kendall v. Hill, 6 Jur. N. S.
968.

(p) Parish v. Sleeman, 1 D. F. & J.
326; Lockicoodv. Wilson, 43 L. J. C.
P. 179 ; in effect overruling Cranston
v. Clarke, Sayer, 78. But see Jcffery
v. Neak, L. R. 6 C. P. 240, where,
however, the lessor was himself the
owner of the tithe rent-charge.

(q) Thompson v. Lapworth, L. R. 3

C. P. 149 ; Allum v. Dickinson, 9
Q. B. D. 632 ; Wilkinson v. Cnllyer,
13 Q. B. D. 1. In Crosse v. Raw,
L. R. 9 Ex. 209, and Aldridge v.
Feme, 17 Q. B. D. 212, the covenant
extended to "outgoings," as to
which see Midgley v. Coppock, 4 Ex.

D. 309.

(r) As to cases of rates and assess-
ments under the Public Health Acts,
see Rawlins v. Briggs, 3 C. P. D.

368 ; Hartley v. Hudson, 4 C. P. D.
367; and Budd\. Marshall, 5 C. P. D.
481.

(.v) Buckland v. Papillon, 2 Ch. 67 ;
Hampshire v. Wickcns, 7 Ch. D. 555.
As to the covenants which ought to
be inserted in a building or repairing
lease, see Easton v. Prate, 9 Jur. N. S.
1 345. For those in a mining lease, see
Hodgkinson v. Crowe, 10 Ch. 622. As
to the effect of the qualifying words
' ' but such consent is not to be arbi-
trarily withheld," see Treloar v.
Bigge, L. R. 9 Ex. 151 ; and Sear v.
House Property Society , 16 Ch. D.
387.

(?) Eyde v. Warden, 3 Ex. D. 72,
82.

(«) Hodgkinson v. Crowe, supra.
This case must be taken to have
overruled Haines v. Burnett, 27 B.
500 ; see Hampshire v. Wickens ;
Hyde v. Warden, supra.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 193

left with the landlord's solicitor, and a fee paid for regis- Chap. IV.
tration (x).

By the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (y), a purchaser of lease- Purchase of
holds is to assume, unless the contrary appears, that the lease since Conv.
or underlease, and every superior lease, was duly granted,
and, on production of the receipt for the last payment due
for rent (z) under the lease or underlease, before the date of
actual completion of the purchase, that all the covenants and
provisions of the lease or underlease have been duly per-
formed and observed up to the date of actual completion,
and further, that all rent due under any superior lease, and
all the covenants and provisions of every superior lease, have
been paid and duly performed and observed up to that date.
This implied stipulation will, however, be found insufficient
in a large number of cases. The words " unless the contrary
appears," restrict its operation, and, in the absence of a
judicial decision as to what it covers, it is prudent to provide,
in addition, for the case of breaches within the knowledge of
the vendor, which he has reason to believe to have been, or
to be likely to be, waived by the lessor (a) .

Where the condition was that "the possession under As to evidence
the lease should be deemed conclusive evidence of the &cc°havin<>-8'

due performance, or sufficient waiver of any breach, of the ^QQn Per"
covenants in the lease up to the completion of the sale," it
was held that the purchaser was fixed with notice of possible
breaches of covenant prior to the contract, which must be
taken to be waived ; but no opinion was expressed as to what
would have been the effect of the condition, if it had been
proved that the landlord intended to enforce the forfeiture (b) :
and the condition was held not to cover breaches committed

(x) Brookes v. Drysdale, 3 C. P. D. covenants have been observed; Re

62. Moody and Tates, 30 Ch. D. 344.

(y) Sect. 3, sub-sects. 4, 5. (a) Where the actual receipt could

(z) "Rent" does not apply to a not be produced, an affidavit by the

peppercorn rent ; and the production vendor of the performance of the

of a receipt for a peppercorn will not covenants was held sufficient ; Ringer

relieve the vendor of a building lease to Thompson, 51 L. J. Ch. 42.

from his liability to show that his (b} Howell v. Eightlcy, 21 B. 331.

D. VOL. I. O

194 PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV. by the vendor himself after the contract, and before the

1*1-4-4

completion of the sale. It is conceived, however, that any

dosureof subsisting breach, if within the vendor's knowledge, ought to

subsisting have })Qen expressly mentioned ; and that the condition was
breaches. .

properly applicable only to breaches, of which he had no

notice, or which he had good reason for believing to be

waived. Nor will such a condition bind the purchaser if

there is a reasonable bond fide doubt as to who is the rever-

Production of sioner entitled to receive the rent (b) . Where it was stipu-

1 Q &4- T*pp.fl|T\f'

for rent. lated that the production of the last receipt for rent should be
conclusive evidence that all the covenants had been per-
formed, the purchaser was precluded from objecting that the
lease had been forfeited by reason of dilapidations, which
existed at the date of the contract (c). So, where there
was a condition that the production of the last receipt for
rent paid should be taken as conclusive evidence of the
due and satisfactory performance of the lessee's covenants
contained in the lease, or the waiver of any breaches up to
completion, whether the lessor should be cognizant of such
breaches or not, it was held by the House of Lords in a
recent case, on a question arising out of a reference as to title
in an action for specific performance, that the purchaser could
not object to the title on the ground that there was such a
continuing breach of a covenant as might render the property
liable to immediate forfeiture (d) . It is conceived that the
principles of construction in such a case are the same, whether
the condition has to be considered on the question of specific
performance, or on a reference as to title. A difficulty of
this kind has often arisen upon the covenant to insure against
Where there fire. "Where there has been merely a past omission to insure,
breach of the but ^ne existing insurance is according to the terms of the
covenant to covenant, the condition as to waiver may be relied on ; but

insure. J

where the existing insurance is improperly effected (e), there
is a continuous breach de die in diem of the covenant to insure
and keep insured in the specified manner, and the sufficiency

(b) Pegler v. White, 33 B. 403. («) See Penniatt v. Harborne, 11

(e) Bull v. Hutchens, 32 B. 615. Q. B. 368 ; Havens v. Middleton, 10

(d) Lawrie v. Lees, 7 Ap. Ca. 19. Ha. 641.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 195

of the condition may be open to serious question (/). We Chap. IV.
may remark that the omission for a single day to pay the -
premium within the time allowed by the office is a breach of
covenant inducing a forfeiture ; and is not cured by the sub-
sequent acceptance of the premium by the office (g). But P0^6™6^6*1
bond fide purchasers were, by Lord St. Leonards' Act, 22 & 23 23 Viet. c. 35.
Yict. c. 35 (^), protected against forfeiture of the lease, by
reason of a prior breach of the covenant to insure, if they had
a receipt for the last payment of rent, and there was a valid
insurance on foot at the time of completing the purchase ;
and it was held that if the breach had been committed since
the passing of the Act, the Court had power under the 4th
section to relieve against the forfeiture, notwithstanding that
the covenant broken was entered into previously to the Act (i) :
but a vendor, in the absence of a condition to that effect,
could not compel a purchaser to rely upon this section of the
Act (/). These sections have been repealed by the Con-
veyancing Act, 1881 (£), which contains large provisions for
relief against forfeiture, and places the covenant to insure on
the same footing as all other covenants (7), except that to pay
rent, to which the Act does not apply (m).

If a waiver, either express, or made sufficient by the con- Title of rever-
ditions, be relied on by the vendor, and the landlord giving to ^e Sh0wn in
it is a different person from the original lessor, a condition caseof waiver,
precluding investigation of the lessor's title will not preclude
the purchaser from requiring the title to be traced from the
original lessor to the person whose waiver of the breach of
covenant is relied on (n).

When leasehold property is sold in lots, it is also necessary As to appor-
tionment of

(/) Howett v. Kightky, 21 B. 331. Davenport v. Reg., 3 Ap. Ca. 115.

As to the case of breach of a cove- (h) Sects. 4 — 9.

nant not to underlet, and waiver of (i) Page v. Bennett, 2 Gif. 117; 6

such breach where continuing, see Jur. N. S. 419.

Walrond v. Hawkins, L. R. 10 C. P. (J) Turner v. Marriott, V.-C. K.,

342. 31 July, 1866.

(#) Wilson v. Wilson, 14 C. B. 616; (k) Sect. 14, sub-sect. 7.

Job v. Banister, 2 K. & J. 374 ; affd. (t) Sect. 14, sub-sects. 1, 2.

6 W. R. 177. The Crown can waive (m) Sect. 14, sub-sect. 8.

a forfeiture by acceptance of rent ; (M) Turner v. Marriott, supra.
Bridges v. Longman, 24 B. 27 ;

196

Chap. IV.
Sect. 4.

rent and
liabilities on
sale in lots.

On sale of
renewable
leaseholds.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

to provide for the apportionment of the rents and liabilities
under the lease (0). This cannot be done effectually where,
as is usually the case, the lessor refuses, or is incompetent, to
concur. Underleases, (the original term being retained either
by the vendor or one of the purchasers,) with covenants for
mutual indemnity, are frequently resorted to ; in fact, neces-
sarily so, where, in the case of buildings, the original lease
contains a covenant to insure against fire in a given sum :
and in such a case, the assignee of the lease must covenant
to indemnify the other purchasers against any breach of the
covenants of the original lease in respect of any part of the
property (p). Cross powers of distress and entry are often
relied on in other cases : but the plan proposed, whatever it
be, should be stated in the conditions (q) . The same point
arises on a resale, in parcels, of freehold land which has been
sold subject to a reserved rent and covenants.

Upon the sale of renewable leaseholds, it will probably be
necessary to provide against the production of the title prior
to the subsisting lease (r).

On sale of a Upon the resale of a reversion, it may often be prudent to
reversion. . , .

provide, that no evidence shall be required of the sufficiency

of the consideration paid on the original purchase (s) ; if
such purchase, however, were by auction, or were subsequent
to 1st January, 1868, the condition would seem to be unne-
cessary (t).

Condition
as to fire
insurance.

On a sale of property which includes buildings, it was
not unusual to insert a condition to the effect that the
purchaser should have the benefit of any subsisting in-
surance, in the event of the buildings being burnt down

(0) See Taylor v. Martindale, 1 Y.
& C. C. C. 658 ; Barnwell v. Harris,
1 Tauu. 430 ; Bowles v. Trailer, Hay.
441 (where a receipt by a Crown col-
lector was held to be evidence of ap-
portionment) ; and see note to War-
ren v. Batcman, Fl. & K. 455.

(p) Broivn v. Paull, 2 Jur. N. S.

317.

(q) See 1 Dav. 645.

(r) Vide post, p. 332.

(«) See Eos well v. Mendham, 6
Mad. 373 ; see now 31 V. c. 4 ; post,
p. 844 et seq.

(t) Shelley v. Nash, 3 Mad. 232 ; see
post, p. 850.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 197

pending completion. Having regard, however, to the recent Chap. IV.

cases on the subject(w), which have laid down that a fire '— '. —

insurance contract is nothing more than a contract for mere
personal indemnity, the effect of such a condition would
seem to he, to expose the vendor to the double danger of
having to hand over the insurance money to the purchaser
under the contract, and at the same time of being liable to
refund to the insurance company an equivalent amount of
the purchase-money. The purchaser has, as from the date
of the contract, an insurable interest ; and the better plan,
therefore, is to stipulate that the property shall, as respects
all insurable loss or damage, be at the sole risk of the pur-
chaser as from the date of the contract. To make no stipu-
lation at all is not safe, since the purchaser would seem to
have a sufficient interest in the property to enable him to
demand the reinstatement of the premises (#), although he
cannot claim the insurance money (y) . If the premises
should have been reinstated in compliance with such demand,
and the full purchase-money were then paid to the vendor,
it would seem to follow, from what has been above stated,
that on the doctrine of subrogation the insurance company
would be entitled to recover an equivalent amount out of the
purchase-money.

Although it is a general rule that a trustee or mortgagee, As to cove-
&c., enters into no covenant for title except that against in- by trustees,
cumbrances (z), it is usual, and on that account perhaps c*
expedient, to insert a special condition to that effect.

(5.) General remarks on special conditions. Section 5.

Upon sales by trustees, mortgagees, and other persons General re-
filling a fiduciary character, great care is requisite in the use ^ecial°condi-

tions.

(M) Darrell v. Tibbitts, 5 Q. B. D. Gorely, 4 D. J. & S. 477.

560 ; Castellain v. Preston, 11 Q. B. D. (y) Eayner v. Preston, 18 Ch. D. 1.

380 ; and see post, p. 913. (z) See Worley v. Frampton, 5 Ha.

(x) 14 Geo. 3, c. 78, s. 83 ; Ex p. 560 ; and see ante, pp. 94, 146.

198

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. IV.
Sect. 5.

As to use of
special con-
ditions by
trustees, &c.

When it
amounts to
breach of
trust.

of special conditions ; since, if improperly used, they may
not only involve the vendors in personal liability to their
cestuis que trust) &c. (#), but also prevent their making a
good title.

In order to have this effect, the conditions must be un-
necessary, and of such a depreciatory character that their
use amounts to a breach of trust : it may, however, often be
difficult to determine whether a given condition comes within
this definition (b).

Use of certain
special con-
ditions by
mortgagee
approved of.

Upon a sale by a mortgagee, the use of conditions com-
pelling a purchaser to take all objections within twenty-one
days from the delivery of the abstract, that all copies of
deeds, &c., not in the vendor's possession, should be obtained
at the expense of the purchaser, that any mis-statement, &c.,
should not annul the sale but be the subject of compensation,
and that the vendor might resell on breach of conditions by
the purchaser, was considered by Lord Langdale to form no
objection to the title (c).

Upon a sale by a mortgagee, with a title believed to be
marketable, although complicated, the use of a condition
authorizing the mortgagee, in the event of objections, &c.,
being taken which he could not remove, to rescind the
contract on returning deposit, interest, and costs, and of a
condition that purchasers, whose purchase-money should not
amount to a specified sum, should pay for their abstracts,
(except the abstract of the mortgage deed,) was sanctioned
by the late Mr. Duval. The former condition has since been

(a) See Dance v. Goldingham, 8 Ch.
902 ; Dunn v. flood, 28 Ch. D. 586,
and vide post, p. 199.

(b) As to special conditions gene-
rally, see remarks of the M. R. in
Hoy v. Smythies, 22 B. 510 ; Greaves
v. Wilson, 25 B. 290 ; and as to
depreciatory conditions, see Falkner

v. Equitable Eev. Soc., 4 Dr. 352;
Rede v. OaJces, 4 D. J. & S. 505 ; and
ante, p. 83.

(c} Hobson v. Sell, 2 B. 17 ; Borell
v. Dann, 2 Ha. 443, 445 ; Groom v.
Sooth, 1 Dr. 548 ; and see now Conv.
Act, 1881, s. 3, sub-s. 3, and s. 66.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 199

held to be one which a prudent owner would introduce, and Chap. IV.
therefore binding on the mortgagor (d). — —

Conditions restrictive of a purchaser's right to a market- As to title»
able title, or the ordinary evidences of title, should be used be adapted to
only so far as may be requisite from the state of the title (e). title!01
Where, on a sale by trustees, it was stipulated that the
purchaser should accept a seventeen years' title as to part
of the property, and the condition did not specify that the
portion so restricted in title was only of small extent as
compared with the whole, and not essential to the enjoyment
of the property, it was considered doubtful whether such
sale would be binding on the cestui que trust (/).

Where a deed dated in 1819 which formed the root of
title, had been mislaid, and the vendors who were trustees
for sale stipulated that the title should commence with a
deed dated in 1858, and that no earlier title should be
called for except at the purchaser's expense, and without
stating, as was the fact, that the title, as commencing in
1819, was recited in the deed of 1858, the condition was
held to be depreciatory, and, at the instance of a cestui que
trust who had only a small interest, the completion of the
sale was restrained (g) . The trustees ought to have com-
menced their title with the deed of 1819, and to have
stipulated for the verification of the abstract by means of
a copy of the deed ; or by making the recitals in the deed
of 1858 evidence.

Powers of, and trusts for, sale, at the present day, usually Po-wer to sell

authorize a sale " under special conditions as to title, evidence 3a

of title, expenses, or otherwise." Such an authority may lts effeot*
reasonably be supposed to give to a fiduciary vendor, some-
what wider limits than he would otherwise enjoy, and would

(d) Falkner v. Equitable Rev. Soc., 505.

4 Dr. 352. (g) Dance v. Goldingham, 8 Ch.

(e) Ante, p. 83 ; see, however, 902 ; and see Dunn v. flood, 28 Ch.
Borett v. Dann, 2 Ha. 443, 455. D. 586 ; Re Rayner's ^Trustees and

(/) Rede v. Oakes, 4 D. J. & S. Greenaway, 53 L. T. 495.

200

Chap. IV.
Sect. 5.

As to declara-
tion that
improper con-
ditions, &c.,
shall not
affect pur-
chaser.

PAKTICULAKS AND CONDITIONS.

probably turn the scale in a doubtful case ; but it is hard
to say what is its precise effect. It certainly would not
authorize capricious or obviously unnecessary conditions,
and necessary or provident conditions may and should be
used without an express authority ; and, looking to the
present state of practice, it must be a very gross case in
which a willing purchaser could be advised to insist upon the
use of depreciatory conditions as an objection to the title :
it has, however, become usual to insert in such trusts and
powers a declaration, that the use of unnecessary or improper
conditions shall not affect the sale ; but even such a declara-
tion does not relieve a fiduciary vendor from liability to
his beneficiaries.

Restrictive
conditions do
not necessa-
rily protect a
purchaser
from notice*
of what might
be learnt by
inquiry.

We may here remark that the circumstance of an estate
being sold under conditions restrictive of the title, does not
necessarily protect a purchaser from being affected with
implied notice of matters, which he would have discovered
by the ordinary investigation which follows an open con-
tract (ti) .

Condition as Upon a sale of an estate laid out as building land, it

saleTpla/or? may often be desirable to reserve power for the vendor to

^le°sftbtuild" modify the arrangements indicated by the sale plan, for

the laying out of the land, and the formation of roads

and other accommodation works, in case any of the lots

remain unsold.

Condition as The condition as to compensation for misdescription by
^e ven(lor, cannot, it appears, be enforced upon a sale by
trustees, &c. (i) : although the use of the condition may
not in itself be a breach of trust (k) .

to trustees,

Specific
under

conditions.

In a modern case, the Court decreed specific performance
a contract f or sale by trustees, in which it was provided

(A) Peto v. Hammond, 30 B. 495 ;
Morland v. Cook, 1 Eq. 252 ; Patman
v. Harland, 17 Ch. D. 353.

(i) White v. Cuddon, 8 C. & F.

766.

(k) See Hobson v. Sell, 2 B. 17;
and cf . Dunn v. Flood, 28 Ch. D. 586,
591.

PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS. 201

that their receipts should be sufficient discharges for the Chap. IV.

Sect. 5.

purchase-money, and that the purchaser should not require -
the concurrence of the ccstuis que trust, — thus supplying the
omission of the ordinary receipt clause in the trust instru-
ment (/) .

Fiduciary vendors are justified in laying the title and Costs of
conditions of sale before counsel ; and the costs of so doing counsel
by assignees in bankruptcy have been allowed as against
an incumbrancer who had petitioned for the sale, but whose
demand the proceeds of sale were insufficient to satisfy (m) ;
and upon a sale by the Court of Chancery, the title is
perused, and the conditions of sale are settled, by one of the
conveyancing counsel of the Court, in all but very excep-
tional cases.

By the Vendor and Purchaser Act (n) , and the Con- Power of
veyancing Act, 1881(0), trustees who are vendors may v. &P. Act
sell without excluding the operation of the rules, which ^ct j^'
are prescribed by those Acts, for the future regulation of
the obligations and rights of vendor and purchaser in the
completion of contracts for the sale of land; but they
might, it is conceived, have done so, even without express
enactment.

Lastly, it may be remarked, that those conditions which Concluding

. PI remarks on

to an unprofessional eye appear the simplest, are often the special con-
most dangerous ; and those which appear difficult and
complex to the unlearned purchaser may not unfrequently
produce an impression favourable to the title upon the
mind of his legal adviser. The conveyancer who, upon
the purchase of a large estate, peruses a series of special
stipulations, which have evidently been framed with refer-
ence to points which might be made matters of serious

(I) Wilkinson v. Hartley, 15 B. (m) Ex parte Lewis, 3 M. D. & D.

183 ; and see Groom v. Booth, 1 Dr. 173.

648. («) 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 3.

(o Sect. 66.

202 PARTICULAKS AND CONDITIONS.

Chap. rv. annoyance by a litigious, but are of little practical impor-

Sect. 5.
• tance to the willing, purchaser, is naturally disposed to

believe that no real difficulties exist where minor objections
have been so carefully anticipated : and, on the other hand,
nothing is more common than to see conditions whose
concise simplicity disarms the suspicion of the unprofes-
sional reader, but whose sweeping clauses reduce counsel
to the dilemma of either advising a client to complete
under serious uncertainty whether he will acquire even a
tolerably safe holding title, or of involving him in inquiries,
which are almost sure to be heavily expensive, and may
probably prove wholly unsatisfactory. The writer may
also be allowed to add, as the result of a somewhat wide
experience, that, in his opinion, the number of seriously
defective and dangerous titles which at the present day
are brought into market and passed off upon purchasers
under the cover of special conditions of sale, is much larger
than is commonly supposed.

( 203 )

CHAPTER Y. Chapter V.

AS TO THE SALE AND MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH.

1. Auction, what it is.

2. Auctioneer, his liabilities, power, and remuneration.

3. Agent, his liabilities, power, and remuneration.

4. The deposit.

5. As to puffings and reserved biddings on a sale by

auction.

(1). AN auction, in the widest sense of the term, is any Section 1.
mode of sale, however conducted, in which the vendor 7 7T~

Auction ;

comes under an express or implied obligation to part with what it is.
the property to the highest bidder: a general direction to Direction to
sell by auction, would, however, it is conceived, only autho- 8eU by-
rize a sale by auction in the usual mode.

(2.) As to the Auctioneer, fyc. Section 2.

An auctioneer selling without sufficient authority (a), or AS to the
not disclosing the name of his principal, is liable, upon the auctioneer,
well-known principle laid down in Collen v. Wright (b), to auctioneer,
the purchaser for his costs, and interest on his purchase-
money if lying idle (c) : and it has been held that if he
sell, without at the time of sale disclosing the name of
his principal, he is personally liable in damages for non-
performance of the contract (d) . If, being aware of the
purchaser's mistake, he fail to correct it (e), or, if he know-

(a) As to acts by the vendor "bind- (b) 8 E. & B. 647 ; see p. 657.

ing him to the sale, see Pike v. Wil- (c) Bratt v. Ellis, and Jones v.

son, 1 Jur. N. S. 59. An auctioneer Dyke, Sug. 82, 813. See Gaby v.

has no implied authority to warrant Driver, 2 T. & J. 549 ; Wood v.

title or quality ; Payne v. Lord Lecon- Baxter, supra.

field, 51 L. J. Q. B. 642; Wood v. (d) Hanson v. Roberdeau, Pea. N.

Baxter, 49 L. T. 45. As to the scope P. 120 ; Franklyn v. Lamond, 4 C. B.

of his authority, see Mullens v. 637; Ex p. Hartop, 12V. 352; Sug.

Miller, 22 Ch. D. 194; Story on 42; and see Woolfe v. Horne, 2 Q. B.

Agency, sects. 27, 107; and as to the D. 355.

general authority of an agent to (e) Dyas v. Stafford, 1 L. B. Ir.

warrant, see Benjamin, 616 et seq. 590.

204

THE SALE AND

Chap. V.
Sect. 2.

ingly accept fictitious biddings (/), and an action is brought
for the rectification or rescission of the contract, he may,
if joined as defendant, be ordered to pay costs ; but an issue
as to whether his co-defendant, the vendor, authorized him to
make a statement which is alleged to be misleading, cannot
be tried under the third party procedure (ff).

May be him-

vendor. owner of the property, seems to form no objection to the

Cannot vary
terms after
Bale.

Rights and
liabilities of,
in respect to
deposit and
purchase-
money.

The fact of his being, unknown to the purchaser, the
mer of the property, se
validity of the contract (g) .

The auctioneer cannot, without express authority, delegate
the sale to another (h) ; nor can he, either before (?') or
after (/ ) the sale, vary the terms of the contract :
whether without express authority he can bind the vendor
by special conditions of sale, seems to be doubtful (k).
Where he professes to sell as "without reserve," it has
been held at Law, that if he accepts a bid from the
vendor, he commits a breach of contract with the pur-
chaser, for which he may be made liable in damages (/).

Unless especially authorized, he has no power to receive more
than the deposit (m) . In respect of money which he is autho-
rized to receive, he is in a fiduciary position, and may come
within the Debtors Act, 1869 (mm) ; and if, as respects the
deposit or any other part of the purchase-money which he is

(/) Heatley v. Newton, 19 Ch. D.
326.

(/) Cation v. Bennett, 26 Ch. D.
161.

(g) Flint v. Woodin, 9 Ha. 618.

(h) CocJcran v. Irlam, 2 M. & S.
301 ; Catlin v. Sell, 4 Camp. 183 ;
Schmaling v. Thomlinson, 6 Taun.
147 ; see Coles v. Trecothick, 9 V.
251 ; Henderson v. Barnewall, 1 Y. &
J. 387 ; Sug. 44.

(i) Jones v. Nanney, 13 Pr. 76.

(j) See Blackburn v. Scholes, 2
Camp. 343.

(k) Pike v. Wilson, 1 Jur. N. S. 59 ;
Denew v. Daverell, 3 Camp. 451 ; and

it seems to be the intention of the
Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881,
that the auctioneer shall be respon-
sible for the conditions of sale ; see
Sched. I. Pt. I. r. 11 ; Re Wilson,
29 Ch. D. 790 ; Re Merchant Taylors1
Co., 30 Ch. D. 28 ; cf. Re Faulkner,
W. N. (1887), 167.

(1) Warlow v. Harrison, 1 E. & E.
295 ; and cf . Mainprice v. Westley, 6
B. & S. 420 ; Heatley v. Newton, 19
Ch. D. 326.

(m} Sykes v. Giles, 5 M. & W. 645.

(mm) Crowtherv. Elgood, 34 Ch. D.
691.

MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. 205

authorized to receive, he allow the purchaser to retain it on his Chap. V.
personal or any other security, he does so at his own risk (n) ; -
nor where he is authorized to receive payment, is he justified in
taking a bill of exchange instead of cash (o) ; but he may
take the purchaser's cheque in lieu of cash (/?) ; if he accepts
the purchaser's I 0 U for the money, even though he does
so with the vendor's consent, it seems that he may sue
upon it in his own name (<?). On a sale of goods he may
recover the entire price from the purchaser (r) .

Until the purchase is completed he is a stakeholder of the Holds the
deposit, and should not part with it except by consent of stakeholder,
both vendor and purchaser (s) ; if both claimed it, he might
file a bill of interpleader (t) ; but, in so doing, he must not
claim to retain his commission out of it (w), nor must the
amount held by him form a question in dispute (x) ; if,
however, he be made a defendant to an action for specific
performance, and the deposit be brought into Court, he will
be allowed to deduct his charges and expenses, subject to
the question as to who shall ultimately bear them (y) ; but

(n) Williams v. Millington, 1 H. Bl. its being paid into Court, and the

81, 85 ; Wiltshire v. Sims, 1 Camp. solicitor misappropriated it, and it

258 ; Sug. 48. was held that the auctioneer was not

(o) Sykes v. Giles, 5 M. & "W. 645 ; liable to repay it.

Williams v. Evans, L. R. 1 Q. B. (t) Fairlrother v. Prattent, Dan.

352. 64; Dan. Ch. Pr. p. 1518. If an

(p) Farrer v. Lacy-Hartland, 31 action has been brought to recover

Ch. D. 42. the deposit, he may, it is conceived,

( q) Cleave v. Moors, 3 Jur. N. S. take out an interpleader summons

48. under 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 58 ; and 23 &

(r} Williams v. Milling ton, 1 H. 24 V. c. 126 ; now, R. S. C. 1883,

Bl. 81 ; Robinson v. Sutler, 4 E. & B. 0. LVII.

954. («) Mitchell v. Eayne, 2 S. & S.

(*) See Smith v. Jackson, 1 Mad. 63; and see Bignold v. Audland, 11

620 ; Burrough v. Skinner, 5 Burr. Si. 28.

2639 ; and Wiggins v. Lord, 4 B. 30, (x) Liplock v. Hammond, 2 S. & Or.

where the deposit was received by 141.

the vendor's solicitor ; but see Edgell (y) AnnesUy v. Muggridge, 1 Mad.

v. Day, L. R. 1 C. P. 80, where the 593 ; Yates v. Farebrother, 4 Mad.

vendor's solicitor receiving the deposit 239. As to the joinder of agents as

was held not to be a stakeholder. co-defendants generally, and the dis-

And see Biggs v. Bree, 51 L. J. Ch. approval by Sir G-. Jessel of the

263, where the auctioneer paid the practice, see Mathias v. Tetts, 46

deposit to the solicitor having con- L. T. 497, 502.
duct of the sale for the purpose of

206 THE SALE AND

Chap. V. where the deposit is of small amount, he ought not to be
"— - — made a defendant, unless he refuses to pay it into Court (s).
If the contract be rescinded by the purchaser on the ground
of fraudulent misrepresentations made by the vendor to the
auctioneer, and innocently communicated by the latter, the
fraud will be a good defence to an action by the vendor
against the auctioneer for the deposit or purchase-money (a).
If the estate be re-sold by the vendor, upon the alleged
default of the first purchaser, the auctioneer receiving the
deposits on both sales cannot in one suit get rid of the con-
flicting claims of the vendor and two purchasers (b) . In
such a case he should pay the money into Court under the
Trustee Belief Act, and would be allowed his necessary costs
of doing so.

Whether At Law, the costs of an auctioneer who has paid the

out of, at Law. deposit into Court under an interpleader order (c), have been
allowed out of the deposit; leaving the purchaser to his
remedy over against the vendor, although known to be
insolvent (d) : but in a modern case the Court refused the
interpleader order, unless the auctioneer gave security for
costs, and declined to allow him the costs of the applica-
tion (e).

Rights of, &c. After the purchase is completed, or before with the con-
after com- sent of the purchaser, the auctioneer may, except in very
plehon. special cases (/), safely pay the deposit to the vendor,

although in embarrassed circumstances (g) : if the purchase

(z) Earl of Egmont v. Smith, 6 (c) Under the 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 58 ;

Ch. D. 469 ; but if he is joined in an see now R. S. C., 1883, O. LVII.

action for rescission, he must submit (d) Pitchers v. Edney, 4 Bing. N.

to give the plaintiff all the relief, to C. 721 ; and see Reeves v. Barraud,

which he can in any event be entitled 7 Sc. 281.

against him, before he can be dis- (e) Deller v. Prickett, 15 Q. B.

missed from the suit ; Heatky v. 1081.

Newton, 19 Ch. D. 326. (/) See CrossJcey v. Mills, 1 C. M.

(a) See Murray v. Mann, 2 Ex. & R. 298, 302.

538 ; Stevens v. Legh, 2 C. L. R. (g} White v. Bartlett, 9 Bing. 378.

251. As to the case of sales under order of

(b) Hoggart v. Cutts, Cr. & Ph. the Court, see Biggs y. Bree, 51 L. J.
197. Ch. 263.

MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. 207

go off, or the vendor fail to make a title (^), the purchaser Chap. V.

may, and perhaps without giving notice of default (t),

recover the deposit from the auctioneer in an action at
Law (k) ; but he cannot, nor can the vendor, claim interest,
although the auctioneer may actually have made a profit
upon it, and been required by one only of the parties to
invest it (I).

The amount of his remuneration, unless (as it ought to Commission,
be) it is settled by agreement (w), seems to depend upon
custom (n) ; and even in the trade there appears to be no
settled rate of commission. In one case (o) the usual charge
was by several auctioneers stated to be £5 per cent, up to
the first £500 of purchase-money ; by others, up to the first
£1,000 ; and by most of the witnesses, up to the first £2,000,
with £2 10s. per cent, on the remainder. An agreement
that the auctioneer shall receive nothing if there be no sale,
will not deprive him of his commission, if, after he has
taken the usual steps preparatory to a sale, the estate be
sold by the owner by private contract (p) : but where an
agent was to receive £100 for commission, "one-third down
and the remaining two-thirds when the abstract of convey-
ance is drawn out," and an abstract of title was delivered,
but the contract then went off, he was not allowed to recover
from his principal the two-thirds which remained unpaid (<?).
Where a solicitor employed an auctioneer to sell his client's
property, who retained out of the deposit, for his commission,
more than would be allowed under the Bankruptcy scale,
the solicitor was nevertheless allowed the whole charge on
the taxation of his bill (r).

(h) Gray v. Gutteridge, 1 Man. & 3 Br. C. C. 44 ; Browne v. Southouse,

K. 614; Edwards v. Hodding, 5 Taun. ibid. 107; and see Gaby v. Driver, 2

815. Y. & J. 549.

(t) Gray v. Gutteridge, ubi sup. ; (m) He Page, 32 B. 487.

Duncan v. Cafe, 2 M. & W. 244. (») See Maltby v. Christie, 1 Esp.

(K) Burrough v. Skinner, 5 Burr. 340.
2639 ; Maberley v. Robins, 5 Taun. (o) Re Page, supra.

625; Johnson v. Roberts, 24 L. T. (p) Rainy v. Ternon, 9 C. & P.

254. 559 ; Driver v. Cholmondeley, ibid. n.

(1) Sarington v. Hoggart, 1 B. & (q) Alder v. Boyle, 4 C. B. 635.

Ad. 577 ; Lord Salisbury v. Wilkinson, (r) Re Page, supra.

Chap. V.
Sect. 2.

Claim to,
defeated by
negligence.

208 THE SALE AND

And the auctioneer's (or agent's) claim to remuneration
will be defeated by any negligence on his part, as to the
mode of conducting the sale or otherwise, whereby the sale is
defeated (s) : and if he negligently misdescribe the property,
he will be liable to repay to the vendor the amount claimable
by the purchaser in respect of such misdescription (t) ; and
he may be liable in nominal damages for breach of duty,
Trustee, &c., though no actual loss may have been sustained (u). An
executor or trustee (x) or mortgagee with power of sale (//) ,
acting as auctioneer in the sale of the trust or mortgaged
property, cannot charge commission, unless it can be collected
from the trust instrument or mortgage that such was the in-
tention (z).

commission.

Insolvent —
loss falls on
vendor.

As a general rule, any loss occasioned by his insolvency or
mala fides falls on the vendor as his employer (a) ; and a
mortgagee, adopting his mortgagor's contract for sale, adopts
also this liability, as between himself and the purchaser (b),
though not as between himself and the mortgagor, where
the money is misappropriated by the mortgagor's agent,
even though acting also for the mortgagee (c) ; but a fidu-
ciary vendor will not be personally responsible to his
cestuis que trust for such loss, if he have acted prudently and
under proper advice in the matter (d) .

(s) Denew v. Daverell, 3 Camp.
451 ; Jones v. Nanney, 13 Pr. 76.

(t) Parker v. Farcbrother, 1 C. L.
R. 323.

(u) Hibbert v. Bayley, 2 F. & F.
48.

(x) Kirkman v. Booth, 11 B. 273.

(y] Mathison v. Clarke, 3 Dr. 3.
When the sale is under the direction
of the Court commission may be
allowed ; Arnold v. Garner, 2 Ph.
231.

(z) Douglas v. Archbutt, 2 D. & J.
148 ; but see Miller v. Seal, 27 W. R.
403, in which an auctioneer selling
under a bill of sale held by himself

was allowed to charge his commis-
sion; and He Donaldson, 27 Ch. D.
544, where a solicitor mortgagee was
held entitled to profit costs of en-
forcing his security against the mort-
gagor.

(a) See and consider Sanderson v.
Walker, 13 V. 601, 602; Fenton v.
Browne, 14 V. 144, 150 ; Annesley v.
Muggridge, 1 Mad. 593, 596 ; Smith
v. Jackson, ibid. 618, 620 ; Sug. 52.

(*) Roive v. May, 18 B. 613.

(c) Barrow v. White, 2 J. & H.
580.

(d) Edmonds v. Peake, 7 B. 239.

MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. 209

By the appointment of an auctioneer the vendor impliedly Chap. V.
authorizes the auctioneer or his clerk (e) to bind him by their

signatures as his agents within the Statute of Frauds (/) ; a bothgparties
similar authority is given by the bidder, by the act of ^tlt^l?thfe
bidding (g), although it be by an agent (/*). Before the fall Frauds,
of the hammer, either party may revoke the authority (i) ; ^h^auth
but not after the property has been knocked down, even ri*y-
though no contract may have been signed (k) . Whether an
action would lie for such revocation is doubtful.

Where property was offered for sale by auction under order Selling by
of the Court, and was bought in, but before the auctioneer tract at the
had left the room a person, to whom he had communicated ^!

pnco.

the reserved price, signed a contract for the purchase at that
price, it was held that the auctioneer had not exceeded his
authority, and the contract was enforced (I) .

Where the auctioneer's authority has been revoked by Revocation
the vendor before the sale, such revocation is valid even rity.
as against parties purchasing in ignorance of it (m) ; but
of course the vendor may estop himself by conduct from
setting up such revocation.

It seems to be doubtful whether the Statute of Frauds does His right to
not prevent an auctioneer from suing a purchaser for whom for whom he
he personally signs as agent (n) ; but he can maintain the
action when the entry has been made by his clerk on behalf
of the defendant (o) .

(e) Bird v. Boulter, 1 N. & M. (i) See Blagden v. Bradbear, 12 V.

313; Bartlett y. Purnell, 4 A. & E. 466; Mason v. Armitage, 13 V. 25;

792 ; Henderson v. Barnewall, 1 Y. & Molina v. Freeman, 2 Ke. 25 ; Taplin

J. 387 ; and see as to this passage, v. Florence, 10 C. B. 741 ; post,

Dijas v. Stafford, 7 L. R. Ir. 590. p. 216.

(/) Emmerson v. Hcelis, 2 Taun. (K) Day v. Wells, 30 B. 220.

38 ; Kenworthy v. Schofield, 2 B. & C. (I) Ehe v. Barnard, 28 B. 230.

945 ; Kemeys v. Proctor, 1 J. & "W. (;«) Manser v. Back, 6 Ha. 443.

350. See and consider Beer v. Lon- (n) Farebrother v. Simmons, 5 B. &

don and Paris Hotel Co., 20 Eq. 412. Aid. 333 ; Wright v. Dannah, 2 Camp.

(ff) See Sug. 43. 203.

(h) Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taun. (o) Bird v. Boulter, IN. &M. 313;

38 ; White v. Proctor, 4 Taun. 209 ; see Graham v. Musson, 5 Bing. N. C.

Gardiner v. Tate, 10 Ir. R. C. L. 603, 608.
460.

D. VOL. I. P

210

THE SALE AND

Chap. V.
Sect. 3.

As to agents.
Agent.

How ap-
pointed.

Private in-
structions to.

General
authority,
what it
includes.

(3.) As to agents.

An agent, either for purchase (p) or sale (q) of an estate
may be appointed by word of mouth, even where the con-
tract is required to be in writing by the Statute of Frauds (r) ;
but a verbal appointment, of course, is generally inexpe-
dient : neither of the contracting parties can, it appears, act
as agent within the meaning of the Statute of Frauds for
the other (s) ; nor can the seller's agent act as such agent
for the buyer, unless expressly authorized by the latter (t) .

Where the agent has a written authority, parties dealing
with him upon the faith of it are unaffected by private
restrictions imposed upon him by his principal, but of which
they have no notice (u). Nor can a contract, when duly
entered into by an agent, be avoided by his neglect to
communicate it to his principal pursuant to the latter's
instructions (#) .

Wherever a general authority is given by a principal to
an agent, this implies and includes a right to do all subor-
dinate acts incident to and necessary for the execution of
that authority, — and if notice is not given to the person
with whom the agent deals that the principal has limited
the authority, the principal is bound (y). And where the
authority is special, the principal may be bound by estoppel
by conduct (z) . But an estate agent instructed as to price
has no implied authority to sign an open contract on
behalf of his principal (a).

(p) Sug. 145.

(?) Sug. 146.

(r) See Coles v. Trecothick, 9 V.
250 ; Dyas v. Cruise, 2 J. & L. 460 ;
Shaw v. Foster, L. R. 5 H. L. 321 ;
Cave v. Mackenzie, 46 L. J. Ch. 564.

(s) Wright v. Dannah, 2 Camp.
203 ; Farebrother v. Simmons, 5 B.
& Aid. 333 ; Sharman v. Brandt,
L. B. 6 Q. B. 720.

(t) Durrellv. Evans, 7 Jur. N. S. 585.

(u) Neeld v. Duke of Beaufort, 5
Jur. 1123 ; National Bolivian Co. v.
Wilson, 5 Ap. Ca. 176, 209; see
as to restrictions- on an auctioneer,
Manser v. Back, 6 Ha. 443.

(x) Wright v. Bigg, 15 B. 592.

(y] Per M. R,. in Collen v. Gardner,
21 B. 542.

(z) Story, Ag. s. 90 et seq.

(a) Hamer v. Sharp, 19 Eq. 108 ;
Prior v. Moore, 3 Times L. K. 624.

MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. 211

Also a person may so deal with third parties, as to warrant Chap. V.

them in the belief that another is his agent ; and he will, at
least in Equity, be bound by any unauthorized agreement of agent.
the agent, which he (the principal) has given them reason to
consider authorized (b).

An agent, employed to bid for an estate, and not limited For

VT^, chaser, how

as to price, can bind his principal to any amount ; if, being far he can
limited, he exceed the limit, and his want of authority be principal.
unknown to the other party, he himself is bound (c) , and
his principal is said to be free (d) ; upon the general ground
that he cannot bind his principal beyond the extent of his
authority (e) : but the production of written instructions
authorizing him to give a specified price, does not preclude
parol evidence of his having had a general discretionary
power (/).

As between the vendor and an alleged agent for purchase, Agency, if
but whose authority is denied, the agent has all the rights be established.
and liabilities of a principal : the fact of agency, if denied,
may, of course, if practicable, be established, by the agent
against the principal, by the principal against the agent (#),
or by the vendor or purchaser against the other prin-
cipal^).

There is not, as a general rule, any objection to a con- Contract by
tract for purchase entered into in the name of an agent, ing to be

But the authority under which he provided, in the case of an auction,

acts may give him this discretion ; that it exceed the amount of the last

Saunders v. Dence, 52 L. T. 644. adverse bidding.

(b) See Smith v. East India Co., 16 (e) Olding y. Smith, 16 Jur. 497.
Si. 76. (/) Hicks v. Hanklin, 4 Esp. 116.

(c) See Jones v. Downman, 4 Q. B. (g] Taylor v. Salmon, 4 M. & C.
235, n. 134 ; Dak v. Hamilton, 2 Ph. 266 ;

(d) Hicks T. Hankin, 4 Esp. 114 ; Lees v. Nuttatt, 2 M. & K. 819 ; and
East India Co. v. Hensky, 1 Esp. 112 ; see Austin v. Chambers, 6 C. & F. 1.
Daniel v. Adams, Amb. 498 ; Ex p. (h) See Marston v. Roe, 8 A. & E.
Bennett, 10 V. 400 ; Sug. 47. Qucere, 14 ; post, B. 4 ; and Field v. Boland,
however, whether the rule should 1 D. & "Wai. 37 ; Wilson v. Hart, 1
not be, that where the agent ex- Taun. 296; vide post, p. 1072 et seq.,
ceeds the limit, the principal shall as to when an action must be brought
be bound to the extent of such limit ; in the agent's name.

212

Chap. V.
Sect. 3.

principal
enforced.

By nominal
agent, when
enforced.

Agreements
by agent, how
to be signed.

Agent when

personally

liable.

THE SALE AND

upon the ground of his having professed to deal on his Own
account (i) ; but in the converse case of a purchaser professing
to contract as agent for another, Equity would refw.se specific
performance against the vendor, if it appeared that the name
of the assumed principal was used as an inducement to a
bargain, which would not otherwise have been entered
into (k) . Of course the real principal is liable, although he
may have assumed to contract as an agent ; — no other prin-
cipal being named (/) .

Where on a sale of goods by auction, a bidder in reply to
the auctioneer gave his own name as the purchaser, but did
not disclose that he was acting merely as agent, or sign any
written contract, and there was evidence that the vendor
knew he was only an agent, and the goods were delivered to
the principal, the Court of Exchequer were equally divided
in opinion, as to whether the agent was liable to the vendor
in an action for goods sold and delivered (m).

An agreement entered into by an attorney or agent, should,
in order to avoid any question as to personal liability, be
made and signed, by him, as attorney or agent, in the name
of the principal (n) ; in fact, if a person by deed covenant
for himself and his heirs for the acts of another, he is
personally liable, although described as agent (0) ; it has,
however, been held, that if a person enter into a contract
in writing, not under seal, describing himself as agent and
naming his principal, he is not personally liable, unless he
had no authority to make the contract, or, in making it,
exceeded his authority ( p) ; but slight expressions, indicative

(i) Sug. 48 : Nelthorpe v. Holgate,
I Coll. 203 ; Trent v. Hunt, 9 Ex. 14 ;
Saxon v. Blake, 29 B. 438.

(k} Phillips v. Duke of Bucks, 1
Vern. 227; pott, p. 1182; Fry, ss.
207, 208.

(I) Carr v. Jackson, 21 L. J. Ex.
137.

(m} Williamson v. Barton, 2 F. &
F. 544 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 34 1 .

(n) See Gray v. Gutteridge, 1 Man.
& R 614, 618 ; Humble v. Hunter,
12 Q. B. 310 ; Magee v. Atkinson, 2
M. & W. 440; et vide post, p. 1074 ;
Sug. 57.

(0) See Appleton v. Binks, 5 Ea.
148; Sug. 57.

(p) Doivnman v. Jones, 7 Q. B.
103.

MATTEK8 CONNECTED THEREWITH. 213

of an intention to bind the agent, have been held to take a Chap. V.

Sect. 3.

case out of the general rule, where the signature is in the •
name of the agent — although so described — and there is no
ratification by the principal (q) : even where a person, with-
out authority, signs an instrument in the name of and as
agent for another, he cannot be treated as a party to such
instrument, and be sued upon it, unless he be shown to have
been really the principal ; although he may be liable in an
action for damages for the misrepresentation, either on the
ground of implied warranty, or of deceit (r) : where the agent
of the vendor, at the purchaser's request, signed the agree-
ment in his (the agent's) own name, this was held not to be a
sufficient agreement in writing under the Statute of Frauds,
the vendor failing to prove that his agent signed as agent
for the purchaser (s) ; so, where the seller's agent, in the
presence of both the buyer and the seller, wrote out a sale
note, containing the names of the parties, and, at the buyer's
request, altered the date so as to give him longer credit, it was
held that the buyer was not bound (t).

After the contract is entered into, an agent for sale, if and Powers of
so long as his principal is undisclosed, may, within the limits
of his original authority, vary the terms of payment (u) : he
cannot, without special authority, receive the purchase-
money (x) ; if authorized to receive it, a direction from his

(q) Tanner v. Christian, 4 E. & B. 744; Lewis v. Nicholson, 16 Jur. 1041 ;

591; andcf. Spittle v. Lavender, 2 Br. Collen v. Wright, 8 E. & B. 647;

& B. 452, where the agreement was Richardsonv. Williamson, L. R. 6 Q.

ratified by the principal. See, too, B. 276 ; Cherry v. Colonial Bank of

field v. Draper, 1 Jur. N. S. 1125, a Austral., L. R. 3 P. C. 24, 31 ;

contract between brokers. The ques- Chapleo v. Brunswick Building Society,

tion is in all cases whether upon the 6 Q. B. D. 696 ; Firbank's Exors. v.

construction of the contract the Humphreys, 18 Q. B. D. 54.

description of the party signing as (s) Graham v. Musson, 5 Bing.

agent is mere description, or whether N. C. 603.

it imports an intention to preclude (t) Durrell v. Evans, 1 Jur. N. S.

personal liability ; Gadd v. Houghton, 585.

1 Ex. D. 357 ; Hough v. Manzanos, 4 (u) Sug. 46, 47 ; Blackburn v.

Ex. D. 104 ; Hutcheson v. Eaton, 13 Schoks, 2 Camp. 343.

Q. B. D. 861, 865 ; Pike v. Ongley, 18 (x) Mynn v. Joli/e, 1 Mo. & R.

Q. B. D. 708 ; and see Long v. Millar, 326 ; Pole v. Leask, 28 B. 562 ; and

4 C. P. D. 450. see further, post, p. 746, as to pay-

(r) Jenkins v. Hutchinson, 13 Q. B. ment to agents.

214 THE SALE AND

Chap. V. principal to pay it to a third party cannot, if given for
1— '- — = valuable consideration (?/), be revoked without the consent of

\*/ / 7

such third party. He is not bound to pay over to his
principal money received under a contract which has been
rescinded on the ground of fraud (z).

It was in a modern case decided in Scotland, that an agent
contracting for a principal in insolvent circumstances, and
failing to communicate the fact to the vendor, was personally
responsible for his purchase-money : but on an appeal to the
Lords the respondent's counsel deemed it useless to argue the
point (a).

Commission. If an agent for sale is to receive for commission a per-
centage on the sum obtained, he cannot claim it in respect
of any part of the purchase-money which remains unpaid (b) :
unless such nonpayment be occasioned by the wilful act or
default of the vendor (c) : if several agents are employed, and
one find, and another conclude, the bargain with a purchaser,
each may claim a commission ; but not the usual commission
of £2 per cent, (d) : and where a contract which the agent is
commissioned to procure goes off owing to the principal's
fault, the agent is entitled to commission (e) . Where the
purchaser having observed that a house was to be disposed of
obtained from the agent a card to view, and having no further
communication with the agent, who named a price which he
thought too high, subsequently negotiated with a friend of
the vendor and purchased at a lower price, the agent was
held entitled to the commission, on the ground that the sale
had been effected through his intervention (/).

(y) Metcalfev. Clotigh, 2 Man. & R. Kelly, 1 H. & J. 655 ; and Alder v.

178 ; Yates v. Hoppe, 9 C. B. 541 ; Boyle, 4 C. B. G35.
see in Equity, Rodick v. Gandell, 1 (d) Murray v. Currie, 7C. &P. 584.

D. M. & G-. 763 ; L' 'Estrange v. (<) Tribe v. Tat/lor, 1 C. P. D. 505 ;

I? Estrange, 13 B. 281 ; Riccard v. and see, as illustrating the same

Prichard, 1 K. & J. 277. principle, Fisher v. Drewett, 48 L. J.

(z) Ante, p. 206. Ex. 32 ; and Clack v. Wood, 9 Q. B.

(a) Dudgeon v. Thompson, 1 Macq. D. 276.
714. (/) Hansell v. Clements, L. R. 9

(4) Bull v. Price, 7 Bing. 237. C> P. 139 ; and see Curtis v. Nixon,

(c) S. C.} p. 241: and Cannon v. 24 L. T. 706; Bailey v. Chadwick, 29

MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. 215

In a modern case (#), where an agent was employed to find Chap. V.
a purchaser at a certain price, on which he was to have a

specified per-centage if a sale were effected, and the agent entitled to

found a purchaser, but the vendor refused to complete the remuneration

where sale not
sale, it was held that the agent could sue on a quantum effected.

meruit for the work and labour done ; and that in such a case
the law implies a promise on the part of the vendor to
remunerate the agent, even if the contract should not be
completed : but two of the judges carefully disclaimed any
intention of laying it down as a general rule, that when an
agent is employed to sell, and his authority is revoked, he
may resort to the common counts for remuneration for his
services : the understanding being that he is to find a pur-
chaser if he is to be entitled to his commission ; and if he
does not do so before his authority is revoked, he is to receive
nothing (7^) .

In order to entitle himself to commission the agent must Not entitled
strictly observe the letter of his authority. Thus, where A.,
the owner of certain pottery works, and B., the owner of a
patented invention for earthenware, entered into an arrange-
ment that if A. sold the works with the benefit of the patent
annexed, he should be entitled to a specified remuneration, it
was held that A. could not claim anything for effecting a
sale of the works without the patent («).

It may be here observed that commission received by the Corrupt ^
agent of a purchaser from the vendor is in the nature of a
bribe, and is a profit which the agent makes on account of
the purchaser (k) : and an agreement to pay such commis-
sion is bad on the ground of public policy, and cannot be

L. T. 429 ; Wilkinson v. Alston, 48 14 ; De Bernardy v. Harding, 8 Ex.

L. J. Q. B. 733. 822 ; and see Lumky v. Nicholson, 34

(g) Prickett v. Badger, 1 C. B. N. S. "W. R. 716.

296. (i) Felly v. Sidney, 5 Jur. N. S. 793.

(A) Per Williams and Crowder, JJ., (k] Phosphate Sewage Co. \.Hart-

ib. ; of. Planche v. Colburn, 8 Bing. mont, 5 Ch. D. 394, 457.

216

THE SALE AND

Chap. V.
Sect. 3.

Authority
may be re-
voked at any
time before
agreement
concluded ;

or unautho-
rized act
adopted :

only by
nominal
principal.

sued on, even though it be proved that the agent was not
unduly influenced thereby (I) .

The authority of an agent, either for sale or purchase,
may be revoked at any time before he has entered into a
binding agreement (m) ; and the revocation of his authority
will not entitle him to claim the specific amount of remu-
neration, which had been agreed to be paid to him on a sale
being effected : although it may entitle him at once to a
quantum meruit for services actually rendered (n). If he
act without authority, his alleged principal, even although
he have had no previous communication with him, or were
ignorant of his name at the date of the contract, may adopt
his acts (o) : and mere acquiescence with knowledge of the
fact, but without any overt act of adoption, may raise a
presumption of assent, and make the contract binding on
the alleged principal (p) ; nor is it necessary that the
principal should have been competent to contract at the
date of the agreement ; for instance, an administrator
may adopt a contract entered into before the grant of
the letters of administration (q) ; but this is because the
title of the administrator vests by relation. And it is clear
that ratification can only be by a principal in existence,
either actually or in contemplation of law, and therefore
not by a corporation not in existence at the date of the
agreement (r) : and so, a contract entered into by A., expressly

(I) Harrington v. Victoria Graving
Dock Co., 3 Q. B. D. 549.

(m) Farmer v. Robinson, 2 Camp.
339, n. ; Blagden v. Bradbear, 12 V.
466; Mason v. Armitage, 13V. 25;
Manser v. Back, 6 Ha. 443 ; Smart v.
Bandars, 3 C. B. 380 ; ante, p. 209.

(n) See Campanari v. Woodburn,
15 C. B. 400 ; Simpson v. Lamb, 4
W. K. 328. But see and consider
Prickett v. Badger, 1 C. B. N. S.
296 ; and vide ante, p. 215.

(o) Maclean v. Dunn, 4 Bing. 722 ;
Gosbell v. Archer, 2 A. & E. 507 ;
and see De Beil v. Thompson, 3 B.

469 ; London and Birmingham R. Co.
v. Winter, Cr. & Ph. 57 ; Wilson v.
Tumman, 6 Sc. N. R. 894 ; and
Blackwood v. Borrowcs, 4 D. & "War.
441, 472.

(p) Bigg v. Strong, 3 S. & G. 592 ;
4 Jur. N. S. 983.

(q) foster v. Bates, 12 M. &W. 226.
This case forms an exception to the
general rule that an administrator's
title does not relate back ; see 1 Wms.
Exors. 637 et seq.

(r) Ee Empress Engineering Co., 16
Ch. D. 125 ; and see Kelner v. Baxter,
L. R. 2 C. P. 174.

MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. 217

as agent for B., cannot be adopted by C. (s) ; nor when Chap. V.
a contract is signed by one who professes to sign as agent, -
but who has no principal existing at the time, so that the
contract would be inoperative unless binding on the person
who signed it, can a stranger by a subsequent ratification
relieve the professed agent from responsibility (/) .

The clerk of an agent for sale has, it appears, no implied Clerk of agent

IT • i ± T • i ±1 • • i/\ cannot bind

authority to bind the principal (it). principal.

A land steward has no general authority to enter into Landsteward.
contracts for leases for terms of years (v).

Where one of several purchasers entered into a secret Under-hand
arrangement with the vendors, that if a sale were effected a^ent™
at a stipulated price, he was to receive a bonus out of the
purchase-money, and he persuaded his co-purchasers that
the vendors would not consent to any reduction of the
price, it was, of course, held, that the transaction could not
stand (JT) . And an agent cannot turn himself into a prin-
cipal, and deal for himself with his real principal, unless he
makes him aware of his altered position by the fullest
disclosure (y).

A contract by a corporation must necessarily be made Contracts by
either by writing under its common seal, or by its officer or c
other agent authorized to make such contract ; and the agent
must make it in writing, if writing would be necessary
were it the contract of an individual.

The agent must be appointed under the corporate seal in Agents of
cases where the contract, if entered into by the corporation
without the intervention of an agent, would have to be Pointed-

(«) Wilson v. Tumman, 6 Man. & Sttmell v. Brown, 1 J. & W. 168.
G. 236 ; 6 So. N. R. 894. (v} Collen v. Gardner, 21 B. 540.

(f) Kelner v. Baxter, L. R. 2 C. P. (x) Beck v. Kantorowicz, 3 K. & J.

183. 230; and see Dunne v. English, 18

(u) Coles v. Trecothick, 9 V. 234 ; Eq. 524.

Blore v. Sutton, 3 Mer. 237 ; and see (y) Williamson v. Barbour, 9 Ch.

Bird v. Boulter, 4 B. & Ad. 446 ; D. 529.

218 THE SALE AND

Chap. V. under seal. The company may, by their conduct, adopt

'—1 and ratify the act of an unauthorized agent, but- the

party contracting with such agent may repudiate at any
time before ratification (z) . In dealing with the agent of a
public company it is not necessary to inquire whether the
formalities prescribed by its regulations have been complied
with in the appointment of the agent. The party con-
tracting is, of course, bound to inquire whether the con-
tract is within the objects for which the company was
formed, and he has notice of the terms of the memorandum
or other instrument creating it, and of the articles or deed
regulating the rights and liabilities of the members inter se.
But he is not necessarily affected by any irregularities
which may have taken place in the internal management
of the affairs of the company. For instance, he may
assume, when he finds that a cheque is signed by directors,
that they were duly appointed for the purpose of perform-
ing that function, and that they have properly performed
it (a). So, when he finds a person acting, at all events upon
the company's premises, as agent of a company which has
power to appoint an agent, he is probably entitled to assume
that such agent has been duly appointed (b).

Contracts The provision in the Public Health Act, 1875 (c), that

Health Act!,0 every contract made by an urban authority, whereof the

value or amount exceeds £50, shall be in writing and

sealed with the common seal, is imperative, and not merely

directory (d).

(z) Mayor of Kidderminster v. (d} Hunt v. Wimbledon L. 2?., 4

Hardn-ick, L. E. 9 Ex. 24. C. P. D. 48 ; Young v. Mayor of

(a) Mahony v. East Holyford Co., Leamington, 8 Ap. Ca. 517. As to
L. R. 7 H. L. 869, 894. the meaning of the section, see Eaton

(b) Smith v. Hull Glass Co., 11 v. Basker, 7 Q. B. D. 529, where it
C. B. 897. And see as to this prin- was held that to come within the
ciple in its general application, Royal Act the contract must be one with
British Bank v. Turquand, 6 E. & reference to which it was contem-
B. 327 ; Agar v. Athenaum, $c. plated, at the time it was entered
Society, 3 C. B. N. S. 725; Ex p. into> that the value or amount would
Eagle Co., 4 K. & J. 549. exceed £50.

(f) 38 & 39 Viet. c. 55, s. 174.

MATTEKS CONNECTED THEREWITH.

219

There can, of course, be no doubt that a company may Chap. V.
ratify under seal a previous contract not under seal, although

the other party may withdraw before ratification (del) ; and it

is settled that they may, by their own conduct, as, e.g., by A^JSj \

an act of part performance, bind themselves to a contract, under seal.

which an unauthorized agent may have entered into on

their behalf (e) ; but an agreement by the promoters of the

company, prior to its incorporation, is not binding on the

company (/) . A contract by the promoters for purchase,

founded on the withdrawal of a landowner's opposition to

the bill, has been enforced against the company ; and, as a

general rule, wherever the company have adopted, and had

the benefit of a contract which is not ultra vires, and which,

if entered into between ordinary individuals, would be

valid, the contract may be enforced against them (g) .

"We may here refer to the Companies Seals Act, 1864 (h), Companies
under which a public company, formed under the Act of 1864. "
1862, may have an official seal for use in foreign countries,
and may employ a local agent to affix the same to any deed,
contract, or other instrument to which the company is a
party in such foreign country.

With reference to trading

(dd] Mayor of Kidderminster v.
Hardwick, L. E,. 9 Ex. 13.

(e} Wilson v. West Hartlepool E.
Co., 2 D. J. & S. 475 ; Crook v. Corp. of
Seaford, 6 Ch. 551 ; but see remarks
of Cotton, L. J., Hunt v. Wimbledon
L. £., 4 C. P. D. 62 ; post, p. 1139.

(/) Kelner v. Baxter, L. R. 2
C. P. 174 ; Melhado v. Porto Allcgre,
$c. E. Co., L. R. 9 C. P. 503 ; Re Em-
press Engineering Co., 16 Ch. D. 125.

(g} Lowe v. L. $ N. W. E. Co., 18
Q. B. 632 ; and see generally as to
railway companies being bound by
their adoption of contracts entered
into in anticipation of their powers to
purchase, or of their Acts of incorpo-
ration, and as to the validity of con-
tracts for purchase founded on the

corporations, the result of the Contracts by

trading cor-
porations.

withdrawal of parliamentary opposi-
tion, Edwards v. Grand Junction E.

Co., 1 M. & C. 650; Stanley v.

Chester, ,#c. E. Co., 3 M. & C. 773;

Preston v. Liverpool, $c. E. Co., 5 H.

L. C. 605 ; Webb v. Direct London,

$c. JR. Co., 1 D. M. & G. 521;

Hawkes v. E. C. E. Co., 5 H. L. C.

331 ; Stuart v. L. $ N. W. E. Co., 1

D. M. & G. 721 ; Goodayv. Colchester

E. Co., 17 B. 132; Shrewsbury and
Birm. E. Co. v. L. $ JV. W. E. Co.,
6 H. L. C. 113 ; Lane, and Carl. E.
Co. v. L. $ N. W. E. Co., 2 K. & J.
293 ; Earl of Shrewsbury v. N. S. E.
Co., 1 Eq. 593; see Sug. 75; 1
Lindley, 398.

(h) 27 & 28 Viet. c. 19.

220

THE SALE AND

Chap. V. cases seems to be that whenever the contract is made for the
- — purposes for which they were incorporated, it may be enforced,
though not under seal (i).

Contracts of As regards corporations generally, the principle appears to
^e ^at ^e necessity for a seal is dispensed with in cases of
trivial importance, of great urgency, or regular occurrence (k) .

Section 4.

(4.) As to the deposit (I).

The deposit is not only a payment by anticipation of part
of the purchase-money, but also an earnest of the performance

As to the
deposit.

Deposit is a

part payment, of the contract (f») ; and the purchaser cannot elect to forfeit
it and avoid the agreement («).

Payment of. Even the deposit should not be paid to a mere agent for
sale, without express authority from the vendor. If the
authority be for the agent to receive it at a particular time,
or in a particular manner, of course it cannot be safely paid,
except to, or by the direction of, the vendor, at any other
time, or in any other manner (o) ; and the purchaser will not
be liable for loss arising from his having followed any such
special authority as to the mode of payment (p).

Vendor's

clS

If the vendor's solicitor receives the deposit he holds it as
agent for the vendor, and not as stakeholder for both par-

^^

his agent, and ties (a).

not as stake-

holder.

(i) Henderson v. Australian Mail,
$c. Co., 5 E. & B. 409 ; and see
£ ever ley v. Lincoln Gas Co., 6 A. &
E. 829 ; and South of Ireland Colliery
Co. v. Waddle, L. R. 4 C. P. 617, and
the cases there cited.

(k) Per Ld. Blackburn in Young v.
Mayor of Leamington, 8 Ap. Ca. at
p. 525. This principle does not, of
course, apply when the cases in
which a seal is necessary are de-
nned by statute: vide ante, p. 218,
and s. 37 of the Companies Act,

1867.

(I) And see ante, sect. 2.

(«) Howe v. Smith, 27 Ch. D. 89 ;
Collins v. Stimson, 11 Q. B. D. 143.

(«) Crutchley v, Jerningham, 2 Mer.
506 ; and see Palmer v. Temple, 9 A.
& E. 520.

(o) See Young v. Guy, 8 B. 149.

(p) Warwicke v. Noakes, Pea. 67 ;
Hawkins v. Eutt, ibid. 248 ; Eyles v.
Ellis, 4 Bing. 112 ; Sug. 49.

(q) Edgell v. Day, L. R. 1 C. P.
80.

MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. 221

The deposit cannot safely be paid by the purchaser, by Chap. V.
being set off in account with the auctioneer or agent, except

under the special circumstances of his being able to show the by settlement

existence of a debt of equal amount due from the vendor to ^^c°"^ •

the auctioneer or agent, and that the latter was authorized by

the vendor to retain the deposit on account of such debt (r) ;

so, if, instead of making a cash payment, the purchaser give nor by the

his acceptance, payment of the bill when due is no defence to bill.

an action by the vendor, if the bill never came into his pos-

session (s) . A. cheque may be taken, in lieu of cash, for the

deposit, even where the vendor is a mortgagee selling under

his power of sale (t) ; but it should be capable of being imme-

diately cashed, and should not include other moneys (u).

If a cheque be given for the deposit, an action on the Cheque for,

. , 11-1 111 when void.

cheque may be resisted upon any ground wnion would nave
enabled the purchaser to recover at Law the deposit if
actually paid (x) .

If a purchaser become entitled to a return of his deposit, Investment
he can, in the absence of special agreement, claim the specific binding on
sum paid, with interest ; and will not be prejudiced or ad-
vantaged by any fall or rise in any securities in which it
may have been invested (//) ; unless such investment were
made with his assent (s), (which will not be assumed from
his making no reply to notice of the investment («)), or (in
the case of an action being brought for specific performance),
under the authority of the Court, in which cases the investment

(r) Barker v. Greenwood, 2 Y. & C. (u) Bridges v. Garrett, supra.

414 ; Young v. White, 7 B. 506 ; (x) Mills v. Oddy, 6 C. & P. 728.

Hanley v. Cassan, 11 Jur. 1088; (y] Dot/ley v. Fowls, 3 Br. C. C.

Sweeting v. Pearcc, 9 C. B. N. S. 32; Poole v. Rudd, ib. 49 ; Burroughes

534 ; Bridges v. Garrett, L. R. 5 v. Browne, 9 Ha. 609 ; and see Powell

C. P. 451 ; and see post, p. 746 et v. Powell, 19 Eq. 422.
seq. (z) See St. Paul v. Birmingham,

(s) Sykes v. Giles, 5 M. & W. 645 ; $c. R. Co., 11 Ha. 305.
Williams v. Evans, L. R. 1 Q. B. (a] See Roberts v. Massey, 13 V.

352. 561 ; Ackland v. Gaisford, 2 Mad.

(t) Farrer v. Lacy-Hartland, 31 28.
Ch. D. 42.

or

222

Chap. V.
Sect. 4.

When no
enforceable
contract, the
deposit must
be returned ;

unless there
be a provision
for its for-
feiture.

THE SALE AND

will be at his risk and for his benefit (b) : and the same rules
apply to an investment of the purchase-money by the pur-
chaser, pending discussions as to title, &c. ; and also apply
conversely, for and against the vendor, in cases where, by the
purchase being completed, he becomes entitled to the pur-
chase-money (c) .

Where there is no contract, or no contract which can be
enforced, the purchaser is entitled to have his deposit re-
turned (d) : but where there is a valid contract, which the
purchaser refuses to perform, and which contains a clear
stipulation that, in the event of breach, the deposit is to be
forfeited, the vendor may retain it if paid, or may enforce
any security (e. g., an I 0 U) which he holds for it, and this
without reference to the amount of damage actually sus-
tained (e) ; and where there was no stipulation as to the
forfeiture of the deposit, and the purchaser having accepted
the title became bankrupt, and the trustee in bankruptcy
disclaimed, the vendor was allowed to retain the deposit (/).

Forfeiture of, Equity will, in general, relieve the purchaser against f or-
^ eiture of his deposit, if he be able and willing to give to the
vendor the full benefit of the contract (g) : its return, with
interest, may be directed even in a suit for specific perfor-
mance, where the bill is dismissed, if the vendor be plaintiff (h) ;
so, also, in an action by the purchaser for rescission of the con-
tract, on the ground of misrepresentation or the like (&).

(b) See Poole v. Sudd, 3 Br. C. C. 384.

60.

(c) See Burroughcs v. Browne, 9
Ha. 609.

(d} Casson v. Roberts, 31 B. 613;
Betts v. Burch, 4 H. & N. 506 ; but
see Thomas v. Brown, 1 Q. B. D.
714, 724, where, under the special
circumstances, the purchaser was
held to have precluded himself by
his conduct from recovering the
deposit.

(e) Hinton v. SparJces, L. R. 3 C.
P. 161 ; Soper v. Arnold, 35 Ch. D.

(/) Ex p. Barrett, 10 Ch. 512;
Collins v. Stimson, 11 Q. B. D. 142;
and see Howe v. Smith, 27 Ch. D. 89.

(g) Vernon v. Stephens, 2 P. "W.
66 ; Moss v. Matthews, 3 V. 279 ;
Sug. 55 ; Webb v. Kirly, 7 D. M. &
G. 376 ; Want v. Stallibrass, L. E.
8 Ex. 175.

(h) Butler v. Lord Portarlington,

1 D. & War. 65 ; Graves v. Wright,

2 ib. 79 ; post, p. 1255.

(t) Torrance v. Bolton, 8 Ch. 118.

MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. 223

But, according to the practice which has hitherto prevailed, Chap. V.
the return of the deposit will not be ordered in an action for

specific performance, where the purchaser is plaintiff and the
action is dismissed (k) ; nor where the vendor is plaintiff, if the
action is dismissed without any decision upon the question of
title, but for laches, or on some other collateral ground (/).
It is conceived, however, that since the Judicature Act, 1873,
the technical rule which prevented a Court of Equity from
directing the return of the deposit where the purchaser
failed in his suit for specific performance, viz., that the
granting of any relief was inconsistent with the dismissal
of the bill, no longer operates, and that the Court has
jurisdiction in any action, whether for the specific perfor-
mance or the rescission of the contract, to direct a return
of the deposit, where the purchaser would have been
entitled to recover it at Law (m) . If no title be shown
the purchaser has a lien on the estate for the amount of Lien for.
the deposit (w), and also for his costs of suit (0) ; so, also, if
the contract be rescinded for misrepresentation or the like (p).

If the purchaser die before obtaining a conveyance, in- Death of
testate and without an heir, it seems probable that the vendor
might retain both the estate and the deposit.

As a general rule, if the deposit be lost through the insol- Insolvency of
vency of the auctioneer, the loss falls on the vendor (q) ; but
fiduciary vendors, if they have used due diligence, will not
be personally liable to their cestuis que trust (r).

The Court has, on petition, ordered the return of a deposit Return of in
paid by a purchaser under a fiat in Bankruptcy, which was
subsequently superseded (s).

(k) JBennet College v. Carey, 3 Br. (o) Middleton v. Magnay, 2 H. &

C. C. 390; see Williams v. Edwards, M. 233; Hindley v. Emery, 11 Jur.

2 Si. 78 ; Gee v. Pearse, 2 De G. & N. S. 874 ; Turner v. Marriott, 3 Eq.

S. 325. 744 ; Fry, Ch. vi.

(1) Southcomb v. Bishop of Exeter, (p) Torrance v. Bolton, 8 Ch. 118.

6 Ha. 225, 228. (q) Ante, sect. 2.

(m) See 36 & 37 V. c. 66, s. 24. (r) Edmonds v. Peake, 7 B. 239.

(ri) Wythes v. Lee, 3 Dr. 396 ; see (*) Ex p. Fector, Buck, 428.
post, p. 506.

221

THE SALE AND

Chap. V.
Sect. 4.

Upon a purchase by a lunatic, the vendor cannot be re-
quired to refund the deposit, unless he contracted with notice

Lunatic pur- £ n ^ /j.\

chaser. of the lunacy (/).

Tenant for Where trustees, pursuant to the usual power, contracted

life not en-
titled to for- with the consent of the tenant for life, to sell, and a large

deposit was paid to the latter, and then the purchaser failed
to complete, it was held that the forfeited deposit did not
belong to the tenant for life, but must be treated as purchase-
money on an actual sale under the power (?/).

Section 5.

As to puffers
and reserved
biddings.

The rule at
Law as to
employment
of a puffer.

(5.) As to puffers and reserved biddings.

Prior to the 30 & 31 Yict. c. 48, it had become well
settled at Law that, in the absence of a stipulation expressly
reserving the vendor's right to bid, the employment of a
single puffer would of itself vitiate the sale, even though it
was not advertised as without reserve #.

Puffers.

Rule as to
Equity.

In Equity, however, it was the generally received doctrine
that unless the property were expressly or impliedly offered
for sale without reserve (#), the employment of a bidder to
prevent its going at an undervalue was allowable (z) ; but
the rule did not extend to authorize the employment of more
bidders than one, even although they were limited to the
same sum (a) ; nor even of a single bidder for the purpose of

(f) Beavan v. McDonnell, 9 Ex.
309. As to Frost v. Beavan, 17 Jur.
369, vide ante, p. 7, n. (A).

(u] Shreivsbury v. Shrewsbury, 18
Jur. 397.

(x) See remarks of Lord Cran-
worth, in Mortimer v. Bell, 1 Ch. 10,
who treats the rule as well esta-
blished ; Warlow v. Harrison, 6 Jur.
N. S. 66 ; Mainprice v. West fey, 11
ib. 975 ; Green v. Baverstock, 10 ib.
1047; Thornett v. Haines, 15 M. &
W. see pp. 371, 372; Wheeler v.
Collier, 1 M. & M. 123 ; Cromler v.

Austin, 3 Bing-. 368 ; Rex v. Marsh,
3 Y. & J. 331, where the puffer was
employed by the Crown. See now
GilUatt v. Gilliatt, 9 Eq. 60, and
ante, p. 126 et scq.

(y) Meadoics v. Tanner, 5 Mad.
S4; Robinson v. Wall, 2 Ph. 372;
Thornett v. Haines, 15 M. & W. 367.

(z) Woodu-ard v. Miller, 2 Coll.
279, where the earlier cases are cited ;
Flint v. Woodin, 9 Ha. 618.

(a) Wheeler v. Collier, 1 M. & M.
123; and see 15 M. & W. 372; and
Sue-. 10.

MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. 225

enhancing the price indefinitely (b) ; but, on a sale in lots, Chap. V.
several bidders might, it is conceived, have been employed -
for different parts of the property, provided that no lot were
protected by more than one bidder : nor was it material that
the person employed to bid and the purchaser were the only
bidders (c).

Equity had, in fact, favoured the employment of a person Purchasing
to protect the property ; for it had refused to enforce specific specific per-
performance against a vendor, in the several cases of a person * not

generally known as his agent having bid for the purchaser against.
and been mistaken for a puffer (d), and of the person actually
employed to bid for the vendor having neglected so to do (e) :
so, in a converse case, where, upon a sale of estates belonging
to several vendors, the person employed to protect one estate,
by mistake purchased another, the bill against him for specific
performance was dismissed (/).

The soundness of the general rule in Equity was however « Sale of Land
questioned by Lord Cranworth in the case of Mortimer v.
Bell (g) ; and now by the 30 & 31 Yict. c. 48, the rule which
must for the future obtain in Equity has been conformed to
that which was already well established at Law. In every
case the particulars or conditions of sale must state whether
the land is sold without reserve, or subject to a reserved price,
or whether the right to bid is reserved ; and if it is stated
that the sale is without reserve, or to that effect, it is made
unlawful for the seller to employ any person to bid at such
sale, or for the auctioneer to take knowingly a bidding from
any such person (/?). Where it is declared either in the
particulars or conditions that the sale is subject to a right for
the seller to bid, it is made lawful for the seller, or any one
person on his behalf, to bid at such auction, in such manner

(b) Smith v. Clarke, 12 V. 483. (/) Matins v. Freeman, 2 Ke. 25;

(c) OUfieU v. Hound, 5 V. 508. Swaisland v. Dearsley, 29 B. 430.

(d) Twining v. Morrice, 2 Br. C. (g) 1 Ch. 10.

C. 326. (A) As to the nature of the liability

(e) Mason v. Armitage, 13V. 25. of the auctioneer in such a case, see

Heatley v. Newton, 19 Ch. D. 327.

D. VOL. I. Q

226 THE SALE AND MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH.

Chap. V. as lie may think proper (i). Prior to this statute, the era-

' ployment of a puffer where the sale was " without reserve,"

was as invalid in Equity as it was at Law ; nor did it need
the aid of the legislature to enable a vendor, by whom a right
of bidding is reserved, to bid by himself or a single agent.
By the 1st section it is provided, that whenever a sale by
auction of land would be invalid at Law by reason of the
employment of a puffer, the same shall be deemed invalid in
Equity, as well as at Law ; but the statute has failed to meet
in express terms the precise point at issue in the practice at
Law and in Equity, viz., whether, where, the sale is not
expressly stated to be " without reserve," and a right to bid
is not expressly reserved by the vendor, or notified to the
purchaser, the employment of a single bidder, to prevent a
sale at an undervalue, is allowable. There can, however, be
no doubt, that in such a case, the rule which is now well
established at Law must for the future prevail in Equity.

(i} When the vendor does reserve tions ; Parfitt v. Jepson, 46 L. J. C. P.
such a right he must adhere strictly 529.
to the limits laid down in the condi-

( 227 )

CHAPTER VI. Chapter VI.

AS TO THE AGREEMENT.

1. As to the general necessity for a written agreement.

2. The preparation of formal agreements.

3. Wliat informal documents may constitute an agreement.

4. The signature.

5. The stamps.

6. As to illegal agreements.

(1.) UNDER the Statute of Frauds («), a written memorandum Section 1.

or note of agreement, signed by the party to be charged, or AS to the
his agent, is generally (b) necessary, as the only receivable necessity for

evidence (c) of any contract for the sale or purchase of lands, a

agreement.

tenements, or hereditaments, or any estate or interest in or written

concerning them; whether such estate or interest be sub- agreement
sisting, or be proposed to be created de novo : and the Act necessary
extends to sales by auction (<f), and in Bankruptcy (e) ; but tuteof
not, it is said, to sales by the Court ( /) ; nor to purchases ,

J What sales

under the order of the Court, if the owner of the estate make not within
no opposition to the confirmation of the report approving of
the purchase (g) : nor apparently to agreements by deed (h),

(a) 29 Car. II. c. 3, see sect. 4 ; C. B. 801 ; Barkworth v. Young, 4
Sug. 121. Under this section the Dr. 1.

agent need not be appointed in (d) See A.-O. v. Day, 1 V. sen.

writing. 218 ; and Blagden v. Bradbear, 12V.

(b) See an exception in cases of 472 ; Higginson v. Clowes, 15 V. 521.
partnership, Essex v. Essex, 20 B. (e) Ex p. Cutts, 3 Dea. 267.

442 ; but see contra, Caddick v. Skid- (/) See 1 V. sen. 218 ; Lordv. Lord;

more, 2 D. & J. 52. 1 Si. 503 ; but the purchaser is always

(c) For the Act does not avoid a required to sign.

parol contract, but merely, as a gene- (g] See 1 V. sen. 218 ; 12 V. 472.

ral rule, precludes its being given in (h) Cherry v. Heming, 4 Ex. 631,
evidence ; see Leroux v. Brown, 12 636.

Q2

228

THE AGREEMENT.

sealing and delivery being in such cases sufficient without
signature.

Parol exe- And although an actual demise by parol for any term not

n^entforllase, exceeding three years, at a rent not less than two-thirds of
^ the improved value, is valid under the 2nd section of the

statute (/), an executory agreement for such a demise is void
or for assign- unless in writing. So a parol agreement by a lessee for an
terms less assignment of the residue of his term (being less than three

years) is void ; and cannot, it would seem, operate as an

underlease A*.

Operation of
statute.

The statute " is a weapon of defence, not of offence, and
does not make any signed instrument a valid contract by
reason of the signature, if it is not such according to the good
faith and real intention of the parties " (/).

An instru-
ment void as
a lease may
be supported
as an agree-
ment.

A lease for a term exceeding three years must, under the
1st section, be in writing, and now, under the 8 & 9 Viet,
c. 106, s. 3, by deed ; but in Equity, an instrument containing
present words of demise, but void as a lease for want of seal-
ing and delivery, will be supported as an agreement (m). In
one case, a document, not under seal, and therefore void as a
lease, has been held at Law to be also void as an agree-
ment (ri) ; but the soundness of this decision has been ques-
tioned ; and in a later case, where by the same instrument,
not under seal, A. agreed to let and B. to take certain pre-
mises from the date of the agreement until Lady-day then
next, and thenceforward for three years, but as to the latter
term the consent of the landlord was to be obtained, and a
lease was to be executed, it was held that there was a lease

(i) See Crosby v. Wadsworth, 6 Ea.
602, 610 ; Lord Bolton v. Tomlin, 5
A. & E. 857, 864.

(A) Barrett v. Eolph, 14 M. & W.
348.

(I) Per Lord Selborne in Ilussey v.
Home-Payne, 4 Ap. Ca. 311, 323,
following Jervis v. Berrifl/jc, 8 Ch.

360.

(m) Parker v. Taswell, 2 D. & J.
559 ; Cowen v. Phillips, 33 B. 18.

(M) Stratton v. Pelt it, 16 C. B.
420 ; Drury v. Macnamara, 5 E. & B.
612 ; but see Tress v. Savage, 4 E. &
B. 36.

THE AGREEMENT. 229

for the former period, and an agreement for a lease as to the Chap. VI.
latter (0) ; and the variance between the legal and the equit- —
able rule has been greatly modified by recent decisions (p).
Where by an agreement, void as a lease, the defendant
undertook " to hold the land at the rent and subject to the
conditions to be contained" in the lease, he was held liable
for the rent, although he had never entered or taken posses-
sion (q) ; so, where a document, void as a lease, contained an
undertaking to grant a lease, it was held that it was good as
an agreement, and that an action would lie on the contract (r) .
And conversely de prase lit i words of agreement to let, though
void under the statute as an agreement, may create a good
demise for a term of less than three years (*).

It has been said in a recent case(/), that the old rule, that Effect of

i/i-i-i. j , n i . , Judicature

a tenant holding under an agreement tor a lease is merely a Act.
yearly tenant, has been abrogated by the Judicature Act,
1873, which enacts that in case of conflict between the rules
of Law and Equity with reference to the same matter, the
rules of Equity are to prevail, and that such a tenant is
therefore in all respects in the same position as if the lease
had been executed. But it may be doubted whether this
dictum does not go too far, since it practically amounts to a
repeal of the Statute of Frauds on this point.

The first section of the Statute of Frauds, which renders Whether
a writing necessary for the creation of " all leases, estates, is valid,
interests of freehold, or terms of years, or any uncertain
interest, of, in, or out of any lands," &c., has been held
not to extend to a licence ; e.g., a licence to A., in con-
sideration of a yearly payment, to stack coals on a piece of

(o) Rollason v. Leon, 7 H. & N. ( q) Adams v. Hagger, 4 Q. B. D.

73 ; and see comments on Strut ton v. 480.

Pcttit. (r} Bondv. Rosling, 1 B. & S. 371.

(p) See especially Tidey v. Mollett, (*) See Hand v. Ifall, 2 Ex. D.

16 C. B. N. S. 298 ; Stranks v. St. 355.

John, L. K. 2 C. P. 376 ; Martin v. (0 Walsh v. Lomdale, 21 Ch. D.

Smith, L. R. 9 Ex. 50. 9, 14 ; but see Coatsworth v. Johnson,

55 L. J. Q. B. 220.

230

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 1.

Semble, not.

Licence
revocable.

Any agree-
ment sub-
stantially
for a sale, is
within the
statute.

ground for seven years, with the sole use of the land so
employed (u) ; but although this decision has been often
followed (a?), its authority, so far as it may tend to show that
an irrevocable interest may be thus created, seems to be
destroyed by subsequent cases, which decide that an easement
cannot, at least as against the inheritance (y), be granted
without deed (z) : it is also conceived that a parol executory
agreement for such a licence would probably be invalid ;
the words, "in or concerning," in the 4th section, being,
apparently, more comprehensive than the words, " of, in, or
out of," in the 1st section.

A mere licence is revocable by the grantor at any time (a) ;
but reasonable notice of the revocation should be given (b).
"Where a memorandum was endorsed on a lease, that the
lessee should have the exclusive right of sporting over the
demised and adjoining properties, and there was evidence
that the enjoyment of this privilege was an essential part
of the consideration for taking the lease, the landlord was
restrained from interfering with the right, until he had
executed a proper legal grant (c) .

Any arrangement which is substantially, although not
professedly, a sale of an interest in land, is within the 4th
section, and requires a written contract : <?.#., an agreement by
a person possessed of a term for years, to give up possession
to another, and allow him to become tenant for the remainder

(w) Wood v. Lake, Say. 3. See
as to the effect of licences, Doe v.
Wood, 2 B. & Aid. 724.

(x) Sug. 123, 124 ; see cases cited
in Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 M. & W.
840.

(y) See Perry v. FitzTiowe, 8 Q. B.
778.

(z) See 1 Jarm. Conv. 289, and
cases there cited ; and, in particular,
Cocker v. Coicper, 1 C. M. & R. 418 ;
Bird v. Higginson, 4 N. & M. 505 ;
and see Wood v. Leadbitter, supra ;
Perry v. Fitzhowe, supra ; Adams v.

Andrews, 15 Q. B. 284; Euffey v.
Henderson, 21 L. J. Q.B.49; and see
the subject fully discussed in the
recent case of McManus v. Cooke, 35
Ch. D. 681.

(a) Wood v. Lcadbittcr, supra ; which
see also as to the distinction between
a mere licence and a grant with a
licence annexed.

(b) Cornish v. Stubbs, L. R 5 C. P.
334 ; Mellor v. WatMns, L. E. 9
Q. B. 400.

(c) Frogley v. Earl of Lovelace,
John. 333.

THE AGREEMENT.

231

of the term, in consideration of his paying in part for certain Chap. VI.

repairs (d) ; or an agreement by the tennor to quit possession

on a certain day, and pay all outgoings up to that time, in
consideration of a sum of money to be paid to him by a
party who has agreed with the landlord for a lease of the
premises on the termination of the subsisting term (e) ; or
an agreement by a termor, under similar circumstances, that
he will part with the land, and that the intended lessee
shall take it (e) ; or an agreement by a person who has no
interest in the property, to procure a sale and conveyance of
it to a person who wants to buy it (/).

So, a parol agreement by A. with an occupying tenant to
pay him £100, upon the tenant surrendering his lease, and
procuring the landlord to accept A. as tenant, is void (g) ;
nor can the tenant sue for the consideration, upon the con-
tract, although he have performed his part of it ; but he may
sue upon an account stated, if, after such performance, A.
have admitted that he is indebted to him in the amount of
the consideration (g). So, where there was a parol agree-
ment for the transfer of a tenancy, and the transferee
promised to pay the arrears of rent, it was held that the
transferor could not recover damages for breach of the
promise (h) .

But an agreement merely collateral to a proposed dealing Agreement
with land does not seem to be within the Act : e .g., an agree- lateral, e.g.,
ment by an intending mortgagor to pay to an intending {
mortgagee his costs of investigating the title, should such

(d) Buttemere v. Hayes, 5 M. & W. ance sufficient to take the case out
456. of the statute ; see Ex p. Broderickt

(e) Smith v. Tombs, 3 Jur. 72. 18 Q. B. D. 766.

(/) Horsey v. Graham, L. K. 5 (g) Cocking v. Ward, 1 C. B. 858 ;

C. P. 9. An agreement to charge Kelly v. Webster, 12 C. B. 283 ;

land falls within the section, Whit- Smart v. Harding, 15 C. B. 652. But

more v. Farley, 43 L. T. 192, 196 ; or see Angell v. Duke, L. R. 10 Q. B.

rent, Ex p. Hall, 10 Ch. D. 615, 174, and Ronayne v. Sherrard, I. R.

620 ; so does an agreement to de- 11 C. L. 146.

posit deeds relating to land, Ex p. (K) Hodgson v. Johnson, E. B. &

Coombe, 4 Mad. 249. Qucere, whether E. 685.
the actual deposit is part perform-

232-

THE AGEEEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 1.

Void agree-
ment may
as a licence
excuse tres-
pass.

Written
transfer of
parol agree-
ment.

title prove bad (i) : so, where the agreement, so far as it
relates to land, has been executed, it has been held that an
action will lie for the non-performance of a special promise
to be performed after execution, as, e. </., an undertaking to
repay part of the price on a certain event (A*). But the old
authorities,' to the effect that the statute does not apply to
executed contracts, though executed on one side only, must
now be taken to be overruled (7) .

An agreement void under the 4th section may, until coun-
termanded, operate as a licence, so as to excuse what would
otherwise be trespass (m).

And the transfer in writing of a parol, and therefore void,
agreement for purchase of an estate, will be a good con-
sideration as between transferor and transferee, if the latter
actually obtain a conveyance from the vendor (ri) : so, if an
agent for purchase enter into a parol agreement, and pay the
purchase-money, and procure a conveyance, he can sue his
principal for the amount (o) .

(i) JeaJces v. White, 6 Ex. 873. A
building contract is not, as such,
within the statute, Sanderson v.
Graves, L. E. 10 Ex. 234 ; Mann v.
Nunn, 43 L. J. C. P. 241 ; nor is an
agreement to furnish, Angellv. Duke,
L. E. 10 Q. B. 174 ; nor an agree-
ment to kill down game, Morgan v.
Griffith, L. E. 6 Ex. 70 ; Erskine v.
Adeane, 8 Ch. 756.

(&) Green v. Saddington, 7 E. & B.
503 ; Cocking v. Ward, 1 C. B. 858 ;
and see Griffiths. Young, 12 Ea. 513.
As to the doctrine of part perform-
ance, which is often inaccurately said
to take out of the operation of the
statute a case which would otherwise
be within it, see the notes to Lester
v. Foxcroft, 1 Wh. & T. L. C.
"When an overt act is done by one
party which is only referable to a
contract with another party, an
equity may be raised subsequent in
date to, although arising out of, the

contract, upon which, as distin-
guished from the contract itself, the
other party is charged. In such a
case the Court inquires what the
terms of the verbal contract were,
not for the purpose of charging that
party, but of ascertaining the nature
of the equity upon which he is to
be charged ; see the recent cases of
Maddison v. Alderson, 8 Ap. Ca. 467 ;
and Britain v. Rossiter, 11 Q. B. D.
123 ; see also Phillips v. Alderton,
24 W. E. 8, and post, pp. 1134 etseq.

(1) Sanderson v. Graves, L. E. 10
Ex. 234.

(m) Carrington v. Roots, 2 M. & "W.
248 ; see Crosby v. Wadsivorth, 6
Ea. 602 ; Winter v. Brockwell, 8
Ea. 308 ; and see Scott v. Wedlake,
8 Q. B. 778 ; and Euffey v. Hender-
son, 21 L. J. Q. B. 49.

(«) Seaman v. Price, Ey. & M. 195.

(o) Paivle v. Gunn, 4 Bing. N. C.
445.

THE AGREEMENT..

p

The words in the 4th section relating to " any estate or Chap. VI.

Sect 1

interest" in lands have been held to extend to shares in a —

mining company (p), unless conducted on the cost-book prin-

ciple (q) ; and to Westminster Improvement Bonds (r) ; but . th

not to shares in a railway company ; at least if the Act of 4th sect.

Incorporation makes them personal estate («) ; nor to shares

in a water company (/) ; so, too, they extend to a partnership

in land (u).

Questions frequently arise as to the necessity for a written Sale of
agreement for the sale of growing crops ; the law upon the
subject can hardly be considered as settled (x) ; but the fol-
lowing appears to be the general result of the authorities : —

The point to be determined in such cases is, whether the
interest contracted for is an interest in land within the.
meaning of the 4th section of the Statute of Frands ; — in
which case a written agreement is necessary ; — or whether
the contract is merely for the sale of chattels ; in which case,
however, unless the price be under £10, there must, under the
17th section, be a written agreement or memorandum, signed
by the party or by his agent, or part payment of the price,,
or part acceptance of the goods (?/) : but a bill of lading,
which is the symbol of the property, may be so dealt with
as to constitute an acceptance within the 17th section (z) ;
thus, where goods remained in the possession of the seller,
but the buyer, to whom an invoice had been sent, dealt with
them as if warehoused on his behalf, it was held that there

(p] Boyce v. Greene, Bat. 608 ; see (t) Bllgh v. Brent, 2 Y. & C. 268.

comments on this case in Lindley, (u) Caddick v. Skid-more, 2 D. & J.

674. 62 ; but see Lindley, 89.

(q) Watson v. Spratley, 10 Ex. (x) Sug. 124—126.

222 ; see, too, Powell v. Jessopp, 18 (y) Smith v. Surman, 9 B. & C.

C. B. 336; Walker v. Bartlett, ib. 569. As to what constitutes accept -

845 ; and Hayter v. Tucker, 4 K. ance within this section, see Ben-

& J. 243. jamin, bk. i. c. 4.

(r} Toppin v. Lomas, 16 C. B. 145. (z) Meredith v. Meigh, 2 E. & B.

(s) Bradley v. Holdsworth, 3 M. & 364 ; Currie v. Anderson, 2 E. & E.

W. 422 ; Duncuft v. Albrecht, 12 Si. 592.
199.

234

Chap. VI.
Sect. 1.

Cases within
the 4th sect.

Game.

Cases not
•within the
4th sect.

THE AGREEMENT.

«

was a constmctive acceptance which satisfied the statute (a) :
the mere agreement, however, does not, until the time for its
completion has arrived, transfer the property in chattels (b).

An agreement for sale of the exclusive right to the vesture
of land, or for sale of crops which would not go as emble-
ments to the executor (<?), as, c. g., mowing grass (tf), standing
underwood (e) , poles or timher, is within the 4th section ;
nor, in the case of grass, does it appear to be material
whether it is to be mowed or fed off by the purchaser;
that is, if, in the latter case, he is to have the exclusive
right to it (/) ; so, also, an agreement for the sale of growing
fruits (e. g., pears) (#), is within the 4th section (h).

A right to kill and take away game is a profit a prendre,
and within the statute (i).

But if the agreement be for sale of the crop after the seller
shall have reduced it to a chattel by severance from the free-
hold, as where standing timber is to be felled by the vendor,
the 4th section does not seem to apply (k) ; and the same dis-
tinction would, it is conceived, exist in agreements for the

(a) Castle v. Sworder, 6 H. & N.
828.

(b) Zany on v. Toogood, 13 M. &
W. 27; Sleddon v. Cruikshank, 16
M. & W. 71. See as to acceptance,
Saimders v. Topp, 4 Ex. 390, and
cases cited; Morton v. Tibbett, 15
Q. B. 428; Holmes v. Hoskins, 9
Ex. 753.

(c) See judgment in Evans v. Ro-
berts, 5 B. & C. 829 : and as to em-
blements, Graves v. Weld, 5 B. & Ad.
105 ; Sug. 125.

(d) Crosby v. Wadsworth, 6 Ea.
602 ; Carrington v. Roots, 2 M. & W.
248.

(e} Scorell v. Boxall, 1 T. & J. 396.
(/) See Jones v. Flint, 10 A. & E.
760.

((/} Rodwett v. Phillips, 9 M. & W.

601 ; sed qu. Whether so, if the crop
be mature at the time of sale?

(K) Growing crops were not within
the Bills of Sale Act, 1854 ; Brantom
v. Griffits, 2 C. P. D. 212; Ex p.
Payne, 11 Ch. D. 539. But when
severed they became personal chat-
tels; Ex p. Nat. Merc. Bank, 16 Ch.
D. 104. Now, by sect. 4 of the Act of
1878, growing crops, "when sepa-
rately assigned or charged," are per-
sonal chattels, and a bill of sale of
them requires registration. As to
what is a separate assignment, see
sect. 7.

(i] Webber v. Lee, 9 Q. B. D. 315.

(k) Smith v. Surman, 9 B. & C.
551 ; and see Lord Falmouth v.
Thomas, 1 C. & M. 105; and Mar-
shall v. Green, 1 C. P. D. 35.

THE AGKEEMENT. 235

sale of gravel (/), stone, or other minerals: nor does the 4th Chap. VI.
section seem to affect sales of crops which would go as emble- -

ments (m) ; such as hops (n), wheat, potatoes, turnips (0), &c. : Emblements.
nor does it appear material in such cases whether the crop at
the time of sale is mature or otherwise, or whether it is to be
removed by the buyer or seller, or to be paid for by the
quantity or by the acre (p) ; and even in the case of grass, if
the vendor retain possession of the. land, and the right of
turning on his own cattle, and the purchaser have no right
of severance, but only to feed it off along with the vendor,
the agreement is merely for agistment, and is not within
the 4th section (<?) ; nor does this section apply to an
agreement in respect of damage to the surface (r) : but in
none of these cases is it prudent to dispense with a written
contract.

And a parol agreement, for the sale of growing crops, Parol agree-
which would otherwise be void under the 4th section, may between

be good as between outgoing and incoming tenants (s) : but nants '

111 i . . but not as

a sale of the growing crops by the lessor to the incoming between lessor

tenant, seems to require a written contract under the 4th tenant?0
section (t).

And although an agreement be void under the 4th section, Vendor's
the seller (unless perhaps the parties be landlord and tenant) purchaser
can recover the value of the crop if it be taken or received by
the purchaser (u) ; but he cannot recover on the terms of the
agreement, but only on a quantum valebat (x).

(t) See Ooulton v. Ambler, 13 M. & 541.

W. 403. (q) Jones v. Flint, 10 A. & E. 7GO.

(m) Sug. 125; but eee Waddington (r) Griffiths v. Jenkins, 10 Jur.

v. Bristow, 2 B. & P. 452. N. S. 207.

(n) Evans v. Roberts, 5 B. & C. 829 ; (s) MayfieU v. Wadslcy, 3 B. & C.

see judgment ; and Sug. 126. 357 ; and see Sug. 125.

(0) Dunne v. Ferguson, Hay. 541. (t} Lord Falmouth v. Thomas, 1 C.

(p) Parker v. Staniland, 11 Ea. & M. 89.

362 ; Warwick v. Bruce, 2 M. & S. (u) Teall v. Auty, 4 Mo. 642 ;

205 ; Evans v. Roberts, 5 B. & C. 829; Knowles v. Michel, 13 Ea. 249.

Hallen v. Hunter, 1 C. M. & K. 266, (x) Lord Falmouth v. Thomas, 1 C.

275 ; Sainsbury v. Matthews, 4 M. & & M. 109.
W. 343 ; Dunne v. Ferguson, Hay.

236

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 1.

An agreement
to take fur-
nished
lodgings not
within the
4th sect.

Parol agree-
ment for sale
of tenant's
fixtures,
whether
sufficient.

An agreement to take furnished lodgings in a boarding-
house is not a contract for an interest in land within the 4th
section (y).

A sale of tenant's fixtures by the tenant to the landlord,
has been held not to be within the 4th section, although
they be sold while attached to the freehold (z) : the so-called
sale of the fixtures being merely a renunciation of the right
to remove them.

Agreement An agreement by a tenant to pay an increased sum bv

for increase, . . . .

or abatement, way of rent, in consideration of improvements to be made
by the landlord, has been held not to be within the Act ;
and therefore to be valid although by parol (a) : but a
different rule has been laid down as respects an agreement
for abatement of rent (b). In the one case the agreement is,
in effect, to pay the landlord, by instalments, for services
rendered ; in the other, the agreement is for a release of part
of the rent.

Void agree-
ment for
(inter alia]
the sale of
land, where
void in toto.

If an agreement relating to the sale of land be void under
the 4th section, it will also be void as respects any other
matters, which are either inseparably mixed up with, or are
dependent upon, the principal agreement (c) ; e. </., where a
tenant agreed to rent a furnished house, and the landlord
was to supply additional furniture after the tenant had
taken possession, it was held, that the want of a written
contract was a bar to an action for non-delivery of the
furniture (d) ; so, upon a parol agreement to let a house,

(y] Wright v. Stavart, 2 E. & E.
721 ; apparently because the occupa-
tion is not exclusive ; see Inman v.
Stamp, 1 Stark. 1 2 ; Edge v. Strvffbrd,
1 Tyr. 295 ; 1 C. & J. 391.

(z) Hallen v. Eunder, 1 C. M. & R.
266, 276 ; and cf. Lee v. Eisdon, 7
Taun. 188 ; and Lee v. Go-shell, 1
Q. B. D. 700 ; and see Amos & E.
328 et seq.

(a) Donellan v. Head, 3 B. & A.

899, 904 ; Hoby v. Roebuck, 7 Taun.
157 ; Mann v. Nunn, 43 L. J. C. P.
241.

(b) O'Connor v. Spaight, 1 Sch. &
L. 306.

(c) CooTce v. Tombs, 2 Anst. 420 ;
see May field v. Wadsley, 3 B. & C.
357, 361 ; and two next notes.

(d) Mechelen v. Wallace, 7 A. & E.
49 ; but cf. Mann v. Nunn, 43 L. J.
C. P. 241.

. THE AGREEMENT. 237

'and to make certain repairs, which the tenant was to pay Chap. VI.

Sect 1

for, it was held that the landlord could not sue him for the -
cost of such repairs (c) : but this rule does not apply where
the contracts, though in a sense connected with each other,
are in fact independent and separable (/).

A variation by parol of the terms of a written contract is, Variation of

4- 1r

in general, a new contract, and the statute may be available new contract.
as a defence (y) .

(2.) As to the preparation of formal agreements. Section 2.

Upon formal agreements for sale, few questions arise dis-
tinguishable from those which have been already considered of formal

. , . . . agreements.

with reference to the particulars and conditions. As to formal

agreements.

Upon a sale by auction, the agreement, of course, refers Agreement
and is generally writt
particulars and conditions.

to, and is generally written or printed upon a copy of, the auction, 7

&c.

It seems to be desirable for both parties when several lots
are bought by the same purchaser to have a separate con-
tract for each lot ; instead, as not unfrequently happens, of
all the lots being included in a single contract at a lump
sum.

Upon a sale by private contract, the agreement (which is "What to be
usually prepared by the vendor), as a general rule, comprises in agreement,
whatever stipulations and other matter would, had the sale private con-
been by auction, have been comprised within the particulars tract-
and conditions, except such matter as exclusively applies to
an auction. When it is probable that special stipulations,
as to title, &c., will be necessary, the agreement should be

(e) Vaughan v. Hancock, 3 C. B. see and distinguish Angell v. fluke,

766; and see Lord Falmouth v. L. B. 10 Q. B. 174 ; and cf . Ronayne

Thomas, 1 C. & M. 89. v. Sherrard, 11 I. B. C. L. 146.

(/) Green v. Saddington, 7 E. & B. (g) Sanderson v. Graves, L. B. 10

503 ; Cocking v. Ward, 1 C. B. 858 ; but Ex. 234.

238

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 2.

What
supplied by
Vendor and
Purchaser
Act, 1874,
and Conv.
Act, 1881.

prepared in blank before the estate is offered for sale. A
purchaser, on buying a reversion, ought to procure a stipula-
tion to be inserted in the contract, that the vendor shall pay
the succession duty and indemnify him therefrom (h) ; or,
shall at once compound for and pay it.

The rules prescribed by the Vendor and Purchaser Act,
1874 (&*), and the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (&), and which,
subject to any stipulation to the contrary in the contract,
now regulate the obligations and rights of vendor and pur-
chaser, apply equally whether the land (/) is sold by public
auction or by private treaty.

Matters to be In preparing agreements for the sale of land to promoters
in ao-reement of public undertakings, care should be taken to state whether

/• i j

public com- ^ne purchase-money is to be in lieu of those accommodation
panics, &c. works which the promoters are prima fade bound to make
and maintain for the owners of adjoining land ; and whether
the ordinary or statutory rule as to the expenses of the pur-
chaser is to operate (m) : the agreement for sale to a railway
or waterworks company should, if such be the intention,
expressly state that the mines and minerals are included in
the purchase (n).

When a lease or other document contains a clause giving
the lessee or any other person a right of pre-emption, the
same or like stipulations should be inserted for the protection
of the future vendor in respect to title, expenses, and other
matters, as would be inserted in an absolute contract for sale
and purchase. The precaution is one which is frequently
omitted in preparing leases which contain pre-emption clauses.

Pre-emption
clauses.

(h) See Cooper v. Treivby, 28 Beav.
194.

(i) 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 2.

(*) Sect. 3.

(I) The former enactment does not
seem to extend to a contract for the
sale of an incorporeal hereditament ;
the latter does, sect. 2 (2) .

(m) See Frend & Ware, 146.

(n) See 8 & 9 V. c. 20, s. 77, and
10 & 11 V. c. 17, s, 18. This pro-
position applies also to the company's
notice to treat ; Looscmore v. Tiverton,
$c. R. Co., 22 Ch. D. 25; 9 Ap. Ca.
480. As to what is included under
the term minerals, see ante, p. 130.

THE AGREEMENT. 239

(3.) As to what informal documents mat/ constitute an Chap. VI.

agreement.

As to what

Informal agreements give rise to questions of greater

difficulty. constitute an

agreement.

Informal

We may lay down as general, although not universal, rules, agreements.
1st, that any writing signed by the party to be charged, or a sufficient
his agent, and which, either expressly or by reference to ^{jj^tfJe
other writings, determines the parties to and subject-matter statute.
of a contract, and fixes, or provides the compulsory means of
fixing, all its terms, is a sufficient agreement within the
statute ; and, 2ndly, that no writing is a sufficient agreement
which fails in any of the above-mentioned particulars.

Thus letters are constantly held to constitute a binding Letters.
contract, and often where such a result is a surprise upon
the writers (o) ; and a letter addressed by either a vendor, or,
it would appear, a purchaser, to a third person, with direc-
tions incidental to the carrying out of the agreement — e. g.,
the delivery of title deeds, or preparation of the conveyance —
may suffice to bind the writer (p) : and a letter, which con-
tained an admission of the bargain, and of all its essential
terms, has been held a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the
statute, notwithstanding that the writer at the same time
repudiated his liability (q) : so, also, letters written with

(o) Kennedy v. Lee, 3 Mer. 441. 6 E. & B. 868 ; 8 ib. 664 ; 9H. L. 0.

" The same construction must be put 78 ; Rossiter v. Miller, 5 Ch. D. 658;

upon a letter that would be applied 3 Ap. Ca. 1124; May v. Thomson,

to the case of a more formal instru- 20 Ch. D. 716.
ment; the only difference being, that (p) Walford v. Bcazely, 3 Atk.

a letter, or correspondence, is gene- 503 ; Cooke v. Tombs, 2 Anst. 420,

rally more loose and inaccurate in re- 426 ; Owen v. Thomas, 3 M. & K.

spect of terms, and creates a greater 353 ; Rose v. Cunynghame, 11 V. 560;

difficulty in arriving at a precise con- Sug. 139; Goodwin v. Fielding, 4 D.

elusion." Per Lord Eldon, ibid. 451 ; M. & G. 90.

see also Ogilvie v. Foljambe, 3 Mer. (q) Bailey v. Sweeting, 9 C. B.

53 ; Thomas v. BlacJcman, 1 Coll. 301 ; N. S. 843 ; Gibson v. Holland, L. B.

and Greene v. Cramer, 2 Con. & L. 1 C. P. 1, and cases there cited ;

54,63; a.ndseeJFitzmauricev.Sayley, Fry, 243.

240

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 3.

Receipt for
purchase -
money.

reference to a pending dispute as to whether a parol agree-
ment has been duly performed, and embodying the terms of
that agreement (>•) : so, the vendor's receipt for the purchase-
money or deposit, or a similar receipt signed by the
auctioneer, or the entry of sale made by him in his books (s),
or a bond of reference to a surveyor to settle the price to be
paid by the purchaser, would, it appears, be sufficient (t) :
and in one case, where there was a parol agreement in con-
templation of marriage, and after the marriage an affidavit
in another matter was sworn and filed by the person sought
to be charged, it was held that there was a sufficient memo-
randum to satisfy the statute (u) : but where there was a
verbal contract by W. with A. for the sale of the Lion Inn,
for £950, and on the following day W.'s solicitor wrote to A.'s
solicitor : — " W. has been with us to-day, and stated that he
had arranged with your client A. for the sale to the latter of
the Lion Inn for £950. We, therefore, send herewith draft
contract for your perusal and approval " ; — it was held that
this letter was not a sufficient note or memorandum (x).

As to con-
tracts of
pre-emption.

Strictly con-
strued.

"Where a will gave to A. an option of purchase within a
limited period, a mere verbal declaration to the trustees that
he intended to take the property, the purchase-money re-
maining unpaid and the conveyance unexecuted, was, of
course, held insufficient (//). Such an option can, doubtless,
be enforced (s), but the conditions imposed on its exercise
are always strictly construed ; and all precedent conditions
must be fulfilled by the purchaser before any contract

(r] Fyson v. Kitton, 3 C. L. R.
705 ; and see Studds v. Watson, 28
Ch. D. 305.

(*) Coles v. Trccothick, 9 V. 234 ;
Blagden v. Bradbear, 12 V. 466;
Gosbell v. Archer, 2 A. & E. 500 ;
Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taun. 38, 48 ;
Sug. 134, 139.

(t) Per Lord Rosslyn, Cooth v.
Jackson, 6V. 17.

(u) Barkworth v. Young, 4 Dr. 1 ;
but see the form of the affidavit, and
qucere. As to an answer in Chancery
being a sufficient memorandum, see
Ridgway v. Wharton, 3 D. M. & Gr.
677, and vide post, p. 249.

(x) Smith v. Webster, 3 Ch. -D. 49.

(y) Dawson v. Dawson, 8 Si. 346.

(z) Lord Radnor v. Shafto, 11 V.
448, 454 ; Cookson v. Cookson, 8 Si.
529.

THE AGREEMENT. 241

binding the vendor can arise (a) . Thus where the donee of Chap. VI.

... Sect. 3.

a right of pre-emption on payment of the pnce within a -

limited time, duly signified his intention of purchasing and

applied for an abstract, but the prescribed period expired

without the purchase-money being paid or any further step

taken, the right of pre-emption was lost (b) . Where a lease

contained a covenant by the lessor, at the option of the lessee,

his executors, administrators, and assigns, to sell the fee simple

at a fixed price, and the lessee died intestate without having

exercised the option, it was held that the option to purchase

was attached to the lease and thus formed part of the lessee's

personal property and passed to his administrator (c). But

where there was merely a contract for a lease with a right

of pre-emption, it was held that the right to purchase was

independent of the right to a lease, and was not avoided by

the forfeiture of the latter (d) . "Whether an option of pur- Right of op-

•4"1OH f^ o4- oil

chase, " at all times thereafter," when created by agreement, times there-

•C 4- J J

can be exercised after the death of the owner of the property, 8
was in one case doubted (e) ; but unless its exercise be re-
strained by the context to a period allowed by the rule
against perpetuities, it is now settled that the power is bad,
as transgressing the rule (/). Where there was an agree-
ment to let a house for three years, and at the tenant's
request to grant a lease from the expiration of the tenancy,
the tenant, who had continued in occupation, was held entitled
four years after the expiration of the three years' tenancy to

(a) Weston v. Collins, 11 Jur. N. S. (e) Stacker v. Dean, 16 B. 161.

190. (/) L. # S. W. R. Co. v. Gomm,

(b} Brooke \. Garrod, 2 D. & J. 62 ; 20 Ch. D. 562 ; overruling Birming-

Alderson v. White, 2 D. & J. 97. ham Canal Co. v. Cartwright, 11 Ch.

See Crawford v. Toogood, 13 Ch. D. D. 421 ; and see Trcvclyan v. Trc-

153. velyrn, 53 L. T. 853. The rule appa-

(c) Re Adams and Kensington Vestry, rently does not apply to the case of
27 Ch. D. 394. renewable leaseholds, on the ground

(d) Green v. Low, 22 B. 625 ; but that the covenant in this case runs
see the terms of the contract. See with the land ; L. $ 8. W. R. Co.
as to what is a sufficient exercise of v. Gomm, supra, at p. 579 ; but it
the option, Powell v. Lovegrove, 8 D. does apply to a condition for re-
M. & G-. 357 ; Austin v. Tawney, 2 entry on breach of a restrictive cove-
Ch. 143. As to the benefit of the nant in a conveyance in fee ; Dunn
option being lost by delay, see Mills v. Flood, 25 Ch. D. 629.

v. Hatjwood, 6 Ch. D. 196.

D. VOL. I. R

242, THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI. have a lease granted (g) ; and where there was a demise for

__ ! '. twenty-one years, with a covenant that the lessor, his heirs

and assigns, would, from time to time, at any time before
the expiration of the term, and also before the expiration of
the term to be granted by every future or renewed lease,
whenever required by the lessees or the persons interested,
and upon payment of a fine, grant a renewal, it was held that
it was not necessary for the lessees to pay the fine or execute
a new lease before the expiration of the term, but that notice
of an intention to renew must be given before such expiration,
and that an informal notice was sufficient (h) ; so where two
partners were possessed of freeholds, with an option for the
survivor to purchase the whole, if either should die during
• the partnership term, and the partnership was prolonged by
parol arrangement, it was held that the right of pre-emption
continued subsisting (?) . Where an option of purchasing is
given at what the trustees shall consider to be a fair and
reasonable price, their decision, in the absence of fraud, is
conclusive (k) .

Notice by or Notice given by a railway or other public company (/) of

companies their intention to exercise a power of compulsorily taking

&c- land (m)9 constitutes a contract binding on the company to

the extent of fixing what land is to be taken (n) ; and cannot

(^) Moss v. Barton, 1 Eq. 474 ; (m) As to the extent of such

Auckland v. Papillon, ib. 477. powers, with reference to 8 & 9 Viet.

(h) Nicholson v. Smith, 22 Ch. D. c. 20, s. 16, see Gather v. M. R. Co.,

640. 2 Ph. 469; Beardmer v. L. § N.

(i) Essex v. Essex, 20 B. 442 ; but W. R. Go., 1 M. & G. 112 ; Sadd v.

see Caddick v. Skidmore, 2 D. & J. Maldon R. Co., 6 Ex. 143. As to

52. how far tunnelling under, or throw -

(k) Edmonds v. Millett, 20 B. 54. ing an arch over, property is a

(£) The case seems to be different " taking," see Sparrow v. 0. W. §
with Commissioners under a Public W. R. Co., 2 D. M. & G-. 108 ; Pin-
Act, i.e., where the Commissioners chin v. Blackball R. Co., 1 K. & J.
are merely the mouthpiece of the 46, 47, 66 ; 5 D. M. & G-. 851 ; Met.
Crown; R. v. Gomrs. of Woods and Dist. R. Co. v. Cosh, 13 Ch. D. 607;
Forests, 15 Q. B. 761 ; Steele v. Cor- Tiverton R. Co. v. Loosemore, 9 Ap.
poration of Liverpool, 7 B. & S. 261, Ca. 480.

265. (n) Adams v. Blackwall JR. Go., 2

M. & G. 118.

THE AGREEMENT. 243

be withdrawn by the company without the consent of the Chap. VI.

landowner (6) ; and the price, if not settled by agreement,

must be determined in the manner pointed out by the Act

of Parliament (p) : but the mere service of the notice does notaimpliciter

a contract,
not constitute a contract by the landowner for the sale of

his land ; nor is there, strictly speaking, any contract be-
tween the parties until they have come to some definite
arrangement as to the terms, or until the value of the land
to be taken has been ascertained by arbitration, or a jury (q).
Thus, where the landowner, after service of the notice, stated
the price which he was willing to take, but died before his
offer was accepted, it was held that, although the purchase
was afterwards completed at that price, there was no contract
binding on the heir (r). Where, however, the price is ascer-
tained, either by arbitration (s) or by the valuation of two
surveyors (£), or by agreement, or the verdict of a jury (?,<),
the contract is complete, and may be specifically enforced
by or against the company. A notice to treat, given to and
acquiesced in by tenants for life having a joint power of
absolute appointment over the settled estate, does not amount

(o) Tawney v. Lynn JR. Co., 16 L. R. 121 ; Walker v. E. C. 11. Co., 6

J. Ch. 282 ; and see R. v. Bir- Ha. 594 ; Stamps v. Birmingham $

tninaham $ Oxford R. Co., 15 Q. B. S. V. R. Co., 2 Ph. 673 ; Burkinshaw

634 ; affd. 647 ; and see 13 & 14 v. Birmingham, $c. R. Co., 5 Ex.

V. c. 83, s. 20, recognizing theprin- 475 ; ante, p. 61 ; post, Ch. X. s. 5 ;

ciple as respects abandoned lines ; Adams v. Blackivall R. Co., 2 M.

Barker v. N. S. R. Co., 5 R. C. 401 ; & G. 118 ; Haynes v. Haijnes, 1 Dr.

L. $ Y. R. Co. v. Evans, 15 B. 331 ; & S. 426; and see Grierson v. Che-

Blount v. Great S. § W. R. Co., 2 shire Lines Committee, 19 Eq. 83.
Ir. Ch. R. 40 ; Lord Salisbury v. (q) Haynes v. Haynes, 1 Dr. & S.

G. N. R. Co., 17 Q. B. 840; Edin- 426, disapproving Walker v. E. C.

burgh R. Co. v. Levcn, 1 Macq. 284 ; R. Co., 6 Ha. 594 ; and see, too,

and see now the Abandonment of Adams v. Blackivall JR. Co., 2 M. &

Railways Act, 1869 (32 & 33 V. G. 118; Regent's Canal Co. v. Ware,

c. 114) ; and Re Potteries R. Co., 25 23 B. 575.
Ch. D. 251 ; Re Ruthin R. Act, 32 (r) Re Arnold, 32 B. 591.

Ch. D. 438. («) Harding v. Metr. R. Co., 7 Ch.

(p) See JR. v. Hungerford Market 154.

Co., 4 B. & Ad. 327; Salmons. Ran- (t] Watts v. Watts, 17 Eq. 217.
dall, 3 M. & C. 439 ; Stone v. Com- (u) See the judgment in Haynes v.

mei-cialR. Co., 4 M. & C. 124 ; Eccl. Haynes, 1 Dr. & S. 426 ; and vide

Comrs. v. Comrs. of Sewers 14 Ch. D. post, 297.
305 ; Catling v. G. N. R. Co., 18 W.

244

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI. to such a defective exercise of the power as the Court can aid

— as against the remainderman (#), unless the price has been

agreed upon (y] : nor, if given to a person having a defeasible
interest in the estate, and which is defeated by other parties
in their conveyance to the company, does it give such person
any right to specific performance against the company (2) .
Where notice is served on a lessee, who is restrained from
alienating without his lessor's licence, the necessity of
obtaining such licence is taken away by the operation of
the Act (a).

Notice by Notice by a company under the Lands Clauses Consolida-

panies to take tion Act, of their intention to take part only of any house, or
house! a other building or manufactory, does not amount to an agree-
ment to take the whole, although under the 92nd section of
the Act the owners may, by counter-notice, require the com-
pany to take the whole or nothing (b) : and thereupon a Court
of Equity will restrain the company from taking less than
the whole (c) : the effect of the landowner's counter-notice
being to arrest the operation of the company's notice, con-
ditionally on the landowner's being able and willing to sell
the whole : but if he declines, or is unable so to do, the
company's notice revives (d). Although the landowner can

Effect of
counter -
notice by
landowner.

(x] Morgan v. Mil-man, 3 D. M. &
G. 24.

(y] Re Dyke's Estate, 7 Eq. 337.

(z) Hill v. G. N. JR. Co., 5 D. M.
& Gr. 66 ; in such a case the person
injured may possibly have a right to
a mandamus to compel the company
to proceed, or to an injunction to
restrain them from taking possession ;
see Doo v. L. $ Croydon R. Co., 1 R.
C. 257; Frend&Ware, 43; Browne
& T. 148.

(a) See sect. 119: Slippery. Totten-
ham JR. Co., 4Eq. 112.

(b) R. v. L. $ S. W. R. Co., 12 Q.
B. 775. Although the giving of a
counter-notice is always a wise pre-
caution, it is apparently not necessary
for the protection of the owner;
Richards v. Swansea Improvement Co.,

9 Ch. D. 425, 433, per James, L. J.
And see this case as to the interpre-
tation of the words ' ' a part only of
any house or other building or manu-
factory " in sect. 92.

(c) Sparroio v. 0. W. $ W. R. Co.,
2 D. M. & G-. 94 : as to the effect of
tunnels and arches, see S. C., 108 ;
Pinchin v. Blackball R. Co., 1 K. & J.
46, 47, 66 ; 5 D. M. & G. 851 ;
Furniss v. M. R. Co., 6 Eq. 473.
Easements are not generally included
under the 85th sect. , and the company
cannot take an easement alone ; Re
Metr. Dist. R. Co. $ Cosh, 13 Ch. D.
607 ; but the defect may be remedied
by a special Act ; Hill v. M. R. Co.,
21 Ch. D. 143.

(d) See 1 K. & J. 68. If the com-
pany desires a part only, and the

THE AGREEMENT.

245

compel the company, when they require only a part, to take
the whole of the remaining property comprised in the word
" house," he cannot, it seems, compel them to take merely a
portion of it (c) . The right of giving such counter-notice is
not lost, if the company, having served a notice to take part
of the property, refuse to pay the price demanded for it ; and
it may he given at any time before the original notice matures
into a contract (/) : where the company give notice to take a
part, and are served by the landowner with a counter-notice
to take the whole, the amount to be secured by deposit and
bond under the 85th section, before possession can be taken,
is the value of the entire property (g). The acceptance by the
company of a counter-notice which is bad, will not compel the
company to take that which they are not otherwise bound to
take A.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 3.

The word "house" in the 92nd section is construed As to the
liberally ; and includes everything which will ordinarily pass the word
under that word in a conveyance (i). Thus, where the Un^^i1o

company required only a small portion of the garden, they Lands Clauses
J J i Consolidation

were compelled to take the whole property (/r) ; even where Act.

the houses were unfinished, and in a ruinous state (I) ; so, also,
where they required greenhouses and ornamental pleasure
ground connected with the residence, which was not touched,
the rest of the land being used as a nursery garden (m) ; so,

owner will not sell that part alone,
sect. 92 does not compel the company to
take the whole, but leaves them free
to abandon their oi-iginal notice ; R.
v. L. § S. W. R. Co., 12 Q. B. 775.

(e) Pulling v. L. C. $ D. R. Co.,
3D. J. &S. 661.

(/) Gardner v. Charing Cross R.
Co., 2 J. & H. 248 ; Schwingc v. L.
$ BlacJcwallR. Co., 3 S. & G. 30.

(g} Underwood v. Bedford R. Co.,
7 Jur. N. S. 941 ; Dadson v. East
Kent R. Co., ib. 9il ; Giles v. L. C.
§ D. R. Co., 1 Dr. & S. 406 ; Gardner
v. Charing Cross R. Co., supra. And
the value of trade fixtures is included ;

Gibson v. Hammersmith R. Co., 11 W.
E. 299.

(A) Treadwcll v. L. $ S. W. R. Co.,
33 W. R. 272.

(i) St. Thomas' Hospital v. Charing
Cross R. Co., 1 J. & H. 400 ; and see
particularly, Richards \. Swansea, §c.
Co., 9 Ch. D. 425.

(k) Cole v. West London B. Co., 27
B. 242 ; Grosvenor v. Hampstcad R.
Co., 1 D. & J. 446 ; King v. Wycombe
JR. Co., 28 B. 104.

(/) Alexander v. Crystal Palace R.
Co., 30 B. 556.

(m) Sailer v. Mctr. Dist. R. Co., 9
Eq. 432.

246 THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI. also, where the garden was one of a series, and the one

— furthest removed from the house to which they were all

attached, each of the series being separated from the other by
a brick wall, but connected with the other and with the house
by a door and gravel- walk (k) ; so, too, where the company
gave notice to take a piece of a paddock, used with a house
and garden, but separated therefrom by a wall with a gate in
it as a means of access (I). The fact of two houses, which
are used as one for business purposes by means of internal
communication, being held under different leases, does not
prevent their being one house within the meaning of the
section (m) . But a cottage built upon land used as a market-
garden and occupied merely for the more beneficial occupa-
tion of the land as a market-garden, does not with the land
constitute a " house" within the meaning of the section (n) ; so,
also, where the landowner was entitled under the same lease
to a messuage and garden on one side of a public highway,
and to a detached piece of pleasure ground on the opposite
side, on which he was prohibited from building, and which
alone the company was desirous of purchasing, it was held
that the detached portion formed no part of the " house "
within the meaning of the Act (o) ; so, also, where the por-
tion, separated by the highway, was used for the purpose
of pasturing horses and cows for the owner's establish-
ment (p] ; so, in the case of two contiguous dwelling-houses,
the mere continuity of the open space immediately under
the roof and above the party- wall which separated the attics
up to their ceiling, and the inter- communication of the drains
and gutters, was held not to constitute the two dwellings a
single " house " (q) ; but in one case, a vacant piece of land,
not fenced off from the street, and separated from the house
by a public foot- way, but forming the only means of approach

(Js) Hewson v. L. $ S. W. JR. Co., (n) FalJcner v. Somerset and Dorset

8 W. R. 467. It. Co., 16 Eq. 458.

(I) Barnes v. Southsea It. Co., 27 (o) Ferguson v. L. B. $ S. C. It. Co.,

Ch. D. 536. 3 D. J. & S. 653.

(m) Siegenbergv. Metr. Dist. It. Co., (p) Steele v. M. It. Co., 1 Ch. 275.

32 W. R. 333. (g) Harvle v. 8. D. X. Co., 23

W. R. 202.

THE AGREEMENT. 247

for vehicles, was held to be part of the " house " within the Chap. VI.

Sect. 3.

meaning of the Act (r) . The result of the cases seems to — •-

establish that what is necessary for the convenient use and
occupation of the house, but not what is subsidiary to the
personal use and enjoyment of the occupier, falls within the
statutory meaning of the word. It is, however, obvious
that cases may occur in which garden or pleasure ground
separated from a house, even by a public high-road, may be
almost as material to the due enjoyment of the house as if
the separating road had no existence ; e.g., where the road
is in a cutting, and there is a bridge thrown across it.

Where the company required to take part of a building What is a
which had been used as a manufactory, though such user tory" within
had been discontinued for several years, they were compelled, e ct*
at the instance of the landowner, not only to take the whole,
but also all the machinery and trade fixtures therein (s) .
So, where a railway company gave notice of their intention
to take a mill-goit and weir, which occasionally supplied
the motive power for the machinery, they were compelled
to take the whole manufactory, although they proposed to
carry the railway over bridges which would not interfere
with the water supply (t).

Under the above Act, a company may give a second Statutory

J ° . power not

notice to the same landowner in respect of land within the exhausted by
limits to which their compulsory powers extend, if, from
unforeseen circumstances, the land taken under the first
notice prove insufficient for the authorized purposes of the

(>•) Marson Y. L. C. $ D. R. Co., L. $ N. W. E. Co., 3 De G. & S. 414.

6 Eq. 101; and see Grierson v. (t) Furniss \.M. R. Co., 6Eq. 473;

Cheshire Lines Committee, 19 Eq. andcf. Sparrow v. 0. W. $ W. E. Co.,

83 ; as to what is part of a "house " 2 D. M. & G. 94 ; Spaceman v. G. W.

within the 92nd section, see Anon., R. Co., 1 Jur. N. S. 790 ; Richards v.

cited 3 De G. & S. 420. Swansea, $c. Co., 9 Ch. D. 425 ; but

(«) Gibson v. Hammersmith R. Co., see Rcddin v. Metr. Board of Works,

11 W. K. 299 ; and as to what is a 4 D. F. & J. 532 ; Bening ton v. Metr.

" manufactory," see Barker v. N. S. Board of Works, 54 L. T. 837.
R. Co., 2 De G. & S. 55 ; Dakin v.

248 THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI. undertaking (it) ; but they may not make use of their com-
- — — pulsory powers to attain a subsidiary object, not authorized
for the purposes of their undertaking (a?) ; and if they attempt
to do so they will be restrained by injunction (?/). Where a
landowner is entitled by notice to require the company to
purchase his interest in lands affected by the undertaking,
the service of such notice constitutes the relation of vendor
and purchaser (z) ; but it seems now to be settled that a mere
notice by a company, not followed up by entry or other pro-
ceedings, within the period limited for compulsory purchase,
does not constitute such a contract as Equity will specifically
enforce (a) . In such a case the proper course for the land-
owner is by mandamus to compel the company to proceed
with the other steps directed by their Act.

Notice must j^ ^ne notice given by the company to the landowner

be acted on J

withinreason- cannot operate for an indefinite time ; it must be acted on
within a reasonable period, or it will be deemed to have
been abandoned. Thus, where a railway company, within
the time limited for the exercise of their compulsory powers,
served notice on the landowner, but no agreement was
entered into, and the time fixed by the Act for the com-
pletion of the line expired before any further steps were
taken, the company was restrained from proceeding under
the notice (£). And Lord Cairns seemed inclined to lay it
down as a general rule, that where the time limited for the

(u] Stamps v. B. $ S. V. E. Co., S. 330 ; A.-G. v. G. E. It. Co., 6 Ch.

2 Ph. 673 ; and see Simpson v. Lane. 572.

# C. It. Co., 15 Si. 580. (y] Ystalyfera Iron Co. v. Neath,

(x} Eversfieldv. Mid- Sussex E. Co., $c. JR. Co., 17 Eq. 142.

3 D. & J. 286 ; Dodd v. Salisbury E. (z) Doo v. London and Croydon
Co., ib. 158; Galloway v. Mayor, $c. Canal Co., 1 R. C. 257; It. v. Bir-
of London, 4 N. R. 77 ; Stockton, $c. mwghamE. Co., 15 Q. B. 634, 647, n.
E. Co. v. Brown, 9 H. L. C. 246 ; (a] See ante, p. 243, note (q), and
Errington v. Metr. Dist. E. Co., 19 Eegentfs Canal Co. v. Ware, 23 B.
Ch. D. 559, 566 ; and compare 575 ; Leominster C. Co. v. Shrewsbury
Simpson v. South Staffordshire Water- E. Co., 3 K. & J. 672.

works (7o.,5N. R. 70; Wood v. Epsom (b) Richmond v. N. L. E. Co., 3

E. Co., 8 C. B. N. S. 731 ; Webb v. Ch. 679, explained by Jessel, M. R.,

Manchester E. Co., 4 M. & C. 118; in Ystalyfera Iron Co. v. Neath, §c.

Flower v. L. B. $ S. C.E. <7o.,2Dr. & E. Co., 17 Eq. 142; and consider

THE AGKEEMENT. 249

completion of the works has expired, the company can no Chap. VI.

longer exercise their compulsory powers of purchasing (c) ; and -

in a very recent case he thus expressed his view: — "There

have been cases in which a railway company has given notice

to a landowner to treat for the purchase of land, and no fur-

ther step has been taken either by the company or the land-

owner, and the extended period for completing the works has

expired, and the question has been raised, Could the company

in that state of things proceed with its notice to treat, and

assess the compensation under the Lands Clauses Act ? Were

such a case now to arise, I should be disposed to think, as I

was disposed to think in Richmond v. North London Rail. Co. ,

that if nothing more was done, and the company have slept

upon their rights, and certainly if the delay cannot be ex-

plained, they should be held to be disabled from going on

with any compulsory purchase, and in such a case the land-

owner should, as I think, be held to be disabled also. Both

parties have been content to let the time run out. There is

no ret inter ventus, no change of the status quo ante, nothing

which requires to be undone. The whole matter has been a

project merely; and, as a project, it has come to an end" (d).

It has not yet been decided whether a notice of enfran- Effect of
chisement under the Copyhold Acts entails liabilities on the enfranchise-

person giving it, similar to those consequent upon a notice to
treat under the L. C. C. Act (c) ; but upon principle this Acts-
would seem to be so.

If a defendant by his answer to the plaintiff's bill for Answer in a

. Chancery suit

specific performance admits the parol agreement, but neglects may be a
to claim the benefit of the statute, this will constitute a
sufficient memorandum in writing to satisfy the statute (/) :
so, too, an affidavit filed by the party to be charged (g] ;

Pinchin v. L. $ Blackwall R. Co., (d) Tlcerlon, $r. R. Co. v. Loose-

5 D. M. & G-. 851 ; which see also more, 9 Ap. Ca. 480, at p. 489.

as to the landowner's remedy in case (e) Ante, p. 242.

of delay by the company ; 1 K. & (/) Ridgway v. Wharton, 3 D. M.

J. 69. & G. 677 ; Jackson v. Off lander, 2 H.

(c) Richmond v. N. L. R. Co., 3 & M. 465; and vide post, pp. 1148

Ch. 681 ; and see Ch. XVII. s. 6, as ct seq.

to the remedy by mandamus. (g) BarJcworth v. Young, 4 Dr. 1.

250

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 3.

Written
agreement
after, in pur-
suance of a
parol agree-
ment before,
marriage.

Rent rolls,
abstract, &c.
insufficient ;

and letters to
creditors ;

or letter
•written as an
abandonment.

Recital of
agreement,
held suffi-
cient.

and his signature, though not alleged, will be presumed by
the Court, as an affidavit must be signed before it is
sworn (g). The statute, if relied on, must now be specially
pleaded (Ji).

And it is now well settled that a written agreement after,
in pursuance of a parol agreement before, marriage, is a
sufficient memorandum within the statute (i).

But — and the case may be considered as an exception to the
first general rule (ii) — where B. had entered into a parol agree-
ment to sell an estate to W., and B.'s agent made out and
signed a rent-roll, entitled " Bent-roll of lands agreed to be
sold by B. to W. from May 1762, at 21 years' purchase for
the clear yearly rent," and the amount of the rent was then
corrected by B. in his own handwriting, and the rent-roll so
altered was delivered to "W., and abstracts of title were also
delivered, and B. sent letters to his creditors informing them
of the sale, it was held that there was no sufficient agree-
ment (j ) ; nor will a letter suggesting an abandonment of a
parol agreement (k) take the case out of the statute ; but
where, at Law, an agreement was produced in the following
words, viz., " A. having agreed to purchase of B. for £250
the two leasehold houses situate, &c., B. hereby agrees to
paper and paint, A. to pay £230 at the time of the contract,
and the remaining £20 on the completion of the painting,"
the agreement to purchase, although recited as an existing

(g) Barkivorth v. Young, 4 Dr. 1.

(A) R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XIX. r.
15 ; Catling v. King, 5 Ch. D. 660 ;
and see Totvle v. Topham, 37 L. T.
308.

(i) Taylor v. Birch, 1 V. Sen. 297 ;
Harkworth v. lottng, 4 Dr. 1 ; Ham-
mersley v. De Bid, 12 C. & F. 64 n. ;
and. post, pp. 1141 et scq.

(ii) Ante, p. 239.

[» Whaley v. Bagnel, 1 Br. P. C.
345 (the decision was upon the Irish
Statute of Frauds, which corresponds
with the English Act) ; Cooke v.
Toombs, 2 Anst. 420 ; and see Cass
v. Waterhouse, Ch. Free. 29.

(k) Gosbell v. Archer, 2 A. & E.
500 ; Fyson v. Kitton, 3 C. L. R. 705 ;
see Tawncy v. Crowther, 3 Br. C. C.
161, 318, where the vendor being
pressed to sign the agreement, wrote
that ' ' his word should be as good as
any security he could give," and was
held bound ; but this seems to be bad
law ; see Clinan v. Cooke, 1 Sch. &
Lef. 34 ; Maunsellv. White, 1 J. &L.
567 ; and see Forster v. Hale, 3 V.
713 ; and Tanner v. Smart, 6 B. & C.
603. See, too, Pain v. Coombs, 1 D.
& J. 34 ; Buckmaster v. Jiussell} 10
C. B.N. S. 745.

THE AGREEMENT.

agreement, was considered to form part of the agreement Chap. VI.

toect. O.

produced (/).

So a petition by a landowner, who was also tenant for life Petition for

. . . investment of

of a settled fund, praying that it might be invested in pur- trust fund,
chase of the land, and an order merely directing an inquiry
as to whether the proposed purchase was a proper one, and as i
to the title, have been held not to constitute a binding con-
tract as against the landowner; but the Court raised the
question as to what would have been the effect of the order,
had it gone on in the usual way to direct that if the purchase
were a proper one and the title good, the sale should be
carried into effect (m) .

It is, of course, necessary that the letter or other document Document
relied on should be consistent with the parol agreement set C0n8ist
up by the party relying on it (») .

As to both parties being named : — it is stated to have been Whether both
said by Lord Cowper (Lord Keeper), " that if a man being
in company makes offers of a bargain, and then writes them
down and signs them, and the other person then takes them
up and prefers his bill, there will be a sufficient agree-
ment" (o) ; and the dictum, which was extra judicial, is cited
by Lord St. Leonards (p) ; however, in Boyce v. Green (q), a
memorandum in these words, " Sold 100 Mining Purdies at
17s. 6<1" and signed by the vendor, was held insufficient, as
not mentioning the name of the purchaser (r). So, in a
modern case, a document in the following terms, " A. agrees
to buy the whole of the lots of marble, purchased by B. at

(t) Hallv. Betty, 4 Man. & G-. 410 ; (p} Sug. 131 ; it may be inferred

see DePorquetv. Page, 20 L. J. Q. B. from the report that the agreement

28. in Knight v. Crockford, 1 Eap. 190,

(m) Shrewsbury v. Shrewsbury, 18 contained the plaintiff's name.

Jur. 397. (q) Bat. 608.

(n) Cooper v. Smith, 15 Ea. 103. (r} See Seagood v. Meak, Ch.Prec.

(o) Coleman v. Vpcot, 5 Vin. Ab. 660 ; Champion v. Plummtr, 1 B. &

527. P- N. R. 254 ; and Graham v. Musson,

7 Sc. 769.

252 THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI. Lyme Cobb, at Is. per foot," was held insufficient, because

Sect. 3.

- B.'s name as seller was not mentioned in it (*) ; but this

decision has been disapproved ; and in a later case, where
J. W., a duly authorized agent of R,., the seller, made the
following entry in /the book of N., the buyer, "Mr. N. 32
sacks culasses at 39s. 280 Ibs., to wait orders, J. W.," it was
held that there was a sufficient memorandum in writing
to satisfy the statute ; and that parol evidence was admis-
sible to show that N. was a baker, and R. a dealer in
flour (^). So, it has been held, that, in order to bind the
purchaser by his own signature, either the name of the
vendor must appear by the agreement or in the conditions
or particulars thereby referred to, or the vendor, or the auc-
Result of tioneer, as his agent, must sign the agreement (u) . Later
cases have carried the rule still further ; and it appears to be
now clearly settled that, in order to satisfy the statute, both
parties should be specified, either nominally or by a sufficient
description (#) ; and the reference must be unmistakeable ;
the mere description of one of the contracting parties as
"your client," in a letter addressed to his solicitor, has been
held insufficient (y] . Thus, the usual memorandum signed
by the auctioneer, and confirming the contract on behalf of
" the vendor," is insufficient, if the vendor is not named or
described in such memorandum, or in the particulars or con-
ditions (z) ; nor will it be sufficient if the contract is not signed
at the time by the purchaser, but is afterwards signed by the
auctioneer on the authority of a letter from the purchaser's
solicitor (a). But such a confirmation is sufficient if the
particulars identify, although they do not name the vendor (b) ;

(*) Vandenbergh v. Spooner, L. R. 154, a case under the 17th section.
1 Ex. 316. (y) Skelton v. Cole, 1 D. & J. 587.

(t) Newell v.£adford,Ij.'R.SC. P. (z) Potter v. Duffield, 18 Eq. 4;

52; and see Sari v. Bourdillon, 1 C. Thomas v. Brown, 1 Q. B. D. 714;

B. N. S. 188. and see Williams v. Jordan, 6 Ch. D.

(u) Wheeler v. Collier, M. & M. 517; Donnison v. People's Cafe Co.,

123 ; and see Jacob v. Kirk, 2 Mo. & 45 L. T. 187 ; Jarrett v. Hunter, 34

R.221. Ch. D. 182.

(x) Williams v. Lake, 2 E. & E. (a) Matthews v. Baxter, 28 L. T.

349, a case under the 4th section ; 669.
Williams v. Struct, 1 Mo. P. C. N. S. (*) Commins v. Scott, 20 Eq. 11.

THE AGREEMENT. 253

as where they describe him as " the executor (c) or personal Chap. VI.

representative (d) of A. B.," or as " a trustee selling under a

trust for sale "(<?), or even where they merely state that the

sale is "by direction of the proprietor" (/). But the Court

will not be astute to discover descriptions which a jury could

not identify (g}. Where, however, the agreement is wanting

in the name of either of the parties, it may be supplied by

any other writing connected with it (h) . Notwithstanding

the recent decisions, the vendor's name is seldom inserted in

the agreement on a sale by auction, and the omission may

often lead to serious difficulty (i).

In the case of a letter, if the name of the party to whom it As to the
is addressed appear in an endorsed direction, or be written at case of an
the foot of the letter, no difficulty on the above point can ij^m<
arise : if an envelope be used, the name may often not appear
in the letter ; but the Court, it is conceived, would receive
evidence connecting the envelope with the inclosure (k). Nor
need the name of the sender be signed : it is sufficient if the
offer be made on a memorandum form, so printed as to show
that it comes from the person making the offer (/).

A letter, it may be remarked, binds the writer from the Offer by
time of the inception of its transmission, not of its receipt binding.

(c) Hood v. Lord Harrington, 6 Eq. (h) Warner v. Willington, 3 Dr.
218, but the first paragraph of the 523. See, too, Skelton v. Cole, 1 D.
judgment cannot be relied on as & J. 596.

sound law. (t) See Warner v. Willington, and

(d) Towlev. Topham, 37 L. T. 308. Skelton v. Cole, supra; and Smith v.
(•) Catling v. King, 5 Ch. D. 660 ; Neale, 2 C. B. N. S. 67 ; Reuss v.

and see Boitrdillon v. Collins, 24 L. T. Picksley, L. R. 1 Ex. 342.
344, where the abstract was held to (k) Sari v. Bourdillon, 1 C. B.
be sufficiently connected with the N. S. 188, and see Kronheim v. John-
contract as to identify the vendor, son, 1 Ch. D. 60, where a signed
who was described as trustee. and an unsigned document deal-

(/) Sale v. Lambert, 18 Eq. 1 ; ing with the same subject-matter,

Rossiter v. Miller, 3 Ap. Ca. 1124; but not referring the one to the

and see Beer v. London and Paris other, were contained in the same

Hotel Co., 20 Eq. 412. envelope.

(g] Per Jessel, M. R., in Commins (1) Tourret v. Cripps, 48 L. J. Ch.

v. Scott, 20 Eq. 16 ; Thomas v. Brown, 567.
1 Q. B. D. 714.

254

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 3.

Party accept-
ing- offer is
not liable for
delay in the
post-office.

General
description
of property
sufficient.

by the other party (m) : and a person bound to accept or
reject an offer by a particular post, and duly posting his
letter, is not responsible for delay in the post-office (n) ; even
although, by mistake, he date his reply a day in advance, so
that, through such delay, the letter be delivered at a time
apparently consistent with its erroneous date (o) ; and the
same principle has been applied to the case of a letter of
acceptance, duly posted, but not delivered to the person
addressed (p). The reason of the rule is, that the parties
have made the post-office their common agent (p). In one
case, where the offer was made by telegram, and accepted by
a letter duly posted, the party making the offer was held
entitled to retract it after the letter was posted, but before it
was received (q) ; in this case the post-office was the agent of
one party only, not of both.

A general description of the estate, — e.g., "Mr. O.'s
house " (r), or "my house "(s), or "the property in Cable
Street "(£), or "the house in Newport "(u)9 or "the intended
new public-house at Putney" (#), or " the premises " (y), or
"The Jolly Sailor Offices, &o." (a), or "this place "(a), or

(m) Potter v. Sanders, 6 Ha. 1 ; see
Hernaman v. Cory ton, 5 Ex. 453, and
compare Wall's case, 15 Eq. 18 ; and
Household Fire Insurance Co. v. Grant,
4 Ex. D. 216.

(w) Adams v. Lindsell, 1 B. & Aid.
681 ; Duncans. Topham, 8 C. B. 225.

(o) See Dunlop v. Higgins, 1 H. L.
C. 396 ; but see comments on this
case in British and American R. Co. v.
Colson, L. R. 6 Ex. 108 ; and see now
Wall's case, ubi supra, and generally
on this subject Benjamin, 48 etscq.;
Buckley, 57, and an article in the
American Law Review, vol. 7, p.
433. Queer e, where the receiver has
done an irrevocable act upon the
error into which he has been led by
the blunder of the sender.

(p) Household Fire Insurance Co. v.
Grant, 4 Ex. D. 216 ; see judgment
of Thesiger, L. J.

(q) Quenerduaine v. Cole, 32 "W. R.
185.

(r) Ogilvie v. Foljambe, 3 Mer. 61.

(a) Cowley v. Watts, 17 Jur. 172.

(I) Bleakky\. Smith, 11 Si. 150.

(u) Owen v. Thomas, 3 M. & K.
353 ; and see Rose v. Cunynghame,
11 V. 550, where the description of
the property, as "the land I bought
of Mr. Peters," seems to have been
sufficient ; although, the terms of the
purchase not appearing, it was held
that there was no agreement.

(x) Wood v. Scarth, 2 K. & J. 33.

(y] Hid. ; and see M'Murray v.
Spicer, 5 Eq. 527 ; and see Ex p.
Nat. Prov. Sank, 4 Ch. D. 241.

(z) Naylor v. Goodall, 47 L. J. Ch.
53.

(a) Waldron v. Jacob, 5 I. R. Eq.
131.

THE AGREEMENT. 255

" property purchased at £420 at Sun Inn, Pinxton, on 29th Chap. VI.
March r (b) — is sufficient, if parol evidence can be produced
to show what property was intended : but if the property be
described by reference to a plan or instrument, so vague as
not to admit of a legal construction, the defect would, it is
conceived, be fatal (c) ; unless the contract was in effect made
in two parts by a sufficient memorandum being endorsed on
the plan (d) ; so, an agreement to lease the " coals, &c.,"
under specified closes, would seem to be too ambiguous to be
enforced (e) ; but an agreement for a lease of a farm con-
taining about 437 acres, " except 37 acres thereof," which
were not specified, was held capable of being enforced, the
Court giving the lessee the right of selection (/) ; so an agree-
ment to take a lease of all those two seams of coal, known as
the two-feet coal and the three-feet coal, " lying under lands
hereafter to be defined in the Bank End Estate," was consi-
dered sufficiently definite, the true construction being that
the boundaries of the whole estate were to be afterwards
ascertained (y) ; so, the reservation in a contract of " the
right to search for and work mines, minerals," fyc. (A), and
the words " goodwill, fyc." in a contract for the sale of a
foundry («'), have been considered sufficiently free from
ambiguity to enable the Court to enforce specific perform-
ance.

And it is immaterial that the agreement does not distinguish But there
the tenures of the several portions of the estate (/) ; or even description,
the tenure of the whole estate, if this can be shown to have
been in the knowledge of both parties (k). But there must
be some description of the property : e.y.,& memorandum that
a party has disposed of " his writings," (/. e., title deeds,) is
insufficient (/).

(*) Shardkwv. Cotterell, 20 Ch. D. (/) Jenkins y. Green t 27 B. 437.

90. (g) Haywood v. Cope, 25 B. 140.

(c) Monrov. Taylor, 8 Ha. 51. (K) Parker v. Taswell, 2 D. & J.

(d) Nene Valley Drainage Commit- 659.

sioners v. Dunkley, 4 Ch. D. 1. (t) Cooper v. Hood, 26 B. 293.

(e) Price v. Griffith, 1 D. M. & G-. (/) Monro v. Taylor, 8 Ha. 51.
80 ; and see Stuart v. L. $ N. 17. X. (k) Cowley v. Watts, 17 Jur. 172.
Co., 1 D. M. & G. 721. (I) Seagood v. Meale, Ch. Prec. 560.

256

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 3.

The writing
must fix all
the terms of
the agree-
ment.

So, all the essential terms of the contract must be fixed (m) ;
or, as in the case of the arbitration bond (»), the means of
compulsorilj fixing them must be provided : and the Court
will enforce a contract in general terms where the law can
supply the details (o). A receipt for the deposit has been
held insufficient to bind the contract, because it did not state
either the price or what proportion the deposit bore to the
price (p) ; so, an alleged partnership in a mine was held to
be not sufficiently proved by receipts for sums of money on
account of a share in the mine, though such sums were
exactly a moiety of the rent (q) ; so, where the price was
fixed subject to variation in respect of a rent-charge, and it
did not appear whether the amount was 5s. or Is. per annum,
the defect was held fatal (r) ; so, where the agreement for
" a lease " did not specify the intended duration of the term,
and the nature of reservations (s), or the date of commence-
ment of the term (t) ; so, where, on a sale of the surface, it
was provided that a royalty of 6d. per ton should be paid for
the minerals, and that the same if not worked should be paid
for as if gotten ; there being no means provided for ascertain-
ing what quantity would have to be paid for (u) ; so, a stipu-
lation on the sale of a foundry that " a large portion " of the
purchase-money was to be left in the business (.r) ; so, upon a
sale subject to conditions, the auctioneer's receipt or entry

(m) See generally on the sul/ject,
Fry, pt. iii. ch. 3.

(») Ante, p. 240, n. (t).

(o) Hampshire v. Wickens, 1 Ch.
D. 555 ; Fry, 156.

(p) Blagden v. Bradbear, 12 V.
466 ; and see Clerk v. Wright, 1 Atk.
12 ; Elmore v. Kingscote, 5 B. & C.
583 ; Clinan v. Cook, 1 Sch. & L. 22 ;
Milnes v. Gery, 14 V. 400, 406 ; Mor-
gan v. Milman, 3 D. M. & Gr. 24.

(q) Caddick v. Skidmore, 2 D. & J.
52.

(r) Lord Middleton v. Wilson, Sug.
135. But might it not be sufficient
if, in such a case, the plaintiff stated
the agreement according to that al-

ternative of construction which is
least favourable to himself ?

(s) Cox v. Middleton, 2 Dr. 209,
219; Davis v. Jones, 25 L. J. C. P.
91 ; Filzmaurice v. Bayley, 9 H. L.
C. 78, where the lessee had ratified
the contract. But see Hampshire v.
Wickens, 7 Ch. D. 555, where the
Court was able to supply the con-
ditions.

(t) Marshall v. Berridge, 19 Ch. D.
233 ; overruling Jaques v. Millar,
6 Ch. D. 153.

(u) Williamson v. Wootton, 3 Dr.
210.

(x) Cooper v. Hood, 26 B. 293.

THE AGREEMENT.

257

would be void, unless it were actually annexed, or clearly Chap. VI.
referred, to the conditions (y) .

Where there was an agreement for the sale at a specified Agreement
price, and " 20 per cent, upon any sum which the property specified price
might realize above that price " at a sale by auction, which ^
was advertised to take place, and the vendor withdrew the re -sale
property from the sale, it was held that there was a valid
contract for purchase at the price specified, without the
addition of any per-centage (z).

It appears probable that a general agreement to sell " at Price deter-
a fair valuation " may be enforced ; and the Court will, if valuation, &c.
necessary, direct a reference to ascertain the price (a) : but
where the mode of valuation is specified, it must be strictly
followed ; for instance, where the price is to be determined
by A. and B., or an umpire selected by them, and they fail
to agree upon the price, or to name an umpire, the Court can
give no relief (b) : so, as a general rule, if it is to be settled
by arbitration (c) . It has even been held that, in the latter
case, the terms of the award must, unless there be an agree-
ment to the contrary, be settled while both parties are

(y) Hinde v. Whitehouse, 7 Ea.
553, 569 ; Kenworthy v. Schofield, 2
B. & C. 915 ; and see Coles v. Tre-
cothick, 9 V. 231; Sug. 130; Wood
v. Midgky, 5 D. M. & G. 41 ; Peirce
v. Corf, L. R. 9 Q. B. 210 ; Rishton v.
Whatmorc, 8 Ch. D. 467.

(z) Langstaff v. Nicholson, 25 B.
160. See and distinguish Bromley v.
Jeffries, 2 Vern. 415.

(a) See Milnes v. Gery, 14 V. 400,
407 ; Lord Lonsdale v. Gaskarth,
cited 12 V. 108 (where the decree
seems, however, to have been by
consent) ; Gregory v. Mighcll, 18 V.
328, 334 ; Pritchard v. Ovey, U. &
W. 396 ; Price v. Assheton, 1 Y. & C.
82, 441 ; Morgan v. Milman, 3 D. M.
& G. 24 ; 1 Dav. 523; et contra, Gour-
lay v. Duke of Somerset, 19 V. 430 ;
Agar v. Macklew, 2 S. & S. 418;

D. VOL. I.

Logan v. Le Mesurier, 6 Mo. P. C.
132. Where such an agreement was
made a rule of Court under a consent
clause, the Queen's Bench refused
to grant an attachment; Ee Heming-
way, 15 Q. B. 305, n., 309.

(b} Milnes v. Gery, 14 V. 400; and
see Cooth v. Jackson, 6V. 12, 34 ;
Gourlay v. Duke of Somerset, 19 V.
431 ; Collins v. Collins, 26 B. 306 ;
and see Scott v. Corp. of Liverpool,

3 D. & J. 334, 367 ; Scott v. Avcry,
5 H. L. C. 811 ; Vickers v. Vickers,

4 Eq. 629 ; and see Iloughton Y.
Bankart, 3 D. F. & J. 16 ; a case of
improper interference by the Court
with the arbitrator's authority.

(c) Morgan v. Milman, 3 D. M. &
G. 24, 35; Darbey v. Whitaker, 4
Dr. 134 ; Tillett v. Charing Cross B.
Co.t 26 B. 419.

S

258

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 3.

Agreement
to take fix-
tures at a
valuation.

living, as the death, of either, generally speaking, revokes
the power of the arbitrators or umpire (d) : but, in the
reported case, a stipulation that the award should be de-
livered to the parties (not naming their representatives) by
a specified day, seems to have been considered to indicate
an intention merely to delegate a personal authority : and
there was a different decision in an earlier case in Equity,
where (such stipulation being wanting) the general facts
were very similar (e). Where, however, it is not of the
essence of the contract that the value should be fixed by
arbitration, the Court may, it seems, enforce the agreement
and if necessary ascertain the price (/).

A distinction has been properly drawn between an agree-
ment that the price of the property itself shall be settled by
a valuation, and an agreement, upon the sale of buildings at
a specified price, that certain plant and machinery shall be
taken at a valuation (#). In one case(/j), Y.-C. Kindersley
refused to enforce specific performance of a contract to pur-
chase the lease and goodwill of a public house at a specified
price, and the stock and fixtures at a valuation : but, in a
later case, where the contract fixed the price for the estate
and provided that the purchaser should take certain fur-
niture and chattels at a valuation to be made by valuers
to be mutually agreed upon, and the vendor refused to
appoint a valuer or to complete the sale, the Court of
Appeal, affirming Y.-C. Stuart, considered that the clause
providing for the purchase of the furniture, &c., was merely
a minor and subsidiary part of the agreement, and not, as
in Darbey v. Whitaker, of the essence of the bargain, and

(d) Bhmdell v. Brettarch, 17 V.
232, 242 ; and see Russell on Arbi-
tration, 170.

(e) Belchier v. Reynolds, 2 Ken.
pt. 2, 87.

(/) Dinham v. Bradford, 5 Ch.
519.

(g) Jackson v. Jackson, IS. & Gr.
184 ; see Cumberland v. Bowes, 3 C. L.

R. 149, as to meaning of "a fair
valuation" on contract for sale of
farming stock.

(A) Darbey v. Whitaker, 4 Dr. 131,
seel quaere ? Jackson v. Jackson, does
not seem to have been cited ; see
comments on these cases in Richard-
son v. Smith, 5 Ch. 648, 652, 654.

THE AGREEMENT. 259

decreed specific performance of the contract, except so far as Chap. VI.
it related to the personal chattels (t). In all cases where -
such is the intention of the parties, the contract should
clearly show that it can be specifically enforced, so far as
it relates to the land, . without reference to the fixtures or
articles which are to be taken at a valuation. The agree-
ment ought to provide that, in the event of a valuation not
being made in the mode specified, the fixtures, &c., shall be
taken at their fair value (k).

By the 12th section of the Common Law Procedure Act, As to arbitra-
1854(/), it is enacted, that if, in any case of arbitration, common Law

the document authorizing the reference provide that the Procedure

Act, 1854.
reference shall be to a single arbitrator, and all the parties

do not, after differences have arisen, concur in the appoint-
ment of an arbitrator, or if any appointed arbitrator refuse
to act, or become incapable of acting, or die, and the terms
of such document do not show that it was intended that
such vacancy should not be supplied, and the parties do not
concur in appointing a new one ; or if, where the parties or
two arbitrators are at liberty to appoint an umpire or third
arbitrator, or if any appointed umpire or third arbitrator
refuse to act or become incapable of acting, or die, and the
terms of the document authorizing the reference do not
show that it was intended that such a vacancy should not
be supplied, and the parties or arbitrators respectively do
not appoint a new one, then — after notice and default, as
therein mentioned — a judge of any of the Superior Courts of
Law or Equity may appoint an arbitrator, umpire or third
arbitrator, as the case may be, who shall have the same power
of acting in the reference, and of making an award, as if he
had been appointed by the consent of all parties. It has been
decided that these provisions are retrospective, and that they
apply not only to references authorized by any document,

(t) Richardson v. Smith, 5 Ch. Peters, 20 Eq. 611.
648. The Court will in such a case (k) Ante, p. 257, n. (a).

compel the vendor to allow the (?) 17 & 18 V. c. 125.
valuation to be made ; Smith v.

260

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 3.

Where the
submission
has been
made a rule
of Court,
specific per-
formance of
the award
may still be
enforced.

but also otherwise, as by Act of Parliament, or by parol (m).
Where there was a contract for purchase at a price to be
ascertained by two valuers, or their umpire, and the valuers
could not agree in the nomination of an umpire, Lord Romilly
held that the matter was one merely of appraisement, and
not of arbitration, and that he had no power under the Act
to interfere (n) ; and this decision has been approved and
followed in a case at Law, where it was held that a misstate-
ment as to rental in the particulars, though a proper subject
for compensation within the conditions, was not a difference
which might be referred to arbitration under the Act ; and
that neither party could, under section 13, appoint his own
nominee as sole arbitrator (o). But the cases of Collins v.
Collins and Bos v. Hekham must not be taken to comprehend
every case of compensation or value. Thus, where, in order
to ascertain the value of the property, or the amount of com-
pensation to be awarded, the matter assumes the character
of a judicial inquiry, as, e. g., where the valuers have to ad-
judicate upon a point of law, or a question of right between
the parties, arising out of the fact, the matter ceases to be a
simple valuation, and may properly be considered as one of
arbitration (p).

By the 17th section of the Common Law Procedure Act,
1854 (17 & 18 Viet. c. 125), it is provided that when in
any case the document authorizing the reference is, or has
been, made a rule or order of any of the Superior Courts of
Law or Equity, no other of such Courts shall have jurisdic-
tion to entertain any motion respecting the arbitration or
award; but it has been held that this provision does not

(m) Re Lord, 1 K. & J. 90 ; see,
however, Dinham v. Bradford, 5 Ch.
519.

(n) Collins v. Collins, 26 B. 306;
He Eau-dy, 15 Q. B. D. 426, and on
the same principle the Court refused
to set aside the umpire's award, as
being that of a valuer and not that
of an arbitrator; Re Car us- Wilson, 18
Q. B. D. 7. See, too, Leeds v. Bur-

rows, 12 Ea. 1 ; Lee v. Hemingway, 15
Q. B. 305 ; and see Turner v. Goulden,
L. E. 9 C. P. 57, and Jenkins v.
Betham, 24 L. J. C. P. 94.

(o) Bos v. Helsham, L. E. 2 Ex.
72.

(p) Re Hopper, L. E. 2 Q. B.
367 ; Re Anglo Italian Bank, ib. 452 ;
see, too, Vickers v. Vickers, 4 Eq. 529,
536.

THE AGREEMENT. 20 1

oust the jurisdiction of a Court of Equity to entertain a suit Chap. VI.
for the specific performance of the award, although the
submission has been made a rule of one of the Superior
Courts of Common Law (q).

It is not necessary that the terms should appear on the Reference
face of the instrument signed by the party to be charged ; documents

which, when an agreement has to be made out from corres-
pondence, is seldom the case : it is sufficient if the instrument sufficient.
refer to other documents (such as conditions of sale, previous
letters, or, in fact, any other writings), which contain the
terms (r) ; and where the contract is to be found in a corres-
pondence, as distinguished from a particular note or memo-
randum formally signed, the whole of that which has passed
between the parties must be taken into consideration (.$).

Such writings, however, must be clearly referred to (t) ; If reference

m olofl,T*

and, unless their entire contents are to form part of the
agreement, it must distinctly appear what is, and what is not,
to be so included : e. #., where the signed writing referred to
such of the clauses contained in a specified paper as had been
read at a meeting between the parties, not stating which had
been so read, it was held bad for uncertainty (u).

It will be remarked (x) that in the last case, there was a Patent

ambiguity

(q) Blackett v. Sates, 2 H. & M. 60, where they were held insufficient

610, rev. on other grounds, 1 Ch. to constitute a declaration of trust.

117; and compare Smith v. Whit- (*) Hussey v. Home- Payne, 4 Ap.

more, 1 H. & M. 576; but see sect. Ca. 311.

11 of the Act. (t) Boydell v. Drummond, 11 Ea.

(>•) Clinan v. Cooke, 1 Sch. & L. 22, 142 ; Boyce v. Greene, Bat. 608 ;

33; Allen v. Bennet, 3 Taun. 169; Jacob v. Kirk, 2 Mo. & R. 221;

Dobett v. Hutchinson, 3 A. & E. 355 ; Price v. Griffith, 1 D. M. & G. 80 ;

Laythoarp v. Bryant, 2 Bing. N. C. Ridgway v. Wharton, supra; Nene

735; Blagden v. Bradbear, 12 V. 471 ; Valley Drainage Commissioners v.

Verlander v. 0«dd, T. & R. 357; Dunkley, 4 Ch. D. 1.

Ridgway v. Wharton, 6 H. L. C. (u) Brodie v. St. Paul, 1 V. 326,

238, 257, per Lord Cranworth ; cf. 333 ; see Clinan v. Cooke, 1 Sch. &L.

Peirce v. Corf, L. R. 9 Q. B. 210, 36 ; but see as to uncertainty where

where the documents, not being con- there has been part performance,

nected together, were held insuffi- Vouillon v. States, 2 Jur. N. S. 815.

cient to constitute an agreement ; (x) See 1 Sch. & L. 36.

and Kronheim v. Johnson, 7 Ch. D.

262

Chap. VI.
Sect. 3.

and defective

reference

distinguished.

Parol

evidence

admissible to

explain

imperfect

reference.

General
reference
to other
instrument
sufficient.

THE AGREEMENT.

defect patent on the face of the agreement : the agreement
itself, according to its own grammatical construction, raised
the question as to which of the clauses were intended : but,
in the case of a mere imperfect reference to another instru-
ment, parol evidence is admissible to ascertain its identity (y) ;
so, parol evidence is admissible to explain the sense in which
words, in themselves unintelligible, were used by the parties (s);
or the peculiar meaning which local, professional, or trade
usage has attached to particular expressions (a) ; or to prove
the existence, at the date of the agreement, of facts material
to its construction (b) .

And it appears that, at least in the case of letters, there
need not be any specific description of, nor even an express
reference to, the prior documents ; it will be sufficient if the
Court be clearly satisfied that a reference was in fact in-
tended, and of the identity of the instrument.

For instance, where (c) A., the owner of W. farm, on the
5th July wrote a note in the third person to B. informing
him that C. had made an offer for the farm, at a specified
price, but that, if B. chose to have it at that price, C. would
decline the purchase in his favour; B., it was alleged, wrote
a note in reply, accepting the offer, but such note was not
forthcoming : on the llth July A. wrote to B., " I have just
received yours ; and am glad you have determined to pur-
chase the W. farm : I will write to C. to inform him you
have agreed to purchase the estate;" — Sir William Grant,
relying on the words " determine" and " agree," as denoting
an acceptance by B. of a previous proposal by A., instead
of, as might have been the case, an independent offer by B.,
considered that the letter of the llth was sufficiently con-
nected with the note of the 5th, to show that A. agreed to

(y} See Clinan v. CooJce, 1 Sch. & (z) Sweet v. Lee, 3 Man. & Gr.

L. 33 ; Saunderson v. Jackson, 2 B. 452.

& P. 238 ; and see Jackson v. Og-
lander, 2H. &M.465,472; Bolckoiv
v. Seymour, 17 C. B. N. S. 107 ;
Ridgway v. Wharton, 6 H. L. C. 238.

(a) Post, p. 1090 et seq.
(b} Monro v. Taylor, 8 Ha. 56.
(c} Western v. Russell, 3 V. & B.
187,

THE AGREEMENT. 263

sell upon the terms of that note : and specific performance
was decreed accordingly.

So, upon a sale of goods, a subsequent letter written by
the purchaser, and containing the following expressions,
" The tobacco I want immediately forwarded ; I likewise
want the invoice of the rice and other tobacco," was held to
be sufficiently connected with the previous entries of sale of
the articles in the vendor's order book (d).

So, a letter from the purchaser's solicitor to the vendor's
solicitor, merely headed with the names of their respective
clients, and undertaking personally to settle the purchase in
two months, if that would be satisfactory, has been held to
be a contract binding the solicitor (e).

But where the plaintiff in a bill for the specific per-
formance of an alleged parol contract to take a lease of a
house relied on a letter written by the defendant, in which
the latter agreed to take the house for seven years on
specified terms, but did not fix any date for the com-
mencement of the lease, and on another letter written by
the defendant, in which the date of commencement was
supplied and further terms were added to which the plaintiff
did not agree, it was held that there was no memorandum
sufficient to satisfy the statute (f).

(d) Allen v. Bennct, 3 Taun. 169 ; but see Skclton v. Cole, 1 D. & J.

and see Morgan v. Ilolford, 1 S. & G. 587.

101 ; cf. Peirce v. Corf, L. R. 9 Q. B. (c) Powers v. Fowler, 4 E. &B. 511.

210; and Matthews v. Baxter, 28 L. (/) Neshatn v. Sclby, 1 Ch. 406 ;

T. 669 ; and as to connecting one and see Marshall v. Berridge, 19 Ch.

letter with another, although there D.233; overruling Jacques v. Mi liar,

is no express reference, Verlandcr v. 6 Ch. D. 153. See also Rock Port-

Codd, T. & R. 352 ; Greenev. Cramer, land Co. v. Wilson, 52 L. J. Ch. 214;

2 Con. &L. 54; Skinner v. M' Douall, Wyse v. Russell, 11 L. R. Ir. 173 ;

2 De G. & S. 265 ; Hamilton v. White v. MtMahon, 18 L. R. Ir. 460.

Terry, 11C. B. 954 ; Alcock v. Delay, But it is sufficient, if the date of

4 E. & B. 660 ; Warner v. Willing- commencement can be clearly made

ton, 3 Dr. 523 ; Wood v. Scarth, 2 K. out from the documents, Phelan v.

& J. 33 ; Baumann v. James, 3 Ch. Tedcastle, 15 L. R. Ir. 169 ; i. e. the

508 ; Long v. Millar, 4 C. P. D. 450 ; documents forming the contract,

Shardloic v. Cotterell, 20 Ch. D. 90 ; Wood v. Aylu'ard, 57 L. T. 54.

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 3.

Tests of
sufficiency
in cases of
correspond-

ence.

So, also, a reference in a signed document to " the agree-
ment which your client alleges he has entered into" has
been held insufficient (g) ; so, too, a letter signed by the
party to be charged, and containing the following passage,
" Previously to paying the amount (then followed an illegible
word) for tithes and glebe, it would be advisable to have
some information as to title ;" so, too, a letter from an alleged
purchaser inclosing and referring to a draft conveyance
which recited that he had agreed to purchase land (/*).

In cases of correspondence the difficulty generally is, to
determine whether there has been a concluded agreement or
merely a treaty (i) ; as to which the following rule seems
deducible from the authorities.

It must If the original offer leave nothing uncertain on the face of

clear acces- it (&), and be met by a simple acceptance, the treaty is, of
parties^ to°the course> concluded; but if the original offer leave anything
same terms, to be settled by future arrangement, it is merely a proposal
to enter into an agreement (/) : so if the reply be either
more or less than a simple acceptance, the variation must be
acceded to by the original proposer; or there is no agree-
ment (m) : and this state of things will continue, until there
is, upon the face of the correspondence, " a clear accession on
both sides to one and the same set of terms " (n).

(g} Jackson v. Oglander, 2 H. & M.
465 ; see, too, Skelton v. Cole, 1
D. & J. 587, and ante, p. 252.

(h) Munday v. Asprey, 13 Ch. D.
855.

(i) See Huddleston v. Briscoe, 11
V. 583, 591 ; Stratford v. Bosworth,
2 V. & B. 341, 345; Ogilvie v. Fol-
jambe, 3 Mer. 53 ; Archer v. Baynes,
5 Ex. 625.

(k] Honeyman v. Marryat, 6 H.
L. C. 112.

(I) Chinnock v. Marchioness of Ely,
4 D. J. & S. 638; Eummens v.
Robins, 3 D. J. & S. 88 ; Wood v.
Midgley, 5 D. M. & G. 41 ; Goodall

v. Harding, 52 L. T. 126.

(m) Holland v. Eyre, 2 S. & S.
194 ; Smith v. Surman, 9 B. & C.
569; Heywardv. Barnes, 23L.T.O.S.
68 ; Ball v. Bridges, 22 W. R. 552.

(n) Thomas v. Blackman, 1 Coll. 312;
and see Cowley v. Watts, 17 Jur. 172;
Cheveley v. Fuller, 13 C. B. 122 ; and
as to an immaterial addition to an
acceptance, Clive v. Beaumont, 1 De
G. & S. 397 ; Gibbins v. North East
Metropolitan Asylum District, 11 B. 1.
As to a special acceptance required
by the terms of the original offer,
see Boys v. Ay erst, 6 Mad. 316 ; Tay-
lor v. Portington, 7 D. M. & G. 328.

THE AGREEMENT.

265

Where, however, there is a simple acceptance of an offer Chap. VI.
to purchase, accompanied by a statement that the acceptor

desires that the arrangement should be put into some more simple
formal terms, the mere reference to such a proposal will not ac?ePtaijce,
prevent the Court from enforcing the final agreement so agreement is

T*fnin T*f *d

arrived at (o) . But if the stipulation as to a formal contract
is a term of the assent, leaving it open to the acceptor or his
solicitor to qualify the assent by special conditions (which is
always a question of construction), then until those conditions
are accepted, there is no final agreement, such as the Court
will enforce ( p) . Thus, where the vendors of land, in a letter
acknowledging the receipt of an offer to purchase, wrote as
follows to the intending purchasers, " Which offer we accept,
and now hand you two copies of conditions of sale which we
have signed. We will thank you to sign same and return
one of the copies to us," and the conditions were of a special
character, which the purchasers refused to assent to, it was
held that the acceptance was simply conditional, and a
demurrer to the vendor's bill for specific performance was
allowed (q) . So, where an intending lessee, in reply to a
letter from house-agents furnishing particulars and terms of

The most recent authorities lay
down the proposition in the text in
very clear terms. See in particular
Hussey v. Home- Payne, 4 Ap. Ca.
311; May v. Thomson, 20 Ch. D.
705 ; Brien v. Swainson, I L. R. Ir.
135; Dyas v. Stafford, 9 L. R. Ir.
520 ; Eadie v. Addison, 52 L. J. Ch.
80. These cases emphasise the rule
that the whole correspondence must
be looked at. "You must not at
one particular time draw a line and
say, ' "We will look at the letters up
to this point and find in them a
contract or not, but we will look at
nothing beyond. ' ' ' Per Lord Cairns,
4 Ap. Ca. 316.

(o) Per Sir G-. Jessel, M. R. in
Crossley v. Maycock, 18 Eq. 180, 181 ;
and see judgment of Lord Westbury
in Chinnock v. Marchioness of Ely, 4

D. J. & S. 645; Bonncivell v. Jenkins,
8 Ch. D. 70 ; and Rossiter v. Miller,
3 Ap. Ca. 1138; Eadie v. Addison,
52 L. J. Ch. 80. In Moeser v.
Wisker, L. R. 6 C. P. 120, a case
coming within this class, a contract
containing unreasonable stipulations
having been tendered to the pur-
chaser, and the vendor having re-
sold on the refusal of the purchaser
to execute this contract, the latter
was held to be entitled to recover
his deposit.

(p) Winn v. Butt, 7 Ch. D. 32 ;
Ilawkesworth v. Chajfey, 54 L. T.
72.

(q) Crossley v. May cock, 18 Eq.
180 ; Bmhell v. Pocock, 53 L. T. 860 ;
and see cases cited in note (n) ; and
Ridgway v. Wharton, 6 H. L. C. 264,
288, 306.

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 3.

A written
offer may be
accepted by
parol.

Conditions
of sale —
whether
impliedly
incorporated
in contract.

Effect of

conditional

acceptance.

two residences, wrote, " I have decided on letting No. 22,
Belgrave-road, and have spoken to my agent, Mr. C., of, &c.,
who will arrange matters with you, if you will put yourselves
in communication with him ;" it was held that there was no
contract (r) ; so, where the agreement was to take a lease,
" suhject to the preparation and approval of a formal
contract" (s).

An offer in writing may be accepted by parol, or by the
acts of the other party ; and if the proposal .in writing is
signed by the party to be charged, and there is a parol
acceptance by the party to whom it is made, there is a suffi-
cient memorandum within the 4th section of the Statute
of Frauds (/).

It has been held that conditions of sale used at the putting
up of an estate by auction, cannot be considered as impliedly
incorporated with an unconditional offer by letter to purchase
the property, subsequently made by a person who attended
the auction (u) ; but the case is different, for the purpose of
defence in Equity, where the parol negotiation has proceeded
upon the footing of the conditions (#).

Where the defendant wrote at the foot of an agreement
for an underlease, " I have no objection to this agreement
supposing that there is nothing unusual in Sir B/.'s (the
ground landlord) leases, which I presume there is not;" and
then, before the agreement with this variation had been

(r] Stanley v. Dowdeswell, L. R.
10 C. P. 102.

(») Winn v. Still, 7 Ch. D. 29 ;
Hawke&worth v. Chaffey, 54 L. T. 72 ;
and see Harvey v. Principal of Bar-
nard's Inn, 50 L. J. Ch. 750 ; and
Vale of Neath Colliery Co. v. Furness,
45 L. J. Ch. 276. An agreement
to purchase on " a formal contract"
being signed by the purchaser
"when prepared" by the vendor's
solicitor, and "when approved" by

the purchaser's solicitor, cannot be
enforced unless the approval be
withheld unreasonably and mala
fide; Bartlett v. Greene, 30 L. T.
553 ; Hudson v. Buck, 7 Ch. D. 683.

(t} Reuss \. Pickslcy, L. R. 1 Ex.
342 ; and see Warner v. Willing ton,
3 Dr. 523.

(u) Cowley v. Watts, 17 Jur. 172.

(x] See Off it vie v. Foljamle, 3 Mer.
53.

THE AGREEMENT. 267

acceded to by the other party, withdrew his offer ; and it Chap. VI.
was contended that, inasmuch as the covenants were usual, -
he still remained hound; Sir J. Wigram, V.-C., admitting
that a case might exist injsvhich the distinction between the
original and altered agreement must be treated as plainly
nugatory, held, that the case before him could not be con-
sidered as of that character, merely because the Court might,
upon argument, decide that the covenants were not unusual (y}.

In the recent case of Husscy v. Home-Payne (z), it was Approval of
held by the Court of Appeal, in accordance with the opinion chase/s^olT-
expressed by Fry, J., in Hudson v. Buck (a), that a contract Cltor-
to purchase " subject to the approval of the title by the
purchaser's solicitors," was conditional on such approval ; but
on appeal to the House of Lords, Lord Cairns was of a
different opinion, although the case was not decided upon this
point (b).

For, it may be observed, that an original offer, or, it is con- Offer may
ceived, any subsequent proposal which does not amount to a drawn before
simple acceptance of the terms of the other party, may be accePtance-
withdrawn or varied (c) at any time before it is accepted ;
even although a time be named for its acceptance (d) ; and it
is revoked by the death or bankruptcy of the proposer before
acceptance (e) ; and that, if rejected, either by an express If rejected,
refusal, whether written or verbal (/), or a proposed variation to b

(y) Lucas v. James, 1 Ha. 410; 428; Lucas v. James, 7 Ha. 410;

Warner v. Wellington, 3 Dr. 523, Dickinson v. Dodds, 2 Ch. D. 463;

where the completion of the contract see and distinguish J} ransom v. Stam-

was subject to references being satis- mcrs, 28 W. R. 180, where there was

factory ; Smith v. Neale, 2 C. B. an unequivocal acceptance of the

N. S. 67. offer, accompanied by the appoint-

(z) 8 Ch. D. 670. ment of a time for signing the con-

(a) 7 Ch. D. 683. tract.

(*) 4 Ap. Ca. 311. (e) Mcynell v. Surtees, 3 S. & G.

(c) Honeyman v. Marryat, 6 H. L. 101.

C. 112; Chinnock v. Marchioness of (/) Sheffield Canal Co. v. Sheffield

Ely, 4 D. G. J. & S. 645. It. Co., 3 R. C. 121 ; Honeyman v.

(d) Eoutkdge v. Grant, 4 Bing. Marry at, supra.
653 ; Martin v. Mitchell, 2 J. & W.

268

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 3.

Must be

accepted

within

reasonable

time.

either as to time for giving possession, or price, or payment
of deposit, or it is conceived, in any other particular, it at
once ceases to be binding (g) : and the acceptance of an offer
must be given within a reasonable time (h) : if, however, a
person make an offer by post, he cannot retract it, if the
other party, before receiving any notice of withdrawal, return
an immediate acceptance (i). But formal notice of with-
drawal is not necessary ; it is sufficient if the person to
whom it is made has actual knowledge that the person
who made it has done some act inconsistent with the
continuance of the offer, such as selling the property to
a third person (k).

Parol evidence Although where an agreement is signed ammo contrahcndi,
prove that the parol evidence is not admissible to vary its terms, yet such
evidence may be admitted to show that the signature was
merely conditional, and that the agreement was intended to
operate only on the happening of certain contingencies (7).

A writing which is signed by either party, and is perfect
as respects the terms of the contract, will not be considered
otherwise than final from the mere fact of its having, with
the consent of the other party, been sent to a solicitor as
instructions for the preparation of a more formal instru-
ment (m).

ditional.

Memorandum

binds,

although

sent as

instructions

for formal

agreement.

(g) Routledgev. Grant,
Hijde v. Wrench, 3 B. 334 ; Thornbury
v. Bevil, 1 Y. &C. C. C. 554.

(h) Kennedy v. Lee, 3 Mer. 454 ;
Thornbury v. Bevil, 1 Y. & C. C. C.
554, 563 ; Williams v. Williams, 17
B. 213; and see Powers v. Fowler, 4
E. & B. 519; Meynell v. Surtees, 3
S. &G. 101.

(i} See Dunlop v. Higgins, 1 H.
L. C. 400 ; Potter v. Sanders, 6 Ha.
1 ; Household Accident Co. v. Grant,
4 Ex. D. 216 ; as to offer by tele-
gram, see Quenerduaine v. Cole, 32
W. K. 185.

(k} Dickinson v. Dodds, 2 Ch. D.
463 ; and cf. Stevenson v. McLean, 5
Q. B. D. 346 ; Byrne v. Van Tien-
hoven $ Co., 5 C. P. D. 344.

(I) Pym v. Campbell, 6 E. & B.
370 ; Wake v. Harrop, 7 Jur. N. S.
710.

(m) Fowle v. Freeman, 9 V. 354 ;
Morgan v. Holford, 1 S. & G. 101.
See Gibbins \. N. E. Metr. Asylum,
11 B. 1 ; Card v. Jaffray, 2 Sch. &
L. 374 ; and see judgment in Crossley
v. Maycock, 18 Eq. 180 ; Ridgway v.
Wharton, 6 H. L. C. 238, 264, 288,
306.

THE AGREEMENT. 269

Any error, obviously clerical, in an agreement, will be Chap. VI.
corrected by the Courts («).

Clerical
error.

(4.) As to the signature. Section 4.

It has been long settled that a party signing an agreement 4s *° ttie
fa prim A facie bound by it, although it be not signed by the sj!,nature
other party (o) ; but if only one be bound, he may, it would by Par*y
appear, require the other to signify in writing his assent to or sufficient,
dissent from the contract ; and unless this be acceded to, he Other party
may himself rescind it (p) ; and evidence is admissible to
show that an agent intended to sign in his own right as well
as on behalf of his principal, provided that it does not actually
contradict the document (q).

A signature printed, or stamped, instead of written, or by What
initials, may be binding (r) ; but a mere description, although sufficient!
it satisfactorily identify the party, e. g., " your affectionate
mother," subscribed to a letter addressed to the son, with his
name and address in full, has been held insufficient (*).

In a late case, where there was a written offer to purchase, Signature to
to which the vendor replied by telegram " your offer for the for telegram.
L. estate is accepted," it was considered by the Court, though
it was not necessary to decide the point, that the signature
of the vendor to the instructions for the telegram was a
sufficient signature within the statute (#).

(«) See Wilson v. Wilson, 5 H. L. Williams, 17 B. 213, 216.

C. 40 ; Hart v. Tttlk, 2 D. M. & G. (q) Young v. Schuler, 11 Q. B. D.

300. 651.

(0) Seton v. Slade, 1 V. 265 ; 2 Wh. (r) Saunderson v. Jackson, 2 B. &

& T. L. C. ; Field v. Boland, 1 D. & P. 238 ; Schneider v. Norris, 2 M. &

Wai. 37 ; Sug. 129 ; Laythoarp v. S. 286 ; Phillimore v. Barry, 1 Camp.

Bryant, 2 Bing. N. C. 735 ; Fowle v. 613 ; Sweet v. Lee, 3 Man. & G. 452 ;

Freeman, 9 V. 354 ; Weston v. Russell, and see Blore v. Button, 3 Mer. 245 ;

3 V. & B. 187, 192 ; Owen v. Thomas, Tourret v. Cripps, 48 L. J. Ch. 567.

3 M. & K. 353. («) Selby v. Selby, 3 Mer. 2 ; and

(p) Martin v. Mitchell, 2 J. & W. see Skelton v. Cole, 1 D. & J. 587.

428 ; see Lord Ormond v. Anderson, (t) Godwin v. Francis, L. R. 5

2 B. & B. 371 ; and Williams v. C. P. 295.

270

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 4.

In pencil.

Signature
by agent.

Signature
not neces-
sarily placed
at end of
agreement.

Effect of
leaving
blank for
signature.

And it appears that an agreement is not the less binding
by reason of the alterations and signature being in pencil
instead of ink («).

And a signature in the name of an agent will bind the
principal if the agency be established (x) ; and the alleged
agent might, even before the Evidence Act (y), be examined
either to prove (z) or disprove the agency ; but if his evidence
go to impeach the validity of the authority under which he
has professed to act, it will be received with the most anxious
jealousy (a).

The signature to formal agreements, is of course usually
found at the end of the document ; but the statute requires
only a signing and not a subscribing ; and the signature may,
as in the case of a letter or agreement in the third person, be
inserted in the beginning or any other part of the instrument,
if inserted so as, in effect, to authenticate the entire document,
and not to be exclusively applicable to particular portions (b) ;
or, in other words, if it be so placed as to show that it was
intended to relate to, and that it does in fact relate to, every
part of the instrument (c) ; and this according to some autho-
rities, although, in the case of an agreement in the third
person, a place be left for signature at the bottom, in the
usual way (d) : however, in a case, where the agreement
contained the names of the parties in the commencement,
and concluded with the words, " as witness our hands," with-
out being followed by any name or signature, the Court took

(u] Lucas v. James, 1 Ha. 410 ;
Geary v. Physic, 5 B. & C. 234.

(x) White v. Proctor, 4 Taun. 209 ;
Kenworthy v. Schofield, 2 B. & C.
945.

(y) 14 & 15 V. c. 99.

(z) See Marston v. Roe, 8 A. & E.
30 ; and Long v. Millar, 4 C. P. D.
450.

(a) Howard v. Braithwaite, 1 V. &
B. 202, 209.

(b) Saunderson v. Jackson, 2 B. &
P. 238 ; Morison v. Tumour, 18 V.
175; Western v. Russell, 3 V. & B.
187 ; Ogilvie v. Foljambe, 3 Mer, 53 ;
Propert v. Parker, 1 R. & M. 625 ;
Blcakley v. Smith, 11 Si. 150; Lobb
v. Stanley, 5 Q. B. 574 ; Stokes v.
Moore, 1 Cox, 219 ; Sug. 135.

(c) Per Lord "Westbury, in Caton
v. Caton, 2 H. L. 143.

(d) Saunderson v. Jackson, 2 B. &
P. 239.

THE AGREEMENT. 271

a more common-sense view of the question, and held that Chap. VI.
there was no sufficient signature (e) ; so, where A., intending -

to marry B., wrote a paper commencing thus, "In the event Where the
of a marriage between the undermentioned parties, the fol- inserted in
lowing conditions, as a basis for a marriage settlement, are thg
mutually agreed upon ; " and then followed the terms of a ment-
proposed settlement, but the name of neither party was
signed to the memorandum, it was rightly held that A.'s
name, occurring in particular portions of the instrument,
could not, by force of the words " undermentioned parties "
be fastened on to the introductory words, so as to constitute
a sufficient signature (/). The purchaser's signature on the
back of the printed particulars (</), or in a column left blank
in them for that purpose, may be sufficient (h) .

And although a principal or his agent sign merely as a Party bound
witness, he may be bound, if the signature amount to an
acknowledgment of the existence of the agreement ; e. g.,
" witness A. B." (i) : but where a person, whose formal sig- but not as
nature would have bound the vendor, merely attested the
execution of the agreement by the purchaser, this was held to
be insufficient (k) . The question whether a person has signed
his name, and if so for what purpose, is one of evidence, and
any evidence which does not contradict the document is
admissible (/) .

The written approval by a professional agent, of a draft Approval of
agreement, or of the draft conveyance which recites the agree-

(e) Hubert v. Trehernet 3 Man. & (h) Emmerson v. Ifeelis, 2 Taun.

G. 743; Hubert v. Turner, 4 Sc. 38.

N. R. 486 ; cf . R. v. Tart, 28 L. J. (») Welford v. Seazley, 3 Atk. 504 ;

Q. B. 173. Coles v. Trecothick, 9 V. 234, 251;

(/) Caton v. Caton, L. R. 2 H. L. see Symons v. Syrnons, 6 Mad. 207.
127. (#) Gosbell v. Archer, 2 A. & E.

(g] See and consider Hodgson v. 500. As to whether attesting the

Le Bret, 1 Camp. 233 ; Phillimore execution of a deed is itself notice,

v. Barry, ibid. 518 ; and as to bought see Sug. 780, 781.
and sold goods, Goom v. Aflalo, 6 (/) Young v. Schiller, 11 Q. B. D.

B. & C. 117 ; and Sivewright v. 051 ; Dyas v. Stafford, 9 L. R. Ir.

Archibald, 17 Q. B. 124, where the 520; Smith v. Webster, 3Ch.D. 49.
earlier cases are reviewed.

272 THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI. ment, will, it would seem, be insufficient (m), the signing being

4. . • « •«

alto intuitu; this, however, was much questioned in another

case W> wni°n was eventually decided on a collateral point:
sufficient. kut m a later case, the written approval of the draft convey-
ance by the professional agent, was held insufficient, there
being no proof that he had his client's authority to sign an
agreement (o) : the effect of a similar approval of a draft
agreement by one of the parties, is more doubtful (p) : it was
held sufficient in a modern case, in which, however, the
earlier authorities do not appear to have been cited (q). The
circumstance of the party signing such approval being in the
legal profession would, it is conceived, be unfavourable to the
sufficiency of the signature. The alteration of the draft
conveyance by one of the parties has been held insufficient :
upon the case (r) as reported, it does not appear that the
alterations comprised the name of the party making them ;
and the only ground for contending for the sufficiency of the
instrument would be, that, by making the alteration, he had
adopted such part of the draft, including the name, as he had
left unaltered. In ItJiel v. Potter (s) , there was a similar
decision, where the entire conveyance had been written by
the defendant ; but it does not appear whether the convey-
ance recited the agreement, although such, probably, was the
case. Where the draft of a lease had, in pursuance of a parol
agreement, been forwarded to the intended lessee for perusal,
and he indorsed and signed a memorandum upon it, request-
ing the lessor to endeavour to relet the premises, as it would
be inconvenient for him (the lessee) to perform his agreement,
this was held to be sufficient (t).

(m) See Sug. 140 ; Lady Thynne v. griph, 4 C. & P. 312 ; Parker v.

Earl of Glen ff allt 2 H. L. G. 131 ; Smith, 1 Coll. 608 ; and compare

Lord Townshendv. Bishop of Norwich, Shippcy v. Derrison, 5 Esp. 190.

1 Hop. H. & W. 308, n. ; Jackson v. (q) Foligno v. Martin, 16 B. 586.
Off lander, 2 H. & M. 472 ; Smith v. (r) Hawkins v. Holmes, 1 P. W.
Webster, supra. 770 ; see Stokes v. Moore, 1 Cox, 219.

(n) Thornbury v. Xevill, 1 Y. & C. (*) 1 P. Wms. 771.

C. C. 554 ; and see Card v. Jaffray, (<) Shippey v. Derrison, 5 Esp.

2 Sch. & L. 374. 190, and see Craig v. Elliott, 15 L. R.
(o) Forsterv. Rowland, 7 H. & N. Ir. 257, where there was a letter

103. complaining of delay in engrossing

(p] See Sug. 141; Doe v. Ped- the draft conveyance.

THE AGREEMENT.

273

A contract by a corporation aggregate must, as a general Chap. VI.
rule (««), be under their common seal (x) : but, by the Com-

panies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, any contract entered by public
into on behalf of a company coming within the provisions of ™cmpai es'
the Act, and which, if made between private persons, would
require to be in writing, and to be signed by the parties to
be charged therewith, may be made, varied, or discharged in
writing, signed by any two of the directors (y] : and the
same rules which apply to an original contract apply to any
variation or alteration of it (s) . In cases which fall within
the general rule, the omission of the common seal precludes
the company, while the contract is still executory, from suing,
as it relieves them from being sued, upon it (a). In one
case (£>), it was held that where the unsealed contract is of
such a nature as to be specifically enforceable in Equity, and
there has been part performance under circumstances which
render the equitable doctrine of part performance applicable,
specific performance may be enforced against the corporation.
But this principle, though subsequently recognized by the
Court below in Hunt v. The Wimbledon Local Board (c), was
doubted in the Court of Appeal (d) ; and it is conceived not

(u) The exceptions to the rule
are, in the case of corporations
generally, contracts of trivial im-
portance, of great urgency, and of
constant recurrence ; see Henderson
v. Australian R. M. S. N. Co., 5
E. & B. 409 ; Mayor of Ludlow v.
Charlton, 6 M. & W. 815 ; Well* v.
Kingston-upon-IIull, L. R. 10 C. P.
402 : and in the case of trading cor-
porations, contracts entered into by
such corporations for effecting the
purposes for which such corpora-
tions were incorporated ; see Beverky
v. Lincoln Gas Co., 6 A. & E. 829 ;
South of Ireland Colliery Co. v.
Waddle, L. R. 4 C. P. 617 ; Hunt v.
Wimbledon Local Board, 4 C. P. D.
48. See also Young v. Mayor of
Leamington, 8 Ap. Ca. 517.

(x) See Mayor of Ludloio v.
Charlton, 6 M. & W. 815 ; Cope v.
Thames Haven Co., 3 Ex. 841 ; Diggk

D. VOL. I.

v. London and Blackwatt R. Co., 5 Ex.
442 ; Homersham v. Wolverhampton
Waterworks Co., 6 Ex. 137; Jackson
v. N. W. R. Co., 1 H. & Tw. 75 ;
Mayor of Kidderminster v. Hardwick,
L. R. 9 Ex. 13; Austin v. Guar-
dians of Bethnal Green, L. R. 9 C. P.
91.

(y) 8 V. c. 16, s. 97 ; see Lowe v.
L. $ N. Jr. R. Co., IS Q. B. 632.
See 19 & 20 V. c. 47, s. 41 ; and
see now as to companies under the
Companies Act, 1867, 30 & 31 V.
c. 131, s. 37 ; and vide ante, p. 219.

(z) Williams v. Chester R. Co., 15
Jur. 828.

(a) Governor of Copper Miners v.
Fox, 16 Q. B. 229.

(b) Crook v. Corp. of Scaford, 6 Ch.
551 ; and Bee post, p. 1139.

(c) 3 C. P. D. 208, 214.

(d) 4 C. P. D. 48.

274

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 4.

Alteration or
correction of
agreement.

without reason ; for the doctrine of part performance only
allows evidence to be given of what the contract between the
parties was, and does not apply where there is no contract, or
a contract which is an absolute nullity (e). Apparently, a
contract under seal will, in a proper case, be presumed when
the consideration is executed, for it has been held that a
corporation may be made liable at law for use and occupa-
tion (/) . It would seem to follow from this that even where
there is an express contract which is a nullity for want of a
seal, and the corporation have taken a benefit under it, they may
be made liable on any contract which the law will imply.
Where the validity of the contract depends upon whether a
formality of internal management (e. #., the passing of a
resolution) has been complied with, a stranger dealing with
the corporation has a right to assume such compliance (g).
But this doctrine clearly applies only where the transaction,
though it may be ultra vires the directors or agent, is intra
vires the corporation.

We may here observe, that any alteration made by either
party in a material part of a written contract, without the
consent of the other party, destroys the rights under the
contract of the party making the alteration (Ji) : but an
alteration made with consent is binding; and although it
is prudent and usual to authenticate the alterations by a
marginal signature, either in full name or by initials, this
precaution seems to be not absolutely necessary : in fact,
it has been held that a memorandum written across the
face of the signed agreement, and correcting an error in
one of its terms, binds the writer although he do not sign

(e) See Britain v. JRositer, 11 Q. B.

D. 123, 132. And see ante, p. 232,
n. (k) ; and^os^, p. 1138.

(/) Finlaij v. B. $ E. E. Co., 21
L. J. Ex. 117 ; Lowe v. L. $ N. W.

E. Co., 18 Q. B. 632.

(g) Royal British Bankv. Turquand,
6 E. & B. 327; Mahony v. East
Holyford Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 869.

(h} Powell v. Divett, 15 Ea. 29 ;
Davidson v. Cooper, 13 M. & W. 343 ;

Mollett v. Wackerbarth, 5 C. B. 181 ;
as to the effect of filling up the
blanks in a deed after execution by
one of the parties, see Adsetts v.
Hives, 33 B. 52. As to the admissi-
bility of such an altered contract to
show what the terms were, see Earl
of Falmouth v. Roberts, 9 M. & W.
469 ; Pattinson v. Luckley, L. R. 10
Ex. 330.

THE AGREEMENT. 275

it ; and that the agreement thus corrected is valid under the Chap. VI.

Sect 4

Statute of Frauds («').

(5.) As to the stamps. Section 5.

The agreement, if under seal, is a deed, and chargeable As to tho
with duty as such (£) ; if not under seal, and if the subject- Ag t ' j^
matter do not appear to be of the value of £5 (/), no duty on agree-
is payable ; and if, on a sale by auction, the same person
buy several lots, a distinct contract arises for each lot ; and
whatever may be the aggregate amount, no stamp is re-
quired for any lot which separately sells for less than £5 (m) .
Supposing the purchase-money to exceed £5, a 6ct. stamp
only is payable («) ; this may, without payment of a penalty,
be affixed within fourteen days after execution ; after that
time a £10 penalty becomes payable (0). The duty may be
denoted by an adhesive stamp, which is to be cancelled by
the person by whom the agreement is first executed (p).

A contract by the trustee of a bankrupt for the sale of Cases of
his real estate, is exempt from stamp duty (q) ; as, also, are
agreements under the Acts for promoting the residences of
the Parochial Clergy, the Church Building, Poor Law, Tithe
Commutation, and Commons Inclosure Acts, and agreements
entered into by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests (r) .
Whether a receipt for purchase-money, unless duly stamped
as such, is admissible as evidence of the contract, has been
the subject of conflicting decisions (s).

There must, in general, be distinct stamps for each distinct Several

. , . . , , stamps when

agreement or contract ; upon this principle, where a person requisite.

(i) JDluck v. Gompcrtz, 1 Ex. 862. further progressive duty for every

(&) See Robinson v. Drybrough, 6 entire quantity of 1,080 words above

T. R. 317. the first 2, 160.

(0 See Llddiard v. Gale, 4 Ex. (o) See 33 & 34 V. c. 97, s. 15.

816, and 33 & 34 V. c. 97, Sched. (p) Ibid. s. 36.

(in) Emmerson v. Ileclis, 2 Taun. (q) 46 & 47 V. c. 62, s. 144.

38 ; Hoots v. Lord Dormer, 4 B. & Ad. (r) See Tilsley, 531 et seq.

77 ; see, as to goods, Bigg v. Whisking, (s) Evans v. Prothcro, 2 M. & G-.

14 C. B. 195. 319; S. C., contra, 1 D. M. & G-.

(n) 33 & 34 V. c. 97 ; cf. 23 V. 572 ; and see and consider Diplock

c. 15, under which there was a v. Hammond, 5 D. M. & G. 320.

T2

276 THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI. purchases several lots at an auction, the agreement must bear
- a stamp in respect of each lot for which the purchase-money
exceeds £5 (t). Upon a purchase from persons haying
separate interests in an estate (e.g., tenants in common, or
tenant for life and remainderman), the agreement, if so
worded as to be a contract for the entire estate, would seem
to be subject only to single duty ; but if, on the contrary, it
were so worded as to amount to separate contracts with the
several vendors for their separate interests in the property, so
as to give to each vendor a right to enforce the agreement in
respect of his own particular interest, it is conceived that
separate stamps would be requisite.

Loss of un- If the agreement be not stamped, and be subsequently
agreement, lost, or even destroyed by the fraudulent act of the party
effect of. chargeable thereon, a Court of Equity can give no relief
unless the plaintiff can procure a copy ; the defendant, if he
have a copy, will be ordered to produce it for the purpose of
its being stamped (u) ; and it appears that a copy may be
made from recollection, if the witnesses can swear to the
precise terms, and not merely the general tenor of the
instrument (#) : and the Courts will, in the absence of
circumstances inducing a supposition to the contrary, pre-
sume that a lost instrument was duly stamped (y) ; or that
obliterated stamps were of the right amount (z) : and they
have now power (a) to admit unstamped or insufficiently
stamped instruments in evidence upon payment in Court of
the deficient stamp duty, a penalty of £10, and a further sum
of £1. And if the agreement is admitted by the answer, the
want of a stamp is immaterial (b).

(t) See James v. Shore, 1 Stark. (x) Smith v. HenUy, 1 Ph. 391.

426 ; Watting v. Horwood, 12 Jur. (y} See cases referred to in last

48. But a lease is not subject to an two notes, and Hart v. Hart, 1 Ha.

agreement stamp, in respect of it 1 ; Crowther v. Solomons, 6 C. B.

reserving an option of purchase to 758 ; Closmadeuc v. Carrel, 18 C. B.

the lessee ; Wor thing ton v. Warring- 36; &nd. see post, p. 370.

ton, 5 C. B. 635. (z) Doe v. Coombs, 6 Jur. 930.

(u) See Fowle v. Freeman, Sug. (a) 33 & 34 V. c. 97, s. 16.

144; Bousfield v. Godfrey, 5 Bing. (b} Hnddlcston v. Briscoe, 11 V.

418 ; Blair v. Ormond, 1 De G. & S. 583.
428.

THE AGREEMENT. 277

It has been held by the Court of Exchequer, that any Chap. VI.

Sect. 5.

instrument operating as a record of the transfer of property -

, , . ., i T \ Instrument

(not being goods, wares, or merchandise), e. g.9 a memo- recording
randum that A. has sold all the goods and fixtures in a certain p^p8erety°^
shop, is a conveyance within the meaning of the Stamp Laws, Jjable to
and must bear the ad valorem duty (c). conveyance.

"We may here remark, that an agreement in evasion of the Agreement

in evasion of

Stamp Laws, e. g., that the document shall, for the present, the Stamp
remain unstamped, but that, if it shall become necessary to
stamp it, one of the parties thereto will pay the penalty,
cannot be enforced (d) .

(6.) As to illegal agreements. Section 6.

As a general rule, no agreement can be enforced, at Law Agreement
or in Equity, which is entered into for an illegal purpose (c) ; illegal pur-
er has a tendency to promote an unlawful act (/) ; or is I
contrary to the policy of the law ; as e. #., where an ante-
nuptial settlement contemplates a future separation of
husband and wife (g) : and if the illegal agreement is to
be performed in this country, it is immaterial that it was
entered into in a country where it would have been con-
sidered valid (h) . And there are certain agreements which Sale of pre-
the Legislature has pronounced to be, in their own nature,
illegal. The Statute of 32 Henry VIII. (*'), declares it to
be unlawful to buy or sell any pretended right or title to
any lands or hereditaments, unless the vendors or their
ancestors, or the persons through whom the claim is derived,
have been in possession of the property, or of the reversion or
remainder thereof, or taken the rents or profits thereof, within
a year before the sale ; but the purchase of a pretended title,

(c) Horsfall v. Hey, 2 Ex. 778. H. L. C. 1 ; and see Hilton v.
But see as to real estate, Wilmot v. EckersUy, 6 E. & B. 47.
Wilkinson, 6 B. & C. 506 ; Toll v. (g) II. v. 7F., 3 K. & J. 382.
Lee, 4 Ex. 230. (h) Grcllv. Levy, 10 Jur. N. S. 210.

(d) Abbott v. Straiten, 3 J. & L. (i) C. 9 ; sec s. 2 ; and Partridge
616. v. Strange, Plow. 77, 88; Jenkins v.

(<?) Vide post, pp. 1096, \\Q1ctscq. Jones, 9 Q. B. D. 128; Kennedy v.
(/) Egerton v. Lord Brownlow, 4 Lycll, 15 Q. B. D, 491.

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 6.

To what the
statute ex-
tends.

To what it
does not
extend.

by a person in lawful possession of the rents and profits, is
. allowable (k). In a modern case, where A., possessed of a
term of years, died in 1828, and strangers entered and
occupied until 1841, when A.'s next of kin took out letters
of administration and sold and assigned the term, the assign-
ment was held to be clearly void (I) : so, the Act extends to
a lease under a pretended title (m) ; and to the assignment
of the mere right to bring an action to set aside a previous
voidable conveyance (») ; and to the purchase of an estate
for the purpose of acquiring the right to impeach some
previous arrangement affecting the property (o) ; and to
an agreement that the attorney shall, in lieu of costs, have
a share of the estate recovered for his client (p) ; and d
fortiori, to an agreement that, in addition to his legal costs,
he shall have a definite portion of the estate ; or a sum pro-
portionate to the value recovered (q) ; and it would seem that
any absolute purchase by the attorney of the subject-matter
of the suit pendente lite is unlawful, and void (r) ; but he may
take security for his costs on the subject-matter of the action (s).
The Act, however, does not extend to an assignment of a
purchaser's interest under the agreement for sale (t) ; nor to

(k) See sect. 4. Since the 8 & 9
V. c. 108, a right or title good in
fact is not a "pretenced" title
merely because it is a right of entry;
Jenkins v. Jones, 9 Q. B. D. 128; and
the onus is now upon the plaintiff to
show, not only that the title was bad,
but also that the purchaser knew it to
be " pretenced," i.e., fictitious ; and
this onus is not discharged by show-
ing merely that the right purchased
was in fact barred by the Statute of
Limitations at the date of the con-
tract ; Kennedy v. Lyell, 15 Q. B. D.
491.

(I) Doe d. Williams v. Evans, 1 C.
B. 717 ; Marquis Cholmondely v. Lord
Clinton, 2 J. & W. 135; and see
Wood v. Downes, 18 V. 125 ; Burke
v. Greene, 2 B. & B. 517 ; Moore v.
Creed, 1 D. & Wai. 521 ; Robb v.
Dorrian, 11 I. R. C. L. 292.

(m) Hitchins v. Lander, G. Coop.
34.

(n) Prosser v. Edmonds, 1 Y. & C.
481 ; Kcogh v. M'Grath, 5 L. R. Ir.
478. The rule does not apply to a
trustee in bankruptcy, who may dis-
pose of a right of action belonging
to the bankrupt, even though the
latter could not himself have so dealt
withit; Scearv.Laicson, 15Ch.D.42G.

(0) De Hoghton v. Money, 2 Ch.
164.

(p] Thomas v. Lloyd, 3 Jur. N". S.
288 ; see 33 & 34 V. c. 28.

(q) Earle v. Hopwood, 7 Jur. N. S.
775.

(r] Simpson v. Lamb, 7 E. & B. 84.

(s) Simpson v. Lamb, ubi supra;
and see Woodv. Doivnes, 18 V. 120.

(t) Wood v. Griffith, 1 Sw. 56;
Sug. 356 ; and see 8 & 9 V. c. 106,
s. 6.

THE AGREEMENT. 279

an agreement to sell an estate in the event of the party Chap. VI.
becoming seised of it under the will of the living owner («.) ; -
nor to an assignment of the subject-matter of an action (#), even
though the assignees be mere volunteers (y) ; nor to a security
on the subject-matter of a suit (z). It has, however, been
held that where the assignment contains an indemnity from
the purchaser to the vendor against the costs incurred, or to
be incurred, in the suit, the transaction savours of cham-
perty (a) ; but this distinction has not been lately followed ;
thus, where annuities were sold pending a suit which related
to them, and the vendors took an indemnity against past and
future costs, it was held that the sale was not affected by the
laws relating to champerty (b). Nor does the Act apply if
the purchaser have a previous common interest in the event
of the action ; as in the case of a purchase, by a second mort-
gagee, of the interest of the first mortgagee, during an action
in which the mortgaged property is claimed under a paramount
title (c) ; nor where parties, having a common interest, enter
into an arrangement respecting the litigation for securing
it (d) ; nor where the agreement contains no stipulation for
the commencement of a suit, and no suit is pending (e) ; nor
to an agreement to enable the purchaser of an estate to re-
cover for rent due, or injury done to the property prior to
the purchase (/') ; nor to a conveyance to a reversioner or
remainderman, with a view to strengthen his estate (g) ; nor
to cases where the right purchased is originally clear, but the
litigation results from circumstances subsequently arising
or subsequently known (/?) ; and the nature of reversions

(u) Cook v. Field, 15 Q. B. 460. 690 ; but see Sir Jas. Wigram's

(x) Harrington v. Long, 2 M. & K. comments on this case, 4 Ha. 430.

590; see Martyn v. Macnamara, 2 (b) Knight v. Bowyer, 2D.& J. 421.

Con. & L. 541 ; Scully v. Delany, 2 (c) Hunter v. Daniel, 4 Ha. 420.

Ir. Eq. R. 379; Cockcllv. Taylor, 15 (d) Bainbrigge v. Moss, 3 Jur. N.

B. 117. S. 58.

(y} Dickinson v. Burrell, 1 Eq. (e) Sprye v. Porter, 7 E. & B. 58.

337 ; but see comments on this case in (/) Sug. 357; Williams v. Pro~

Robb v. Dorrian, 11 I. B. C. L. 292 ; thcroc, 5 Bing. 309 ; S. C., 3 Y. & J.

and Kcogh v. M'Grath, 5 L. R. Ir. 516. 129.

(z) Anderson v. Eadcliffc, E. B. & (g) Co. Litt. 369 b ; see Anson v.

E. 806, 819. Lee, 4 Si. 364.

(a) Harrington v. Long, 2 M. & K. (h] Wilson v. Short, 6 Ha. 366.

280

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI.
Sect. 6.

Splitting
votes for elec-
tioneering-
purposes.

Selling an
advowson.

necessarily excludes them from the direct operation of the Act
of Henry VIII. : but an agreement in respect to a reversion
may be so framed as to be impeachable as savouring of
champerty (i). A plaintiff, who has an original title not
founded on champerty, is not disqualified to sustain the suit
by reason of his having made an improper bargain with
his solicitor as to the mode of his remuneration (k) .

By the Act of the 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 25, s. 7, it is de-
clared that all conveyances made of any hereditaments, in
order to multiply voices, or to split and divide the interest in
any houses or lands among several persons, to enable them to
vote at elections of members to serve in Parliament, are void
and of none effect ; and, by a later Act (/), such conveyances,
although containing conditions or stipulations of defeasance,
are declared to be free and absolute. It appears, however,
from recent decisions, that a conveyance made to carry into
effect a real bond fide contract for sale, where the purchase-
money is paid and possession taken without any secret reser-
vation or trust for the benefit of the seller, is not within the
statutes, although it be made with a view to the multiplying
of voices, or to the splitting of the freehold : the intention of
the statutes being, to avoid such conveyances only, made
with that view, as are in themselves fraudulent and collu-
sive (m) ; and that the statutes only affect the Parliamentary
Law, and do not prevent the estate from passing (n) .

The right to sell an advowson, with the next presentation
as part thereof, or a next presentation alone, subsists so long
as there is an incumbent ; nor will his known imminent
danger, and his death within a few hours after completion of

(i) See Reynell v. Sprye, 1 D. M. &
Gr. 660, and cases there cited.

(7c) Hilton v. Woods, 4 Eq. 432.
As to what constitutes common bar-
ratry and maintenance, see Scott v;
Miller, John. 221 ; and as to the
remuneration of solicitors, see now
33 & 34 V. c. 28,

(0 See 10 Anne, c. 31 (Ruff. c. 23) ;
1 Rogers on Elections, 14th ed. 142
et seq.

(m} Riley v. Crossley, 2 C. B. 146 ;
Alexander v. Newman, ibid. 122 ;
Thorniley v. Aspland, ibid. 160 ; New-
ton v. Hargreaves, ibid. 163.

(») Fhillpotts v. Phillpotts, 10 C. B.
85.

THE AGREEMENT. 281

the purchase, avoid the transaction as simoniaoal. if the Chap. VI.

Sect. 6.

parties had no particular clerk in view (o) : so, a stipulation -
by a vendor, who is not the incumbent, that he will pay
interest on the purchase-money to the purchaser until the
living becomes vacant, does not make the contract simoniacal,
if there is no undertaking to procure an avoidance (p) : so, a
stipulation, on an exchange of benefices, that dilapidations
shall not be made good, is not simony (q). "When the church
is void the right of immediate presentation cannot be sold
either alone or as part of the advowson ; and the purchase of
a next presentation by a clerk, with a view to present himself,
is prohibited by statute as simoniacal (r) . This enactment is
not found in practice to prevent purchases of entire advowsons
by clergymen, with the view to present themselves upon the
next vacancies ; but the terms of the Act, and of the oath
against simony, generally suggest greater difficulties to the
mind of the conveyancer than to that of the clerical casuist.

Under a modern Act (-s), a contingent, an executory, and a Contingent
future interest, and a possibility coupled with an interest, in
any tenements, or hereditaments of any tenure, whether the
object of the gift, or limitation of such interest or possibility,
be or be not ascertained ; also, a right of entry, whether im-
mediate or future, and whether vested or contingent, into or
upon any tenements or hereditaments in England of any
tenure, may be disposed of by deed, and may, of course, be
contracted for. It seems that the words " right of entry," do
not comprise a right of entry for condition broken ; but only
a right of entry in the nature of an estate or interest; i.e.,
where a person by lapse of time has lost everything except

(o) Fox v. Bishop of Chester, 3 Bli. (>•) See 13 Anne, c. 11 (Run3.

N. S. 123. 12 Anne, st. 2, c. 12). The pur-

(p) Sweet v. Meredith, 3 Gif. 610. chase of an estate for life in an ad-

(q) Goldham v. Edwards, 16 C. B. vowson has been held not to be the

437; 17 C. B. 141; 18 C. B. 389. purchase of the "next presentation"

The Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act within the meaning of the statute ;

(34 & 35 Viet. c. 43) has not altered Walsh v. Bishop of Lincoln, L. R. 10

the law upon this point; Wright v. C. P. 518.

Davies, 1 C. P. D. 638. (*) 8 & 9 V. c. 106, s. 6, which

takes effect from the 1st Oct. 1845.

282

THE AGREEMENT.

Chap. VI. the right to enter ; at any rate, the former kind of right will

Sect-6- A i i a/*
not pass under an assurance unless expressly named (t) .

Contracts by
joint -stock
companies
before com-
plete regis-
tration.

Contracts by
mortgagee
with mort-
gagor.

The 7 & 8 Yict. c. 110, s. 23, rendered absolutely illegal
and void (it) contracts for purchase entered into by the pro-
moters of joint-stock companies prior to complete registration,
unless made conditional only, and to take effect on complete
registration.

A mortgagee cannot, in Equity, contract with the mortgagor,
at the time of the loan, for the absolute purchase of the land
at a specific sum, in case of default being made in payment of
the mortgage money at the appointed time (x) ; but this rule
does not interfere with a purchase of the equity of redemption
by the mortgagee as a distinct and subsequent transaction ;
nor does it preclude an agreement by the mortgagor, at the
time of the loan, to give the mortgagee a right of pre-emption
in case of a sale during the continuance of the security (y) .

(t) Hunt v. Bishop, 8 Ex. 675;
Hunt v. Remnant, 9 Ex. 635 ; as to
rights of re-entry, see Crane v.
Batten, 23 L. T. 0. S. 220. See the
explanation of this point by Jessel,
M. R., in Jenkins v. Jones, 9 Q. B. D.
131 ; Kennedy \. Lyell, 15 Q. B. D.
491 ; and Conv. Act, 1881, s. 10.

(M) Butt v. Chapman, 8 Ex. 444.
See now as to how far a company may

be bound by the acts of its pro-
moters, Companies Act, 1867, 30 & 31
V. c. 131, s. 38 ; Buckley, 504 et scq.

(x} Coote Mortg. 19 ; Jennings y.
Ward, 2 Vern. 520 ; Willett v. Win-
ncll, 1 Vern. 488. The result of these
cases is, that any agreement which
< ' clogs the equity of redemption ' ' is
void.

(y) Coote Mortg. 20 ; Fisher, 687.

( 283 )

CHAPTER VII. Chapter VII.

AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE CONTRACT ON THE RIGHTS OF

THE PARTIES.

1. Purchaser entitled to estate, and vendor to purchase-
money.

2. Purchaser's general rights under contract as against
vendor.

3. Vendor's general rights under contract as against pur-
chaser.

4. lights of vendor and purchaser, inter se, not affected by
death, bankruptcy, fyc., of either parti/.

5. Death of vendor before completion, — its effect on relative
rights of his real and personal representatives, under old, and
under new laic.

6. Death of purchaser before completion, — its effect on relative
rights of his real and personal representatives, under old, and
under new late.

7. Effect of contract in various special cases.

(1.) FROM the time of the owner of an estate having entered Section i.

into a binding agreement for its sale, he holds the same in Vendor, how-
trust for the purchaser, subject to payment of the purchase- for purchaser,
money : but the relationship which is thus created does not
entail all the obligations of an ordinary trusteeship (a). The
vendor is not a mere dormant trustee ; he is a trustee having
a personal and substantial interest in the property, a right
to protect that interest, and an active right to assert that

(«) Wattv. Bright, U. & W. 501; Rose v. Watson, 10 H. L. C. 672.

284

Chap. VII.
Sect. 1.

interest, if anything should be done in derogation of it. The
relation, therefore, of trustee and cestui que trust subsists, but
subject to the paramount right of the vendor to protect his
own interest as vendor of the property (b). When the title
has been accepted and the purchase-money paid, this para-
mount right of the vendor ceases, and the trusteeship subsists
without any qualification ; but as from the date of the con-
tract the relationship is throughout that of trustee and cestui
que trust (c) . Thus, although the vendor can, in the absence
of express stipulation, insist on retaining the property until
completion of the purchase, it would, before the passing of
the Conveyancing Act, 1881, have passed under his devise of
trust estates (d) ; and he may be responsible as a trustee, if,
pending completion, he allow the property to go out of
cultivation or to become deteriorated (e) .

Section 2.

As to pur-
chaser's
general rights
under con-
tract as
against
vendor.

General
nature of
purchaser's
equitable
ownership.

(2.) As to purchaser's general rights under contract as against

vendor.

It is sometimes stated, in general terms, that by the con-
tract, the purchaser becomes, in Equity, the owner of the
property : but " this rule applies only as between the parties
to the contract, and cannot be extended so as to affect the
interests of others. If it could, a contract for the purchase
of an equitable estate would be equivalent to a conveyance of
it. Before the contract is carried into effect, the purchaser
cannot, against a stranger to the contract, enforce equities
attaching to the property" (/) ; nor, semble, can he as against
the vendor enforce such equities, without at the same time

(b) Per Lord Cairns in Shaio v.
Foster, L. B. 5 H.L. 321, see p. 338.
But he is not so within the Trustee
Acts, see Re Carpenter, Kay, 418;
Re Colling, 32 Ch. D. 333 ; and see
post, p. 662.

(c] See judgment of James, L. J.,
in Rayncr v. Preston, 18 Ch. D. 13.

(d} Lysaght v. Edwards, 2 Ch. D.
499.

(e) Earl of Egmont v. Smith, 6 Ch.
D. 469 ; and see Phillips v. Silvester,

8 Ch. 173, in which the vendors were
held liable for deterioration on the
footing of wilful default, as if they
were mortgagees in possession ; sed
qucere, and see as to this case post, p.
733 ; although it has been followed in
Royal Bristol Building Soc. v. Bomash,
35 Ch. D. 390.

(/) Per Lord Cottenham, in Taster
v. Small, 3 M. & C. 70 ; and see Watt
v. Bright, 1 J. &W. 501.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 285

praying or offering specific performance of the contract Chap. VII.
itself (g) . So, notice of an incumbrance given to the pur- -
chaser before the execution of the conveyance, is effectual,
although the purchase-money be actually paid (h) ; and even
after the execution of the conveyance, if the purchase-money
be not actually paid (t) , the purchaser, although he may then
have, or subsequently acquire, the legal estate, can, it is con-
ceived, use it against the incumbrancer only to the extent of
securing such purchase-money. His interest under the con- Is capable of
tract may, however, be charged, or assigned (k) ; and used to be
bound by a judgment (I) : but such incumbrancer, assignee, or
creditor, can only obtain relief, as against the vendor, on the
terms of undertaking all the purchaser's liabilities under the
contract (/») ; and, apparently, the vendor is not bound by
notice of an incumbrance which does not purport to give the
incumbrancer an immediate right to offer himself as the sub-
stitute for the purchaser (n) .

Up to the time fixed for completion, the vendor is, in the Vendor's
absence of special stipulation, entitled to the crops, or other &c. pending
ordinary profits of the land : he would not, however, it is comp e on'
conceived, be entitled to take crops in an immature state, or
otherwise than in due course of husbandry. After the time
fixed for completion, and pending negotiation, he may, it
appears, in due course of husbandry, cut coppice and get in
crops, but the net profits will belong to the purchaser (o).
Where the contract was for the purchase of an estate, including
the growing crops, to be completed and possession given on
the 24th June, and the time was extended by consent till the
29th September, and the vendor in the interval sold the crops,

(g) Fox v. Purssell, 3 S. & G. 242. (>») Dyer v. Pulteney, Barn. C. 160.

(h) Wigg v. Wigg, 1 Atk. 384. («) See and consider McCrcight v.

(i) Tildeslcy v. Lodge, 3 S. & G. 543. Foster, 5 Ch. 604.

(k) Paine v. Meller, 6 V. 349, 352 ; (o) Poole v. Shergold, 1 Cox, 273 ;

Seton v. Slade, 7 V. 274 ; Dotcson v. Sag. 644 ; see as to manorial fines, on

Solomon, 1 Dr. & S. 1. purchase of a manor, Gar rick v. Lord

(1} Baldwin v. Belcher, U. & L. 18; Camden, 2 Cox, 231 (stated post, p.

Walcott v. Lynch, 13 IT. Eq. R. 199 ; 1342) ; a,n& Earl of Hardwicke v. Lord

Grey Coat Hospital v. Westminster Im. Sandys, 12 M. & W. 761 ; Cuddon v.

Commrs., 1 D. & J. 531. Tite, 1 Gil 395.

286

EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII. the purchaser was held entitled, in Equity, only to the crops
— '• — growing at the time of the actual completion, and was left to

his remedy (if any) at Law for the recovery of the produce

of the crops ( p).

Windfalls, Everything, however, which forms part of the inheritance

purchaser? ' belongs to the purchaser from the date of the contract ; so

that he is entitled to windfalls (<?), and to the produce of

ordinary timber cut (/•), or, it is conceived, stone or gravel

quarried or dug by the vendor after the contract («) .

Material
alteration of
property by
vendor avoids
the contract.

Purchaser
dental bene-

losses, as in
cases of death
of tenant for

And any act of the vendor, which prevents his giving to
the purchaser that which was, substantially, the subject-
matter of the contract, renders the agreement voidable by the
latter ; e. g., the felling of ornamental timber (t) : and, even
as to ordinary timber, the authorities merely show that the
fall of it may be matter for compensation. But cases might,
it is conceived, occur, in which the Court would relieve a pur-
chaser on account of falls of wood, although neither planted
nor left for ornament or shelter, e. g., as where sufficient is
not left for repairs, or where the general character or appear-
ance of the estate, or of any special part of it, is materially
altered.

And since, as between the parties to the contract, the pur-
chaser is owner of the estate, he has the benefit of any im-
provements to the property which may happen after the
date of the contract (M) ; c. g., the dropping of lives on the
purchase of a reversionary interest (#) ; or a sudden rise in
the value of land from its being required for a public pur-
pose (y) : and must bear any loss which occurs without the

(p) Webster v. Donaldson, 34 B. 451.
Qucere, the legal remedy.

(q) Poole v. Shergold, 1 Cox, 273.

(r) Magennis v. Fallon, 2 Moll. 591.

(t) See Nelson v. Bridges, 2 B. 239.

(0 White v. Nutt, 1 P. W. 61 ;
Spurrier v. Hancock, 4 V. 667, 674 ;
Magennis v. Fallon, supra. As to the
measure of damages, where the pur-

chaser claims specific performance,
see Krehl v. Park, 31 L. T. 325.

(11) Expenditure upon the property

by the vendor seems to fall within

the rule ; see Monro v. Taylor, 8 Ha.

60 ; Clare Hall v. Harding, 6 Ha. 296.

(x) Harfordv. Furrier, iMad. 539-

(y) Paine v. Metier, 6 V. 352.

OX RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 287

fault of the vendor; c. #., the deterioration of the property Chap. VII.
through the calamities of the times (z) ; the death of the

ccsttii que vie, on the purchase of an estate for life, or a life °™. c " ^w
annuity (a) ; or the admission of younger lives to copyhold
tenements on the purchase of a manor, and the consequent
diminution in the value of the fines (b) ; or the destruction of
house property by fire (c), or an earthquake (d) ; and, as re- or fire,
spects fire, the vendor, unless he agree that the property shall
be kept insured (e), or, it would seem, make some proposition
to the purchaser grounded upon the fact of its being insured, Vendor,
need not keep up the insurance, or give the purchaser notice J,inid1bo
of its having dropped (/) ; but if the omission by the vendor insure,
to keep up the insurance renders the title impeachable, the
purchaser, it seems, may be discharged (g) ; so, if the vendor,
though not bound to insure, effects an improper insurance,
and the property thereby becomes liable to forfeiture, he
cannot enforce the contract (h). The purchaser of house
property must, as between himself and the vendor, make good
any injury done to adjoining premises by the fall of the
buildings subsequently to the contract (i).

And where the accruing benefit is such, that, if taken by Restrictions

• 111 i on purchaser's

the purchaser, it would or might be irrecoverably lost to the right,— case
vendor (as in the case of a vacancy occurring pending dis-
cussions on the title to an advowson), the purchaser claiming 8on
the benefit must, as a general rule, accept the title (k) : in
Wyvill v. Bishop of Exeter (I), the right to present was

(z) Poole v. Shergold, 2 Br. C. C. the fire ; Counter v. Macphcrson, 5 Mo.

118. P. C. 83, 106.

(a) Sug. 292 ; and see 6 V. 352. (d) Cass v. Itudele, 2 Vern. 280 ;

(b) Cuddon v. Titc, 1 Gif. 395. but see 1 Br. C. C. 157, n., where

(c) Paine v. Meller, 6 V. 349 ; Har- the case is said to be misreported.
ford v. Purrier, 1 Mad. 532, 539 ; and (e) Poole v. Adams, 12 W. R. 683.
see Poole v. Adams, 12 ~W. R. 683 ; (/) 6 V. 353.

V.-C. K. ; and especially Eayner v. (g) Palmer y. Goren, 25 L. J. Ch.

Preston, 18 Ch. D. 1, and Castellain v. 841.

Preston, 11 Q. B. D. 380 ; et vide ante, (h) Dowson v. Solomon, 1 Dr. & S. I.

p. 196; post, p. 913, where these cases (i) Robertson v. Skelton, 12 B. 260,

are commented on. Aliter, if theven- 266.

dor have agreed to repair or alter the (k} Sug. 293.

premises, and have not done so before (1) 1 Pri. 292.

288 EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII. altogether denied him, on the ground of his objections to the
- title having been frivolous ; but the case seems of doubtful

authority (m).

Sale in con- go, in the converse case of an estate being sold in considera-
life annuity ; tion of a life annuity, and of the cestui que me dying before
& completion, the purchaser will be entitled to a conveyance on

que ve
before convey- payment of the arrears (n). It is, however, as a general rule,

essential, in such a case, that he should, in the lifetime of the
cestui que vie, have made, or tendered, any payment which
became due during such lifetime (o) : but the rule, it is pre-
sumed, would not apply unless a sufficient interval had
elapsed between the payment becoming due and the death to
allow of payment or tender being made according to the
usual course of business ; the omission, in fact, must amount
to laches (p) : nor, on the other hand, where a payment had
been previously refused or long neglected, is it likely that a
Court of Equity would be satisfied with payment or tender
made at a time when the cestui que vie was, to the knowledge
of the purchaser, dying or dangerously ill. And although
the Court, upon sales in consideration of an annuity, will
enforce specific performance notwithstanding the death of the
annuitant, it will inquire with some jealousy into the fairness
of the transaction ; and will, under such circumstances (</),
require a clear case for specific performance.

Not entitled A purchaser is not entitled, before completion, to vote at
tion to par- the election of a member of parliament in respect of the land
purchased (r).

Sales by "We shall hereafter have occasion to consider the above

rules, with reference to sales under a decree of the Court (s).

(m) Sug. 293; Fry, 400. (?) Davies v. Cooper, 5 M. & C.,

(n) Mortimer v. Capper, 1 Br. C. C. see p. 279.

156; Baldwin v. Boulter > ibid., cited (r) Anelayv. Lewis, 17 C. B. 316;

in Coles v. Trecothick, 9 V. 234, 246. unless, of course, lie is in actual pos-

(o) Jackson v. Lever, 3 Br. C. C. session within 6 & 7 V. c. 18, s. 74.
605 ; Pope v. Roots, 1 Br. P. C. 370. (s) See Ch. XX.

(p) See Sug. 295.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 283

(3.) As to vendor's general rights under contract as against Chap. VII.

Sect. 3.

purchaser.

As to vendor1 a

The vendor has a lien upon the estate for the unpaid pur- under con-

chase-money (/) : if, therefore, before payment, the purchaser pur.

be in possession, Equity will restrain him from any act, — chaser.
such as felling timber, — by which the vendor's security might

be lessened (u) . If, however, only an inconsiderable part of He may re-

,r-i . • i '. -i • j strain a fallof

the purchase-money remain unpaid, it may be conjectured timber by

that the vendor applying for the injunction. would, as would Purchaser m
1 J J possession.

an ordinary mortgagee, have to satisfy the Court that the
estate without the timber was an insufficient security (x) ;
and it is also presumed that the injunction might be so
extended as to restrain the cutting of underwood out of the
due course of husbandry (y), or any other similarly prejudicial
act.

Prior to the 27 & 28 Viet. c. 112, a judgment entered up Judgment is
against the vendor subsequently to the contract, and registered, paidpurchase-
was a lien upon the unpaid purchase-money (z) ; and, conse- money-
quently, to that extent, upon the land itself. And an extent
upon Crown process, at any time before conveyance, binds the
purchaser although he has paid his money (a) .

Prior to the Intestates' Estates Act, 1884 (&), it seems pro- Vendor's

* T, A

bable that if the purchaser died intestate and without an heir, deatlfof pur-
before conveyance, the vendor might have kept the estate and cnaser with-
any part or all of the purchase-money, if paid (c) ; as there was before com-
no escheat of equitable estates (d). But by sect. 4 of the Act,

(t) As to which, vide Ch. XIV., (z) Prid. J. 20 ; post, p. 540. See

sect. 1. Guest v. Cambridge R. Co., 6 Eq. 619.

(u) CrocJcford v. Alexander, 15 V. (a) Hex v. Snow, 1 Pr. 220, n. ; see

138. 2 & 3 V. c. 11, ss. 8, 9, 10, and 11.

(x) See Humphreys v. Harrison, U. (b) 47 & 48 V. c. 71.

& W. 581 ; Hippesley v. Spencer, 5 (c} See Sug. 295, 296, commenting

Mad. 422 ; King v. Smith, 2 Ha. 239. on Burgess v. JFheate, 1 W. Bl. 1231.

(y) Humphreys v. Harrison, ubi (d) S. C. ; Beale v. Symonds, 16

supra. B. 406.

D. VOL. I. U

290

EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII. where a person dies without an heir and intestate in respect
- of any real estate, consisting of any estate or interest, whether
legal or equitable, in any incorporeal hereditament, or of any
equitable estate or interest in any corporeal hereditament,
whether devised or not devised to trustees by the will of such
person, the law of escheat is to apply in the same manner as
if the estate or interest above mentioned were a legal estate
in corporeal hereditaments.

Tenancy of
purchaser,
whether
determined
by contract.

Tenancy at
"will

mined.

Purchaser in
possession not
liable for use
and occupa-
tion, if no
title.

"Where the purchase is by a tenant, either from year to
year or for a longer term, the contract will not determine the
tenancy, unless specially worded so as to be an absolute
contract for purchase whether the vendor do or do not show
a good title (e) : but Equity will restrain the landlord from
enforcing payment of rent pending completion (/).

A mere tenancy at will appears to be determined by the
contract (g) from the time at which possession is agreed to
be given to the purchaser.

It has been determined, that a purchaser who has been let
into possession, pending discussions as to title, cannot, if the
contract go off through defects in title, be sued for use and
occupation : even although the occupation may have been a
beneficial one (h] : nor can he, unless he agreed to quit on
some specified event which has happened (/), be ejected
without a demand of possession (k). The above questions
should, of course, be provided for by special agreement where
the purchaser is let into possession before payment, or where
the purchase is by a tenant. And where there was an agree-

(e) Doe v. Stanion, 1 M. & W. 695 ;
Tarte v. Darby, 15 M. & W. 601.

(/) Daniels v. Davison, 16 V. 253.

(g) Sug. 178.

(h] Winterbottom v. Ingham, 7 Q-
B. 611 ; and see Kirtland v. Poun-
sett, 2 Taun. H5, where the Court
seemed to attach importance to the
fact of the purchaser having paid
part of the purchase-money ; see p.

147 ; but this, although it was also
the case in Winterbottom v. Ingham,
does not seem to have been there
considered material. See, in Equity,
Stevens v. Guppy, 3 Rus. 171 ; Wil-
liams v. Shaw, ib. 178, n.

(i) Doe v. Sayer, 3 Camp. 8.

(k) See Doe v. Stanion, 1 M. & W.
700; Right \. Beard, 13 Ea. 210.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 291

ment that the purchaser should receive all rents and profits Chap. VIT.

from the date fixed for completion, he was held to be entitled

as from that date to an occupation rent from the vendor who
had remained in possession (I). A purchaser who has let a
tenant into possession, can maintain an action for use and
occupation against him, although the purchase be not com-
pleted ; the tenant being estopped from disputing the title of
the party from whom he received actual possession (m).

It seems probable that if, after the contract, the vendor Expenditure
lay out money on the property, e.g., in obtaining a renewal
of the lease on which it is held, he has no claim on the
purchaser for the expenditure (n) ; but this rule, it is con-
ceived, could not apply to expenditure essential to the pre-
servation of the property, and incurred by the vendor after
the expiration of the time fixed for completion, — the delay
resting with the purchaser.

(4.) Rights of vendor and purchaser, inter se, not affected by Section 4.

death, bankruptcy, fyc. of either parti/. Rights of

vendor and

The contract, when once entered into, will not, without an f
express stipulation to that effect, be avoided by the death, affected by

' death, bank-

bankruptcy, or lunacy (o), of both or either of the parties, ruptcy, &c. of
even before the time fixed for completion.

Contract not
avoided by

Previously to the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, upon the bank- ruptcy, or
ruptcy of a purchaser, the vendor might require the assignees Insolvenc7-
to elect whether they would abandon or perform the contract ; assignees of

(I) Met. R. Co. v. Defries, 2 Q. B. (») Ante, p. 286, n. (M) ; and vide

D. 189, 387 ; and see Shericin v. post, p. 733, on Phillips v. Sylvester,

Shakespeare, 5 D. M. & G. 517. 8 Ch. 173.

(?M) See Doe v. Mills, 4 N. & M. (o) Winged v. Lefebunj, 2 Eq. Ca.

25, 29 ; and Hull v. Vaughan, 6 Ab. 32 ; Orlcbar v. Fletcher, 1 P. W.

Pr. 157. See the doctrine of es- 737 ; Owen v. Davies, 1 V. 82 ; Brooke

toppel between landlord and tenant v. Hewitt, 3 V. 255 ; Whitworth v.

explained, Langford v. Selmes, 3 K. Davies, 1 V. & B. 545 ; Valpy v.

&J. 226; Morton v. Woods, L. R. 4 Oakley, 16 Q. B. 941; Sug. 170,

Q. B. 293. 220 ; as to lunacy, see 16 & 17 V.

c. 70, s. 122.

292 EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII. and, if they failed to declare their election ( p) , he might apply

Sect 4

hy petition for delivery up of the agreement and for posses-

under'the old s^on °^ ^e premises (q) i and if, in any case, they allowed a
laws. reasonable time to elapse without requiring the contract to

be performed, they were considered to have abandoned it (r) ;
and the question, what was a reasonable time, would, in an
action at Law, be left to the jury (s) : or the vendor might
petition for a resale of the property, and for payment of the
amount remaining due to him, and for leave to prove for the
deficiency (t) (if any) .

Disclaimer by The Act of 1869 (w), instead of leaving it to the election
bankrupt of the trustee in bankruptcy whether he would perform or
recent Act abandon a contract entered into by the bankrupt, empowered
him within certain limits as to time to disclaim any property
of the bankrupt which might consist of unprofitable contracts,
or be otherwise burdensome or unsaleable (x) . These statutory
provisions as to disclaimer, which were frequently the subject
of judicial decision, are now repealed by the Bankruptcy Act,
1883 (y), which provides, in effect (s), that the trustee of the
bankrupt's property may, notwithstanding that he has endea-
voured to sell, or has taken possession or exercised acts of
ownership, by writing under his hand, under certain condi-
tions, disclaim any property of the bankrupt which is of a
burdensome or unsaleable description, including unprofitable
contracts ; and such disclaimer will operate to determine, as
from its date, the rights, interests, and liabilities of the bank-
rupt and his property in, or in respect of, the property dis-
claimed ; and will also discharge the trustee from all personal
liability in respect of the property disclaimed as from the

(p) As to what amounted to elec- («) 32 & 33 V. c. 71.

tion, see Hastings v. Wilson, Holt, (x) See sects. 23 and 24.

N. P. 290. (y) 46 &47 V. c. 52.

(q) 6 Geo. IV. c. 16, s. 76; 12 & 13 («) See sect. 55 ; and G-. R. 1886,

V. c. 106, SB. 145, 146 ; 24 & 25 V. R. 320. As to the effect of a dis-

c. 134, ss. 131, 150. claimer of freehold property of the

(r) Lawrence v. Knoicles, 7 Sc. 381. bankrupt burdened by onerous cove-

(«) S. C. nants, see Re Mercer and Moore, 14

(0 Bowks v. Rogers, 6 Ves. 95, n. ; Ch. D. 287.
Hope v. Booth, 1 B. & Ad. 498.

ON RIGHTS OF PAKT1ES. 293

date when the property vested in him. but will not, except so Chap. VII.

r J . Sect. 4.

far as is necessary for the purpose of releasing the bankrupt -
and his property and the trustee from liability, affect the
rights or liabilities of any other person.

(5.) Death of vendor before completion : its effect on relative Section 5.
rights of his real and personal representatives^ under old, and Death of

vendor before

tinder new laic. completion :

its effect on

Upon the vendor's death, the unpaid purchase-money, relative rights
although, by the agreement, made payable as he shall ap- personal
point (w), forms part of his personal estate (x) : the profits of tives, under
the land from his death up to the time fixed for completion ^^ndflr
belong to his real representatives (y) : as until that time there Purchase-

. money and

IS no Conversion. interim

profits.

If he die before conveyance, the legal estate, unless the Legal estate,
law of descent in such a case has been altered by the Con-
veyancing Act, 1881, descends on his heir or devisee ; and in
the event of his death without an heir and intestate, a con-
veyance of the legal estate was, until the recent change of
the law, usually obtained under the provisions of the Trustee
Act, 1850 (a).

And it has been held that where the vendor of an equitable Heirs of
estate died before completion, his heirs were necessary parties e*!1"*8^10

vendor

to the conveyance (a) : but in such a case the Court would not necessary
make any order purporting to vest the outstanding interest conveyance.

(M) Thompson v. Towne, 2 Vern. for a mining licence was purchase-

319 ; and see 1 V. c. 26, s. 27. money or rent.

(x) Fletcher v. Ashburncr, 1 Br. (y) Lumsden v. Fraser, 12 Si. 263.

C. C. 497; 1 Wh. & T. L. C. ; («) 13 & 14V. c. 60; or, formerly,

Baden v. Countess of Pembroke, 2 under the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 23 ;

Vern. 213, 215 ; Eaton v. Sanxter, 6 see Ee Lowers Estate, 2 Ph. 690 ;

Si. 517 ; see as to standing timber, vide post, p. 655 et seq.
Anon., cited 7 V. 437 ; Sug. 188 ; (a) Duly v. Nalder, 35 L. J. Ch.

see Lord Hatherton v. Bradburne, 13 52 ; see, too, Hoddel v. Pugh, 33 B.

Si. 599 : where the question was 489.
whether the consideration payable

294 EFFECT OF CONTKACT

Chap. VII. in the purchaser (b) : a vesting order being appropriate only
— — in respect to a legal estate.

Conveyancing The Conveyancing Act, 1881, contains two important pro-
visions bearing on this subject. By sect. 4, it is provided
that where, at the death of any person, there is subsisting a
contract, enforceable against his heir or devisee, for the sale
of the fee simple or other freehold interest, descendible to his
heirs general, in any land, his personal representatives are by
virtue of the Act to have power to convey the land for all
the estate and interest vested in him at his death, in any
manner proper for giving effect to the contract. This section
does not alter the rule of descent ; it simply confers on the
legal personal representative a statutory power to convey,
which may apparently be exercised in every case where there
is a subsisting binding contract capable of being enforced
against the heir or devisee. By sect. 30 it is enacted, that
where, since the Act came into operation, an estate or interest
of inheritance, or limited to the heir as special occupant, in
any tenements or hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, is
vested on any trust or by way of mortgage in any person
solely, the same shall on his death, notwithstanding any
testamentary disposition, devolve to and become vested in his
personal representatives or representative from time to time,
in like manner as if the same were a chattel real vesting in
them or him with all the powers and incidents attaching to a
chattel real ; and for the purposes of the section the personal
representatives for the time being of the deceased are to be
deemed in law his heirs and assigns within the meaning of
all trusts and powers (c) ; and sect. 48 of the Land Transfer
Act, 1875, is repealed. Whatever may be the precise nature
of the fiduciary relation which is created between the vendor
and the purchaser by the contract, it is clear that this section,

(b) Re Williams' Estate, 5 De G. where the heir of the last surviving
& S. 515. trustee could not formerly have done

(c] It has been held in Ireland that so ; JRe Ingleby and Norwich Insur-
this section does not enable the per- ance Co., 13 L. E.. Ir. 326 ; see post,
sonal representatives to make a title, p. 083.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 295

although in terms it includes all estates held on any trust, Chap. VII.

was passed diverse intuitu ; and it seems to be the sounder -

view that if the vendor dies before completion, the property

which he has contracted to sell is not vested in him upon a

trust, so as to be descendible on his legal personal representa-

tives within the meaning of the Act, and that the purchaser,

if he seeks to enforce the contract, must rely entirely on the

provisions of the 4th section. And it would seem that the pur-

chaser ought to preserve the contract, or evidence of it, as a

necessary part of his title.

In cases governed by the law as it existed before the new Under old
"Wills Act (d), (and which, it must be remembered, is still revoked prior
binding in all cases where the will has not been made or
republished, &c., on or since the 1st of January, 1838), the
contract for sale (assuming it to be binding as against the
vendor) is, in Equity, a revocation of a prior devise of the
property (c) ; the legal estate passes to the devisee, but merely
as a trustee ; and the purchase-money belongs to the personal
estate. And even if the estate be devised in trust for sale, Although

clcvisc TVclS in

and then be agreed to be sold by the testator, the purchase- trust to selL
money will not belong to the legatees of the proceeds of
sale (/).

In all cases, the question between the real and personal Relative
representatives seems to be this, viz., whether the vendor at dor's real and

m

the time of his death was, either absolutely or contingently,

under such an agreement as Equity would enforce against tives de-

pended on his
him (y) : if so, the property (as between his real and per- liability to

sonal representatives), forms part of his personal estate from contract.
the time fixed for completion ; whether such time be specified
in the contract, or have to be determined by the occurrence of

(d) I V. c. 26. (/) Arnold v. Arnold, 1 Br. C. C.

(*) Cotter v. Layer, 2 P. W. 624 ; 401 ; Newbold v. Roadknight, 1 R. &

Knollys v. Akock, 5 V. 654 ; Bennett M. 677 ; see Sounders v. Cramer, 3

v. Lord Tankerville, 19 V. 178; and D. & War. 87.

see raicser v. Jc/ery, 3 Rus. 479, (g) See A.-G. v. Day, 1 V. 220 ;

484. Knollyt v. Alcock, 7 V. 558 ; Sug.

186.

296

EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII.
Sect. 6.

some collateral event, or depend upon the mere option of the
purchaser (/a) : and is liable to probate duty in the hand of
his executors (i) : but unless and until such event occur, or
such option be declared, the estate (in the case of intestacy)
belongs to the heir (k) ; or in the case of a devise (either
after (/) or before (m) the contract), to the devisee, unless the
contract evidence a contrary intention ; which intention is
not evidenced by a special reservation of the rent and profits,
until completion, in favour of the vendor, his heirs, executors,
and administrators (ri).

For example, where a lessee of real estate with an option
of purchasing the fee at the end of a term of years, exercised
his option after the death of the lessor, it was held that the
realty was thereby converted into personalty as between the
lessor's real and personal representatives (0) . So, where,
after the date of his will, a testator entered into a contract,
giving an option to purchase which was exercised after his
death, it was held that the property was converted as from
the date of the exercise of the option ; and that the purchase-
money belonged to the residuary legatees, and not to the
specific devisee of the estate, who was entitled only to the
intermediate rents (p) : and an agreement between conflict-
ing claimants of an estate, that the same should be sold and
the produce divided, has been held a conversion (q) : so have
the adoption and completion by the heir of his ancestor's
parol contract for sale (r) . But the principle applies only as

(h) Lawes v. Bennet, 1 Cox, 167 ; but not reported.

cited 7 V. 436; and 4 V. 596.
See Emuss v. Smith, 2 De G. & S.
722 ; Goold v. Teague, 5 Jur. N. S.
116. As to what amounts to election,
see Padbury v. Clark, 2 M. & G-. 298.

(i) A.-G. v. Brunning, 8 H. L.
Ca. 243 ; A.-G. v. Hubbuck, 13 Q. B.
D. 278.

(K) Townley v. Bedwell, 14 V. 591.

(0 Sug. 187.

(m} Hunter v. Watson, a case de-
cided by Lord Selbornein May, 1874,

(») Shadforth v. Temple, 10 Si. 184.

(0) Collingwood v. Row, 5 W. R.
484 ; Townley v. Bedwell, 14 V. 591.
But see Drant v. Vause, 1 Y. & C. C.
C. 580 ; Emuss v. Smith, 2 De G. &
S. 722; cf. Bowen v. Barlow, 11
Eq. 454.

(p) Weeding v. Weeding, 1 J. & H.
424.

(q) Hardey v. Hawkshaw, 12 B. 552.

(r) Frayne v. Taylor, 10 Jur. N". S.
119.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 297

between the real and personal representatives of the vendor, Chap. VII.
and not as between the vendor and the purchaser (s). — —

Where chattels specifically bequeathed were sold by the Sale in testa-
friends of the testator during his life, he being then a lunatic without^is6
and so continuing until his decease, this was held to be no authonty-
conversion as between the specific legatee and the residuary
legatee, although the unauthorized sale was approved and
confirmed by the Court in an administration suit : and the
fact of the specific legatee having actively concurred in the
sale did not affect her right, she being then under cover-
ture (/).

And it has been held that when a railway or other public Conversion on
company, in exercise of its compulsory power, gives due Si
notice of its intention to take land, mere acquiescence by the Pames-
owner in such notice, will (unless he be non compos, or under
some other personal disability), (11) be considered equivalent
to a contract, and have the effect of converting the property
into personalty (#). But, in a modern case, where the earlier
decisions were fully reviewed, the precise effect of the service
of such a notice was accurately defined : for certain pur-
poses, and to the extent of fixing the quantity of land to be
taken, the service of the notice may be said to constitute the
relation of vendor and purchaser ; but until the negotiations
thus originated result in a formal agreement, or in acts of
the parties equivalent thereto (as> e.g., the fixing of the price
by arbitration), there is no contract which the Court can
specifically enforce at the suit of either party, and therefore
no conversion (y). Thus where, after service of the notice,
the vendor stated the price which he was willing to take, but
died before his offer was accepted, it was held that, although

(*) Edwards v. West, 7 Ch. D. 858. see Richards v. A.-G. of Jamaica,

(t) Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Ha. 475. 6 Mo. P. C. 381 ; but see Adams v.

(u) M. R. Co. v. Oswin, 1 Coll. 74, Blackwall £. Co., 2 M. & G. 118, 129;

80 ; but see He East Lincolnshire JR. In re Stewart, 1 S. & G. 37.

Act, 1 Si. N. S. 260 ; and 6 Mo. P. (y) Haynes v. Hayncs, 1 Dr. & S.

C. 397. 426, and cases cited in judgment;

(x) Ex p. Hawkins, 13 Si. 569 ; and and vide ante, p. 242 et seq.

298 EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII. the purchase was afterwards completed at the price asked,

LJ there was no conversion (z) ; so, where the contract with the

landowner merely fixed the price per acre, without specifying
the quantity to be taken, the purchase-money paid for land
taken after the owner's death was held to be realty (a) ; but
where after service of the notice, two surveyors were ap-
pointed under the L. C. C. Act, and the landowner verbally
agreed to accept the price thus ascertained, but died before
completion, having by a will, long prior to the notice, specifi-
cally devised the property to A., it was held that there was a
valid contract, and that the devise to A. was adeemed ; but
that A. was entitled to the rents which accrued between the
death of the testator and the completion of the purchase (b).

Where owner In the absence of express clauses for the purpose, it is not

undetMlis-00 the effect of a Eailway Act to alter the course of the devolu-

ability. ^on Q£ ^ pr0perty without the owner's consent or election ;

and it is now well settled that if the owner be a lunatic, or

under any other incapacity, the purchase-money for the land

taken retains the character of realty (c). Where money was

paid into Court under certain local Acts, and one of the

persons entitled was convicted of felony and transported, it

was held that his share was to be considered as realty, and

that it was not forfeited to the Crown (d).

Excessive sale Where, on a sale by order of the Court, real estate is sold
in excess of what is required to satisfy the purpose for which
the sale is directed, the surplus proceeds have been held to
retain the character of realty (e) ; but in a recent case (/) the
propriety of this doctrine was questioned by Sir Greorge Jessel,

(z) Ee Arnold, 32 B. 591. Lords Justices, and cited 22 B. 198 ;

(a) Ex p. Walker, 1 Dr. 508. Ee Tttgwell, 27 Ch. D. 309, where

(V) Watts v. Watts, 17 Eq. 217; Ex p. Flammank, 1 Si. N. S. 260, was

see the V.-C.'s comments on Ex p. dissented from.
Hawkins, and Haynes v. Haynes ; and (d} Ee Harrop^s Estate, 3 Dr. 726.

see also Harding v. Met. E. Co., (c} Jermy y. Preston, 13 Si. 356,

7 Ch. 154. 366 ; CooJce v. Dcaley, 22 B. 196.

(c) M. E. Co. v. Oswin, 1 Coll. 74, (/) Steed v. Preecc, 18 Eq. 192; and

80 ; Ee Sloper, a case decided by the see Croivtherv. Bradncy, 28 L. T. 464.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 299

M. E., who expressed it as his opinion that " if a conversion Chap. VII.
is rightfully made, whether by the Court or a trustee, all the -
consequences of a conversion must follow, and that there is
no equity in favour of the heir or anyone else to take the
property in any other form than that in which it is found ;
and that the sole question is whether the estate has been
rightfully or wrongfully sold "(#) : and this has been followed
in a later case, where a mere order for sale was held to effect
a conversion (h).

In cases of settled estate it has been held that acquiescence Sale of settled

estates.
in a notice to treat by a railway or other public company, and

negotiations as to the price, do not amount to an equitable
exercise by tenants for life of an absolute power of appoint-
ment, so as to operate as a conversion of the estate into
personalty as against remaindermen claiming under the limi-
tations in default of appointment (i) : nor where the estate is
convertible at the request of a tenant for life is conversion the
necessary result of the money having been paid into Court
and invested in Consols on his application, and of his having
received the dividends (k) . Of course even in the .case of an
absolute owner, an agreement which, in anticipation of the
possibility of land being taken by the company, merely fixes
the price of any land which may eventually be so taken, is no
conversion (/) . But conversion is the necessary result of an
actual binding contract for sale, although the landowner has
in fact no option but to sell (m) . Compensation for severance,
&c., is subject to the same rules as purchase-money (n).

(y) Steed v. Prcecc, 18 Eq. 192. It sale under a foreclosure decree where

was subsequently held by the same more than enough to cover the mort-

judge that in the provisions of sects. gage was sold; Scott v. Scott, 9 L.

23 to 25 of the 19 & 20 V. c. 120, K. Ir. 367.

which is to be read as part of the (t) Morgan v. Milman, 3 D. M. &

Partition Act, 1868, there is such an G. 24.

equity ; Foster v. Foster, 1 Ch. D. (k) Re Taylor, 9 Ha. 596 ; Ee

588 ; and see Mordaunt v. Benwell, Stewart, 1 S. & G. 32 ; Re Homer,

9 Ch. D. 302 ; Re Pickard, 53 L. T. 5 De G. & S. 483.

293 ; and see post, p. 1302. (t) Ex p. Walker, 1 Dr. 508.

(h) Dixon v. Arnold, 19 Eq. 113 ; (m} Re Manchester, $c. R. Co., 19

Hyett v. Mekin, 25 Ch. D. 735. It B. 365.

was held otherwise in Ireland in a (») Ibid.

300

EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII.
Sect. 5.

Effect of
contract on
prior devise.

Rights of
vendor's re-
presentatives
unaffected by
contract
binding only
purchaser.

A contract under a power of sale in a settlement revokes
a subsisting devise by the tenant for life, of the reversion in
fee over which he has a power of testamentary appointment ;
and, although the contract is not completed at his death, the
devisee is not entitled to the benefit of the vendor's lien for
unpaid purchase-money (0).

If, at the vendor's death, there be a binding contract as
against the purchaser, but no binding contract has been
entered into by the vendor, the rights of his heir or devisee
are, of course, unaffected ; but if in such a case the heir or
devisee were to concur with the personal representative in
enforcing the contract, it would appear that it would enure
for the benefit of the latter.

Events sub-
sequent to
vendor's
death imma-
terial.

If the contract were binding upon both parties at the time
of the vendor's death, no subsequent act or matter can alter
the relative rights of his representatives (p) : so that, if the
purchaser subsequently act so as to lose his right under the
contract, the estate belongs in Equity to the next of kin of
the vendor (q).

Effect of con- If the contract (originally binding) be rescinded or aban-
tract being doned by both parties in the lifetime of the vendor, there

** ** •*•

IUU.

scinded before seems to be ground to contend, under the old law, that the

death. '

rights of the devisee are restored (r) : if, however, it were
held that the devisee could not take, the heir would be entitled
beneficially.

Effect of its If > during the vendor's lifetime, the purchaser alone
ceasmg abandon the contract, or act so as to relieve the vendor from

during his

life to bind m's liability to convey the estate, it seems that the property

(o) Gale v. Gale, 21 B. 349 ; Slake
v. Slake, 15 Ch. D. 481 ; but see Ee
Johnstone's Settlement, 14 Ch. D. 162.

(p} Bennett v. Lord Tankerville, 19
V. 179 ; and see Tebbott v. Voules,
6 Si. 40.

(q) Curre v. Bowyer, 5 B. 6, n.

(r) Sug. 186 ; but the point is
doubtful ; see Knollys v. Alcock, 1 V.
558 ; 19V. 179. See, against the
claim of the devisee, Andrew v.
Andrew, 4 W. R. 520.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 301

would be considered real estate at his decease (s) ; but unless Chap. VII.

Q 4> A.

the vendor have acquiesced in the vacation of the contract, -
there would seem to be a difficulty in maintaining the rights
of the devisee against the heir, except in cases coming within
the new law : and it has been decided that, under the old
law, the contract operates as a revocation where the purchaser,
having paid part of the purchase-money, becomes bankrupt
before completion, and the vendor buys up his interest under
the bankruptcy (t) .

If, during the vendor's lifetime, he himself abandon the or the

chaser.

contract, or if, through want of title or for any other reason,
the contract, at the time of his death, be capable of being
enforced only against and not by him, the right of the per-
sonal representatives would seem to depend upon whether
the purchaser do or do not choose to enforce specific per-
formance (w) ; the case being, in effect, similar to those in
which the purchaser has, ab initio, a mere option to purchase.

Where money is liable to be invested in land to be settled Effect of
to uses in strict settlement, and all the uses are exhausted, jointress.
except a legal jointure, the jointress having an equity to
compel the investment of the money in land, the money must
be treated as real estate as between the real and personal
representatives of the person who, subject to this jointure,
is entitled thereto ; but it is probably otherwise as regards
portioners (x).

A general devise of all his real estates, by the vendor, Effect of
after the contract, will, primd facie, and in the absence of upoiTreal^
any limitations or other matter inconsistent with such an r^/t^h
intention, pass the legal estate in the property contracted to 8old:
be sold (y) : but a general bequest by the vendor of "all his

(s) Sug. 191 ; 1 Jarm. 46 et seq. ing they had no title, rescinded.

(i] Andrew v. Andrew, 8 D. M. & (x) Walrond v. Rosslyn, 11 Ch. D.

G. 336. 640.

(«) See 1 Jarm. 52 et seq. ; see Re (y) Wall v. Bright, 1 J. & "W. 494.

Thomas, 34 Ch. D. 166, where after But the fact of there being also a de-

the testator's death the trustees, find- vise of all the testator's trust estates,

302

EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII. leasehold estates and securities for money," was held not to

— pass the leaseholds, which at the date of the will he had

to an infant, contracted to sell (s). Where the estate is devised to an
infant, the necessity for a suit and a decree of the Court was
not superseded by the fact of the will containing a devise of
trust estates (a) ; but this case is now provided for by sect. 4
of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, which enables the personal
representatives to convey.

Of specific
devise.

Although the estate be devised expressly by name, the
devisee, as a general rule, takes merely as a trustee for the
purpose of carrying out the contract, and the purchase-
money forms part of the personal estate (b) : but if the
contract is not to be completed until a date which happens
after the testator's death, the devisee is entitled to the mesne
rents and profits (c). Where a testator devised, by special
description, lands subject to a mere option of purchase, to A.,
not in fee, but for life, with remainders over in strict settle-
ment, it was held that the purchase-money was subject to the
same limitations as had been declared of the lands (d). It
may be doubted, whether the speciality of the description is a
sufficient ground (e) for distinguishing such a case from the
earlier cases of Laices v. Sennet (/), and Townley v, Bed-
well (g) ; but such a distinction may, it is conceived, be sup-
ported upon the ground that the estate was devised in a

is an indication of a contrary inten-
tion; and the real estate contracted
to be sold passes under such devise ;
Lysaght v. Edwards, 2 Ch. D. 499.
(z) Gooldv. Teayue, 5 Jur. N. S. 116.

(a) Purser v. Darby, 4 K. & J. 41,
43 ; see this case explained in Lysaght
v. Edwards, 2 Ch. D. 499. As to
costs of such a suit, see post, p. 1262.

(b) Knotty s v. Shepherd, U. & W.
499 ; see Thirtle v. Vaughan, 24
L. T. 0. S. 5 ; Gumming v. Reid, 8
I. R. C. L. 166.

(c) So held by Lord Selborne sitting
as M. R. in an unreported case of
Hunter \. Watson in May, 1874 ; see

also Watts v. Watts, 17 Eq. 217.
Under the old law the contract for
sale would have been an ademption
of the devise.

(d) Drant v. Vanse, 1 Y. & C. C. C.
580 ; see judgment. Emuss v. Smith,
2 De G-. & S. 722 ; compare Sou-en
v. Barlow, 11 Eq. 454.

(e) See dictum to that effect in
Weeding v. Weeding, 1 J. & H. 431.

(/) 1 Cox, 167. And see Colling -
wood v. Row, 3 Jur. N. S. 785.

(g) 14 Ves. 591. And see the
explanation of the principle of this
case in Re Adams and Kensington
Vestry, 27 Ch. D. 394.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 303

manner inconsistent with the intention that the devisees were Chap. VII.

Sect. 6.

to take, not beneficially, but merely for the purpose of
effecting the sale.

And the law, as above stated, appears to be unaltered by Effect of
the 1 Yict. c. 26 (Ji) ; which, however, removes all doubt as
to the devisee's right in cases where the contract is rescinded
or abandoned by the vendor, or is not binding on him ; and
also is in favour of the devisee's beneficial interest in cases
similar to Knotty s v. Shepherd (i).

The vendor's interest under the contract is within the Vendor's in-

4-rj*»^io4- jo \vii"ri •

Statute of Charitable Uses (9 Greo. II. c. 36), and a bequest in Mortmain
of it to a charity is void under the Act (k) . So is a like
bequest of a legacy charged on land (/), and of the premium
payable for a lease (m).

(6.) Death of purchaser before completion : its effect on relative Section 6.

rights of his real and personal representatives, under old, and Death of pur-

chaser before
under new law. completion :

its effect on

Upon the death of the purchaser before completion, the JjJ

equitable ownership of the property contracted for (assuming personal re-

3 presentatives

it to be freehold or copyhold of inheritance) vests in his real under old,
representative, as quasi heir or quasi devisee ; and until the new law.
Act amending Locke King's Act («), he was prima facie
entitled to have the purchase-money paid or reimbursed to
himself, out of the personal estate (o) ; and this although he

(h) Farrer v. Lord Wintcrton, 5 (in) Shcpheard v. Beethara, 6 Ch.

B. 1 ; Moor v. Raisbeck, 12 Si. 123; D. 597.
M. JR. Co. v. Osivin, 1 Coll. 74, 80 ; («) See 30 & 31 V. c. 69.

Ev p. Hawkins, 13 Si. 569 ; Gale v. (o) Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Wh. &

Gale, 21 B. 349. T. L. C. ; Ltmgford v. Pitt, 2 P.

(i) U. & W. 499 ; see Sug. 187, W. 629, 632 ; Broome v. Monck, 10

191. V. 597, 611, 615. If the executor

(k) Harrison v. Harrison, 1 R. & complete, and take the conveyance

M. 71. in his own name, he will be a trustee

(1) Brook v. Badky, 3 Ch. 672 ; for the heir or devisee ; Alleyn v.

see Lucas v. Jones, 4 Eq. 73. Alleyn, Mos. 262.

804

EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII.
Sect. 6.

Relative
rights of real
and personal
representa-
tives depend
on his liability
to perform
contract.

was himself the vendor, and the purchaser's personal repre-
sentative (p) : and Locke King's Act (q) did not deprive the
heir or devisee of his right to have the purchase-money paid
out of the personal estate (r) ; a vendor's lien for unpaid pur-
chase-money having been held not to be a sum charged on
land by way of mortgage within the meaning of the Act (s) ;
but by the Amendment Act (t), the word " mortgage " is to
be deemed to extend to any lien for unpaid purchase-money
upon any lands or hereditaments purchased by a testator, a
provision which, by the further Amendment Act (u), was
extended to the case of a purchaser dying intestate (#*) . The
heir or devisee has the same disposing power over the estate
as his ancestor or testator had (y) .

As in the case of the vendor, so also in the case of the
purchaser, the question between real and personal represen-
tatives is this, viz. : whether at the time of his decease, he
was, either absolutely or conditionally, under a binding con-
tract to purchase : if absolutely bound, or if conditionally or
optionally bound, and the condition upon which the liability
was to become absolute be subsequently fulfilled, or the
vendor's option to sell be declared, the real representative is
entitled (z). And his rights will not be affected by anything
subsequent to the death of the purchaser : so that if by such
subsequent matter (e.g., the felling of ornamental timber by
the vendor,) the contract cease to be binding on the pur-
chaser's representatives (a) , or be actually rescinded by the
vendor on the ground of delay after the purchaser's de-
cease (b), or in exercise of a power reserved by the con-
tract (c), his real representative is nevertheless entitled to the

(p) Coppin v. Copp'm, 2 P.W. 291.

(?) 17 & 18V. c. 113.

(r) Hood v. Hood, 3 Jur. N. S. 684.

(s) Barnwell v. Iremonger, 1 Dr. &
S. 255.

(t) See 30 & 31 V. c. 69, s. 2.

(M) 40 &41 V. c. 34.

(x) For a discussion of the pro-
visions of these Acts, see the recent
case of Re Cockcroft, 24 Ch. D. 94 ;
vide post, p. 920 et seq.

(y} See Langford v. Pitt, 2 P. W.
629.

(z) BuckmasUr v. Harrop, 13 V.
456 ; and see Earl Radnor v. Shafto,
11 V. 448.

(a) 1 Jarm. 55 ; and see Broome v.
Monck, 10 V. 597, 604.

(b) IVhittaker v. Whittaker, 4 Br.
C. C. 31 ; and see 10 V. 599.

(c} Hudson v. Cook, 13 Eq. 417.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 305

purchase-money. And, it is conceived, the fact of the contract Chap. VII.

Sect 6

not being binding on the vendor at the time of the purchaser's -
death, does not affect the above rules.

If, however, the contract gave the purchaser a mere option, if not liable
which he had not declared at the time of his decease ; or, if, JjJese^tatives
through want of title in the vendor or any act or omission on ha<J n<> claim

t on his per-

his part, the agreement, although intended to be binding on sonal estate,
both parties, was, at the time of the purchaser's death, bind-
ing only upon the vendor, the real representative of the pur-
chaser has no claim upon the personal estate for the unpaid
purchase-money ; and an action by him against the personal
representatives and the vendor, will be dismissed (d) : but,
upon principle, it would seem that, if he chose to pay for the
estate out of his own pocket, he might enforce the contract
against the vendor unless the clause of option were so worded
as to be confined to the purchaser individually.

Where a defective title was not made good until after the
purchaser's death, though the defect might have been
remedied in his lifetime, his real representative was held
entitled to have the purchase-money paid out of the personal
estate (e) ; so, where the owner of a piece of land contracted
with a builder for the erection of a house upon it, but died
intestate before it was completed, his heir was held entitled
to have the house completed at the expense of the personal
estate ; even though the contract was not enforceable in
Equity (/).

(d) Green v. Smith, I Atk. 673 ; Adams and Kensington Vestry, 27 Ch.

Broome v. Monck, 10 V. 597 ; Collier D. 394.

v. Jenkins, You. 295 ; Sug. 193. (e) Garnett v. Acton, 28 B. 333.

But the devisee of an estate not con- (/) Cooper v. Jarman, 3 Eq. 98.

tracted for, but only directed by the See Brace v. Wehnert, 25 B. 348.

will to be purchased, is entitled, if See as to costs of carrying out agree-

the purchase cannot be effected, to ment for partition on the death of a

have the money which the testator co-owner, Ee Tann, 7 Eq. 434 ; and

so appropriated laid out in the pur- as to building contracts, and whether

chase of another estate ; see Coventry they are enforceable in Equity, vide

v. Coventry, 2 Atk. pp. 366, 369; post, p. 1108 et aeq.
Broome v. Monck, 10 V. 602; Re

D. VOL. I. X

306

EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII.

and devisee

under old

Right of
devisee de-

pended upon

contract being
vendor?

But will

Devisee might
estate, but
forTt. °

Cases in which

purchaser '
devise6*1

The relative rights of the heir and devisee of the purchaser,
in cases falling within the old law, seem to depend on the
following rules : —

A purchaser, upon entering into the contract, became en-
titled to dispose, by will, of all his rights under it (g). If,
however, the contract were not, at the date of the will, bind-
ing upon the vendor, (either absolutely or subject to a condi-
tion or option subsequently fulfilled or declared,) it conferred
on the purchaser no enforceable rights ; and his will was
therefore inoperative : and any interest subsequently acquired
by him in the property descended on his heir (h). A clear
indication, however, of the 'testator's intention that the de-
visee should take, either the particular lands, or, generally,
all subsequently purchased lands, was sufficient to put the
heir to his election between the descended land and any pro-
vision made for him by the will (t) : and this even as regards
a will coming into operation before the 3 & 4 Will. IY. c. 106,
s. 3 ; although in such a case the heir in fact took by descent
and not by devise (k). If, however, at the date of the will,
the contract were binding as against the vendor, the pur-
chaser's devisee became entitled to the benefit of it (if remain-
ing unperformed at the purchaser's decease) ; but his right to
have the purchase-money paid out of the personal estate, de-
pended, as above shown, upon the question whether the con-
tract were binding as against the purchaser at his decease ; and,
if this were so, it is conceived that the devisee would (as against
the heir) be entitled, although the contract were not binding
upon the purchaser at the date of the will. If the contract
were performed by the vendor in the purchaser's lifetime by
a conveyance to the latter in fee (/), or to a trustee for

(g] Atcherley v. Vernon, 10 Mod.
518, 528 ; Broome v. Monck, ubi
supra; Rose v. Cunynghame, 11 V.
550 ; Gaskarth v. Lord Lowther, 12
V. 107 ; Sug. 183, 184 ; Morgan v.
Holford, 1 S. & a. 101.

(h) Eose v. Cunynghame, ubi supra ;
Duckle v. Baines, 8 Si. 525.

(i) Thellusson v. Woodford, 13 V.
209 ; Churchman v. Ireland, 4 Si.

520; 1 R. &M. 250; but the legatees
have no lien on the land for such
part of the personalty as he impro-
perly receives ; Greenwood v. Penny,
12 B. 403.

(k} Schroder v. Schroder, Kay, 578 ;
affd. 3 Eq. R. 97.

(1) See Parsons v. Freeman, 3 Atk.
741, 749 ; Ilarmood v. Oglander, 8
V. 106, 127.

ON KIGHTS OF PARTIES. 307

him (m), (or, perhaps, to the common uses to bar dower in his Chap. VII.
favour, in cases where the contract was for a conveyance to —
him or such uses as he should appoint (»),) the devisee was
entitled in Equity; and the legal estate descended to the
heir as his trustee. A conveyance to uses to bar dower,
operated, however, as a revocation where there was either
no written agreement (0), or an agreement to convey in
fee(p), or even an agreement to convey to the purchaser,
his heirs, appointees or assigns (q) : the doctrine, however, is
disapproved of by Lord St. Leonards (/'), and although
apparently well settled (s), seems open to much observation.

Lands merely contracted for, might pass, along with lands Effect of
contracted for and conveyed under a general devise of all devfse!
lands purchased by the testator (t) ; and lands recently pur-
chased and conveyed, passed under a general devise of lands
contracted for (u) ; and copyholds surrendered to the use of the
copyholder's will, passed under a general devise of copyhold
estates contained in a prior will and not subsequently re-
published (x).

The execution, according to the Statute of Frauds, of a Republica-
subsequent codicil (#), although purporting to deal only with
personal estate, was a republication of a prior will (z) ; and a
will spoke, for general purposes, from its last republication (a) :
not so as to alter the meaning of expressions evidently re-

(m] See Jenkinson v. Watts, Lofft, (t) Atcherky v. Vernon, 10 Mod.

609, 615 ; Rose v. Cunynghamc, 11 526 ; Marston v. Roe, 8 A. & E. 16,

V. 554. 63, and cases cited.

(n) Sug. 183. (u) St. John v. flishop of Winton,

(o) Ward v. Moore, 4 Mad. 368 ; Cowp. 94.

Plowden v. Hyde, 2 Si. N. S. 171; (*) A.-G. v. Vigor, 8V. 256; see

revd. on another point, 2 D. M. & G-. now 1 V. c. 26.
684. (y) Atcherley v. Vernon, 10 Mod.

(p) Rawlins v. Butyls, 2 V. & B. 618; Com. 381.
382. (z) Barnes v. Crows, 1 V. 486;

(q) Bullin \.Fletcher, 2 M. &C.432. Pigott v. Waller, 7 V. 98; Guest v.

(r) Sug. 183, 184 ; Poole v. Coates, Willasey, 12 Mo. 2 ; but see Jowett

2 D. & War. 497. v. Board, 12 Jur. 933.

(*) "I cannot say I see anything (a) Guest v. Willasey, 12 Mo. 2;
like a doubt on the authorities." Per Hulme v. Heygate, 1 Mer. 285 ; .Row-
Lord Cottenham, 2 M. & C. 441 ; ley v. Eyton, 2 Mer. 128 ; Goodtitle
Schroder v. Schroder, Kay, 578. v. Meredith, 2 M. & S. 5, 14.

x2

308

EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII. f erring to the original date or devise (b) ; but so as to extend

Scot 6

' — a general devise of all lands within a specified locality, to

lands subsequently purchased within the same locality (c) .

Effect of In cases of wills falling within the operation of the late

on relative ' Act, the above questions between the heir and devisee are
axfd^evfsee^ ^tled. in favour of the latter, by the provision which makes
of purchaser, the devise operate upon the testator's interests as they exist
at the time of his death (d).

Where
Bcription is

but not at

date of will.

It has, however, been held that property will not, by virtue
of the Act, pass under words of specific description, which,
though applicable at the death, were inapplicable at the date
of the will (0V : thus a devise in 1844 of " all my Quendon

*

Hall estates in Essex" (parol evidence being admitted to
show what was comprehended in that description at the date
of the will) , was held insufficient to pass certain small addi-
tions to the property, which had been contracted for, but not
actually purchased (/) : but where there was a specific devise
of "my mansion and estate called Cleeve Court," followed
by a residuary devise, and the testator at the date of his
will had contracted to buy an adjoining estate which was
afterwards conveyed to him, and he subsequently bought
other small properties, it was held by Y.-C. Malins (parol
evidence being admitted to show what was comprehended
in the description at the date of the will and the death), that
the subsequently acquired properties passed under the specific
devise (g) ; so, where there was a specific devise of " all

(b) Strathmore v. Bowes, 7 T. R.
482 ; Monypenny v. Bristow, 2 R. &M.
117; Ashley v. Waugh, 4 Jur. 572;
Hughes v. Turner, 3 M. & K. 666 ;
see Tarnold v. Wallis, 4 Y. & C. 160 ;
Doe v. Walker, 12 M. & W. 591, 601 ;
Doe v. Hole, 15 Jur. 13 ; 20 L. J. Q.
B. 57 ; Stilwell v. Mellersh, 20 L. J.
Ch. 356, 361.

(c} Barnes v. Crowe, 1 V. 486.

(d] 1 V. c. 26, s. 24.

(e) Emms v. Smith, 2 De Gr. & S.
722 ; and see Cole v. Scott, 1 M. & G.
518 ; Douglas v. Douglas, Kay, 400 ;
OfToole v. Browne, 3 E. & B. 572 ; but
see Wagstaff v. Wagstaff, 8 Eq. 229 ;
and, as to republication, s. 34 ; and
Wilson v. Eden, 5 Ex. 752, 766.

(/) Webb v. Byng, 1 K. & J. 580,
sed quaere.

(a) Castle v. Fox, 11 Eq. 542; and
see the V.-C.'s comments on Cole v.
Scott, and Corbie v. Byng.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 309

my messuage partly freehold and partly leasehold, No. 3, Chap. VII.
C. Street," followed by a residuary devise, and the testator —
subsequently purchased the reversion in fee of the lease-
hold portion, it was held that the whole messuage passed
by the specific devise (h) ; and the use of the pronoun " my,"
in the description of the thing given, is not sufficient evidence
of an intention that the will shall not speak as from the date
of the death (i) : nor, in the case of a residuary gift, does the
adverb " now " always have that effect (k). In a recent case
a testator devised " my cottage and all my land at S.," subject
to a condition that the plantations, heather, and furze should
be all preserved " in their present state," and devised " all
other my freehold manor, messuages, land, and real estate
whatsoever and wheresoever," to trustees upon trust for sale.
At the date of his will he had a small cottage with twenty-
two acres of rough land held with it at S., and he afterwards
entered into a contract, which was not completed at his death,
to buy a large house with ten acres of garden and land ad-
joining the cottage and rough land. It was held that, although
there was not evidence of a contrary intention within the
meaning of the 24th section, yet that, having regard to the
existing circumstances at the testator's death and to the resi-
duary devise, the specific devise referred to the cottage and
rough land, and did not carry the property contracted to be
bought (/).

Where a will, under the old law, bore date only a few days Contract not
before the conveyance, the Court refused to presume the ex- against heir,
istence of a binding contract prior to the will, even although
for a long period no claim had been made by the heir (m) .

(K) Miles v. Miles, 1 Eq. 462 ; Cox 7 Eq. 371 ; Lancefield v. Igguldcn, 10

v. Bennett, 6 Eq. 422; Saxton v. Ch. 136; Tompkins v. Cottlthurst, 1

Saxton, 13Ch. D. 359; and see Ilibon Ch. D. 626; Farquharson v. Floyer,

v. Ilibon, 9 Jur. N. S. 511 ; Re M. R. 3 Ch. D. 109 ; and see post, p. 702,

Co., 34 B. 525. n. («).

(i) Miles v. Miles, supra. As to a (k) Wag staff v. Wag staff, 8Eq. 229;

residuary devise being still specific as and see Re M. R. Co., 34 B. 527.

under the old law with reference to (I) Re Portal and Lamb, 30Ch.D.50.

the payment of debts, see Hensman (m) Cathrow v. Hade, 4 De G. &

v. Fryer, 3 Ch. 420 ; Gibbinsv. Eyden, S. 527.

EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII.

Sect. 6.

Effect, under
old law, of
purchase of
fee by termor ;

Under the old law, upon a binding contract for purchase of
the inheritance by a person possessed of a beneficial term for
years, the term, although specifically bequeathed by a prior
will, became attendant on the inheritance ; so that, on the
death of the purchaser, even before conveyance, his legatee of
the term was merely a trustee for his heir (n) : the interven-
tion, however, of any intermediate estate, unless held in trust
for the purchaser (0) , would seem to prevent the operation of
the rule (p) : and the rule that the term became attendant
was merely one of presumption, which might be rebutted by
evidence of a contrary parol declaration by the purchaser (q) .

and under It seems probable that, in cases governed by the new law,

I Viet. c. 26. a con-trac^ for purchase, not completed by conveyance, would,
in Equity, defeat (as before) the rights of a party claiming
the term under a general bequest ; but would not (except in
cases coming within the operation of the 8 & 9 Yict. c. 112)
affect a specific legatee of the term : and it would seem that
a specific legatee will not lose the benefit of the bequest, if
the term is actually merged by a conveyance of the fee to the
testator, or becomes ^attendant on the inheritance, or satisfied
and merged under the Satisfied Terms Act (r) .

Merger when It need scarcely be observed, that where there is an evident
not presumed. intention that the term shall be kept on foot, there is no pre-
sumption of merger : as where the owner in fee purchases an
existing lease, and has it assigned in trust for him, his exe-
cutors, administrators, and assigns (s) ; or, where the owner of
the leasehold interest, on purchasing the reversion, takes the
conveyance in the name of a trustee, and expressly declares
that the term shall not merge (t). Where the husband is
entitled in fee, and the term conies to the wife, there was,

(n) Gallon v. Hancock, 2 Atk. 425 ;
Capel v. Girdler, 9 V. 509.

(0) Whitchurch v. Whitchurch, 2 P.
W. 236.

(p) Scott v. Fenhcullet, 1 Br. C. C.
69 ; Capel v. Girdler, 9 Ves. 509.

(y) Sug. 625.

(r) 8 & 9 V. c. 112 ; Miles v. Miles,
1 Eq. 462 ; Saxton v. Saxton, 13 Ch.
D. 359.

(*) Gunter v. Gunter, 23 B. 571 ;
Tyrrwhitt v. Tyrnvhitt, 32 B. 244 ;
but see Sug. 625.

(0 Selaneyv. Belancy, 2 Ch. 138.

ON KIGHTS OF PARTIES. 311

under the old law, no merger during the wife's life («), and Chap. VII.

,i , . . Sect. 6.

the question cannot now arise.

(7.) As to the effect of the contract in various special cases. Section 7.

If a mortgagee, having agreed to purchase the equity of AS to the
redemption, proceed to enforce his legal title by ejectment, extract in6

the existence of the contract will, unless he have improperly various

. t A * special cases.

delayed to enforce it (or) , he a ground for refusing relief to the Mortgagee

mortgagor under the 7 Geo. II. c. 20 (y). S^SSS

may enforce
T-L-L-Liiiij* • D*8 lc£al title.

It has been held, that the fact of a mortgagee, with power Contract for
of sale, having contracted to sell part of the mortgaged ealebym°rt-

gagee under

estate for a sum exceeding the amount due on the security, power.
is no ground for restraining him from bringing an action for
recovery of the mortgage debt (2) .

An agreement by A., a tenant in possession, to purchase of Agreement by
B., is a sufficient primd facie evidence of B.'s title to enable
him, if the contract have gone off, to sustain an action of
ejectment (a).

"Where the assignee of a lease agreed to sell it, and it was Agreement
stipulated that the purchaser should not be entitled to an on^™ a'nd
assignment, and he entered and retained possession until the possession
end of the term, the latter was held bound, in Equity, to
indemnify the original lessee, although no party to the agree-
ment, against breaches of covenant committed during such
possession (b).

A person who has become the equitable owner of a lease, Liability of
by contract between himself and the lessee, but to whom no assignee of a

lease.

(u) Jones v. Davies, 8 Jur. N. S. (b} Close v. Wilberforcc, 1 B. 112 ;

592. see Sanders v. Benson, 4 B. 350 ; and

(x) S/cinnerv. Stacey, 1 Wils. 80. Moore v. Greg, 2 Ph. 717, 721, 725.

(y} Goodtitk v. Pope, 7 T. R. 185. For the legal liability of which this

(z) Willcs v. Levctt, 1 De G. & S. principle is the equitable counter-

392. part, see Monk v. Garrett, L. R. 5

(a) Doe v. Burton, 16 Q. B. 807. Ex. 132 ; 7 Ex. 101.

312

EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII. legal assignment has been executed, is not liable to the lessor
— for rent accrued, or breaches of covenant committed, during
the time when he was in possession (c). The decision in this
case was rested on the general ground that the relation of
landlord and tenant was a purely legal one ; and the circum-
stance that the equitable assignee had parted with the pro-
perty does not appear to have been considered material.

Agreement by Where a lessor becomes the equitable assignee of an under-
purchase of lease, he incurs, in Equity, the obligation of performing the
underlease. covenants therein contained ; and cannot set up their non-
performance as a ground for refusing performance of a cove-
nant in the original lease (d).

Joint tenancy. A contract for sale by a joint-tenant seems to be, in Equity,
a severance of the joint-tenancy (e).

Co-ownership
of a common
right.

Dower.

Under old
law.

The co-ownership of a common right, as e.g., of fishing
on a lake, is not a jus individuum, even where merely appur-
tenant to land ; but any one of the joint owners may alien
his right, either wholly or in part, though not so as to preju-
dice the enjoyment of his co-owners (/).

A contract for sale by a single man, was, in cases subject
to the old law of dower, sufficient in Equity to exclude the
claim to dower of a wife whom he married before the con-
veyance (cj) . "Whether the contract by a mortgagee in fee for
the purchase of the equity of redemption let in his wife's
dower, seems to be somewhat doubtful (Ji) : but such a con-

(c] Cox v. Bishop, 8 D. M. & G.
815 ; see judgment ; cf. Wright v.
Pitt, 12 Eq. 408, case of mining lease
to trustees for a public company
which repudiated the lease, but was
nevertheless held liable in Equity to
the lessor.

(d) Jenkins v. Portman, 1 Ke. 435 ;
and see Cox v. Bishop, 8 D. M. & G.
819 ; NoJics v. Gibbon, 3 Dr. 681.

(e) Brown v. Raindle, 3 V. 256,
257 ; Frewen v. Eelfe, 2 Br. C. C.
220, 224 ; Kingsford v. Ball, 2 Gif .
App. 1.

(/) Menzies v. Macdonald, 2 Jur.
N. S. 575.

(g} Lloyd v. Lloyd, 2 Con. & L.
592.

(h) See and consider Knight v.
Frampton, 4 B. 10 ; and Flack v.
Longmate, 8 B. 420.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 313

tract does not appear to merge the security as in favour of Chap. VII.
mesne incumbrancers (/).

In one case, where the purchaser elected to take the estate
with a compensation, specific performance of the contract
was enforced against a vendor, whose wife, entitled under
the old law, refused to release her right of dower (k) .

Under the new law (/), the contract for purchase lets in Under new
the dower of the purchaser's wife ; but she may be deprived
of it in any of the various ways specified in the Act (m) : as
regards copyholds, the right to freebench does not attach until
actual admittance (n). On the other hand, the contract for
sale binds the dower of the vendor's wife, unless he have
before marriage agreed not to bar her dower (o).

It has been thought that in the case of a mere power of Legacy duty,
sale under a will, where the proceeds of sale are to remain
personal estate, the contract would let in the Crown's claim
to legacy duty ( p) : but according to a modern decision of the
House of Lords this is so only when the power is so worded
as, in the events which occur, to be in effect equivalent to a
trust ; and a mere discretionary power of conversion for the
convenience or benefit of the parties beneficially interested,
does not let in the duty, although a sale be actually effected (q).
So, where the proceeds are to be reinvested in land, so that
the property, although in fact converted, will remain land in
contemplation of a Court of Equity, it has been decided that
no duty attaches, although a sale be actually effected, and the

(i} Bailey v. Richardson, 9 Ha. 621, where the intestate appears not

734 ; see post, p. 1040 et seq. to have been admitted.

(k) Wilson v. Williams, 3 Jur. N. (o) Sect. 11.

S. 810. (p) See A.-G. v. Simcox, 1 Ex.

(/) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 105, which 749; and see A.-G. v. Mctcalfe, 6

affects only women married after Ex. 43; and A.-G. v. Mangles, 5

January 1st, 1834 (s. 14), and does M. & "W. 120.
not affect freebench. (q) Adv.-G. v. Smith, 1 Macq. 760.

(m) Sects. 2 to 10 ; see sect. 11. And see the authorities collected and

(n) Smith v. Adams, 5 D. M. & G. discussed in Hanson, pp. 20 and 212.
712 ; but see Spi/cr v. Hyatt, 20 B.

314 EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII. will contain a power of interim investment in the funds or
Sect. 7.

- on mortgage, and the parties elect to take the property as

money (/•). And, on the other hand, an absolute trust for
sale, although not acted on, lets in the duty (s) : the test of
liability being the equitable nature of the property at the
time of the death. It has been held, that where a will con-
tains a discretionary power of sale, and a sale is made by
the Court, the question of liability depends upon whether
the Court acted by directing the trustees to exercise their
discretionary power, or sold under its own general jurisdic-
tion (t) ; the duty not attaching in the latter case : but, as
we have seen (w), the present doctrine is, that a mere dis-
cretionary power, although acted on, does not let in the claim
to duty.

Succession By the Succession Duty Act (a?), the duty imposed by the

11 y' Act is made a first charge on the property ; and every person

in whom the same is vested by alienation or other derivative
title at the time of the succession (y) becoming an interest in
possession, is personally accountable to the Crown for the
duty payable in respect of such succession (z) : but every
receipt and certificate, purporting to be in discharge of the
whole duty payable for the time being in respect of any suc-
cession or any part thereof, exonerates a boim fide purchaser
for value, and without notice, from such duty, notwithstand-
ing any suppression or misstatement in the account, or any

(r) Heal v. Knight, 8 Ex. 839, n. ; cision has since been reversed by the

Mules v. Jennings, 8 Ex. 830. H. L., 12 Ap. Ca.

(A) A.-G. v. Hoi ford, 1 Pr. 426; (*) Hobson v. Ncale, 8 Ex. 368;

Williamson v. Adv.-G., 10 C. & F. 1 ; 17 B. 178.

and see A.-G, v. H running, 8 H. L. (u] Ante, p. 313.

C. 243 ; and see and dist. A.-G. v. (x) 16 & 17 V. c. 51.

Marquis of Ailesbury, 16 Q. B. D. (y) As to what is a succession, sec

408, where probate duty was held WUcoxv. Smith, 4 Dr. 40; Re Lovc-

uot to be payable in respect of land lace, 4 D. & J. 340; Re Jenkinson,

bought out of the personal estate of 24 B. 64. A conveyance by way of

a lunatic under an order of theL.JJ. bond fide sale never creates a succes-

sitting in Lunacy, declaring that sion within the meaning of sect. 2 ;

such land should be considered as Fryer v. Morland, 3 Ch. D. 675 ;

part of the lunatic's personal estate, A.-G. v. DowUng, 6 Q. B. D. 177; see

but not containing any express or also A.-G. v. Noyes, 8 Q. B. D. 125.

implied trust for sale. But this de- (z) See sects. 42, 44.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 315

insufficiency in the assessments ; and no bond fide purchaser Chap. VII.
for value under a title, not appearing to confer a succession, —
is subject to any duty which may be chargeable upon the
property by reason of any extrinsic circumstances of which
he has no notice at the time of his purchase (a). In one case,
where it was doubtful whether succession duty or legacy
duty was payable, a certificate from the Inland Revenue
Office that the latter duty had been paid, was held to have
discharged the land(i). The donee of a general power of Onappoint-
appointment under a disposition taking effect upon the death a general
of any person dying after the commencement of the Act is po<
to be deemed entitled, at the time of his exercising such
power, to the property or interest thereby appointed as a
succession derived from the donor of the power; and the
appointee under a limited power of appointment under such
a disposition, who takes any property by the exercise of such
a power, is to be deemed to take the same as a succession
from the person creating the power as predecessor (c). The
Act does not expressly provide how the succession of an
appointee, under a general power of appointment, which
has taken effect on a death happening after the commence-
ment of the Act, is to be treated as derived ; but the Court
of Exchequer has held, that in such a case the interest of
the appointee is to be taken as derived from the donee of the
power (d). Consistently with the above-mentioned rules as
to legacy duty, the Succession Duty Act provides, that the
interest of any successor in moneys to arise from the sale of
real property (which includes leaseholds) (<?) under any trust
for the sale thereof, so far as the same are not chargeable
under the Legacy Duty Acts, shall be deemed to be personal

(«) Sect. 52. barker, 7 H. & N. 109 ; A.-G. v.

(b) Earl Howe v. Earl of Lichfcld, Floyer, 9 H. L. C. 477 ; and gene-

2 Ch. 155. rally on the Act, see Ring v. Jarman,

(c} Sect. 4 ; see Re Lovelace, 4 D. & 14 Eq. 357 ; and the comments in

J. 340 ; Be Wallop's Trust, 1 D. J. that case on A.-G. v. Gell, 3 H. & C.

& S. 656 ; Charlton v. A.-G., 4 Ap. 615 ; Commrs. of I. B. v. Harrison,

Ca. 427 ; A.-G. v. Mitchell, 6 Q. B. 7 H. L. 1.

D. 548. («) See sect. 1 ; and as to what is

(d) A.-G. v. Upton, L. R. 1 Ex. included in " property " in sect. 2,

224, and cases there cited; cf. lie see Re Cigala's Trusts, 1 Ch. D. 351.

316

EFFECT OF CONTRACT

Chap. VII.

Sect. 7.

Sales under
Settled
Estates Act,
1877, and
Settled Land

Cases on the

Succession

duty.

property chargeable with duty under the Succession Duty
Act ; but, if subject to any trust for the reinvestment
thereof, such moneys are to be deemed real property, and
chargeable with duty as such (/). In the case of settled pro-
perty, powers of sale, exchange, and partition, whether express
or conferred by statute, as in the case of the Settled Land
Act, may still be exercised, and the sale moneys or properties
received in substitution or severalty become liable to the
duty (g) ; and it has even been held that when an estate was
settled subject to a jointure (the cesser of which would involve
the payment of duty), and with the concurrence of the join-
tress was sold by the trustees of the settlement in exercise of
a power of sale therein contained, the liability to succession
duty was shifted from the land to the money ; although the
power of sale did not override, but was overridden by, the
jointure (ti).

A sale by the Court under the Settled Estates Act, 1877,
is equivalent to a sale under a power in the settlement, and
the duty is transferred to the purchase-money (i) ; and it is
conceived that the principle will equally apply to a sale under
the powers conferred by the Settled Land Act (k).

The following points which have arisen on the Act, in
addition to those noticed above, are deserving of attention.
On the sale of a reversion, or of an estate subject to a
periodical charge, the duration of which depends upon a
life or lives, the purchaser is, as between himself and the
vendor, liable to bear the duty, unless there is an express
stipulation to the contrary in the contract (/). In the decided
case, the vendor was a trustee with power of sale ; but the
decision was based on the general ground that the purchaser
had bought the right to succeed on the death of the tenant
for life, and that this carried with it the tax on the succession.

(/) Sects. 29, 30.

(V) Sect. 42.

(ti) Duff dale v, Meadows, 6 Ch. 501.

(i) Re Warner's S. E., 17 Ch. D.
711.

(K) Sect. 20 ; see post, p. 669.
(I) Cooper v. Trewby, 28 B. 194.

ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES. 317

In the common case of a tenant for life and remainderman Chap. VII.
conveying the property in fee, it remains liable in the hands -

of the purchaser to the payment of the duty on the death

of the tenant for life. The Act, however, gives the com- and remain-
derman.

missioners a discretionary power to commute the duty (m) ;
and the purchaser should either see that this is done
before the completion of his purchase, or insist on a suffi-
cient indemnity from the remaindermen or reversioners.
As between themselves and the purchaser, the liability of
these parties to commute the duty would seem to depend
upon whether the purchaser bought with notice of the state
of the title being such as would primd facie involve the
liability to the duty. If a tenant in tail in remainder bars
the entail, and re-settles the property in his own favour, he
must, on the death of the tenant for life, pay the same duty
as if he had taken under the original settlement ; but if, on
disentailing the property, he absolutely alienates it, the lia-
bility is shifted on to his purchaser (n). The appointee
under a general power of appointment contained in a British
settlement, which is exercised by will, is liable to the duty,
notwithstanding the foreign domicile of the donee of the
power (o) ; but neither legacy duty nor succession duty is in
the first instance payable in respect of legacies given by the
will of a person domiciled abroad (p) ; the distinction being
that in the former case the appointee takes by virtue of a
settlement which must be governed by English law, while in
the latter case the legatees derive their title solely under the
foreign will. Succession duty is payable on real estate in

(m) Sect. 41. Upon the subject of Wallop's Trust, 1 D. J. & S. 656 ; Re

commutation, see Re Cooper and Capdevielle, 2 H. & C. 985 ; Re Badarfs

Allen's Contract, 4 Ch. D. 802. Trusts, 10 Eq. 288.

(«) Braybrooke\.A.-G., 9H.L. C. (p) Wallace?. A.-G., 1 Ch. 1 ; but

150. As to the case of the reserva- see comments on this case in A.-G.

tion of an annuity to a tenant in tail v. Campbell, L. R. 5 H. L. 524 ; and

on a resettlement during the lif e of see this case also as to the liability to

the tenant for life, and the succession duty in respect of any devolution of

duty payable on the death of the the property after the purposes of

latter, see Commrs. of I. R. v. Har- administration have been satisfied,

rison, L. R. 7 H. L. 1 ; Le Marchant and the fund has been invested in this

v. Commrs. of I. R., 1 Ex. D. 185. country ; see also on the Act, A.-G.

(o) Re Lovelace, 4 D, & J. 340 ; Re v. Littkdale, ibid. 290.

318 EFFECT OF CONTRACT ON RIGHTS OF PARTIES.

a testator having a foreign domicile (q). For the
- purposes of taxation, the value of the property is to be ascer-
tained at the time when the interest of the successor accrues ;
so that if it has then no saleable, or actual or potential annual
value, it is incapable of assessment under the Act (r) ; and
the beneficial enjoyment mentioned in the 21st section, is
the enjoyment of the possessor in his own right, and for his
own benefit, and not as trustee for another (s).

On extinction Duty is payable in respect of the increase of benefit arising
from the determination or extinction of any charge, estate, or
interest on or in land which is determinable by the death of
the chargee, or at any period ascertainable only by reference
to that event (t) .

(q) Atkinson v. Anderson, 21 Ch. N. 238 ; He Ramsay, 30 B. 75 ; Old-

D. 100. field v. Preston, 8 Jur. N. S. 107 ; Re

(?•) A.-G. v. Earl of Sefton, 11 H. DC Lancey, L. R. 4 Ex. 345; and see

L. C. 257. 24 & 25 V. c. 92 ; and 28 & 29 V.

(s) Ib. ; and see generally on the c. 104.

Act cases above cited, and Re Mickk- (t) Sect. 5 ; see Harding v. Ilard-

thivaite, 11 Ex. 452 ; Re Peyton, 7 H. ing, 2 Gif. 597 ; Wilcox \. Smith,

& N. 265 ; A.-G. v. Flayer, 7 H. & 4 Dr. 55 ; Hanson, p. 261.

319

CHAPTER VIII. Chap. vm.

AS TO THE ABSTRACT.

1. General matters relating to the abstract.

2. When perfec t ; — what it must contain and show.

3. What should be furnished, in various specified cases.

4. As to its preparation, contents, and delivery.

5. As to its examination and perusal.

6. As to its verification.

(1.) A PURCHASER may require to be furnished with, an ab- Section i.
stract prepared in the usual way (a) ; even although he have General mat-
agreed to accept the title (b) : he may retain it, during nego- tere relating
tiations upon, and even after rejection of, the title, until the abstract,
dispute be finally settled, for the purpose of showing the ^^chaser's
grounds of such rejection (c) ; and, in the interim, he may abstract,
maintain trover for it, even against the vendor (d) : but when JS^f*1* to
the contract is finally abandoned by both parties, he must Must be given
return the abstract, and may not retain any copy of it (e) :
counsel's opinion and observations he may, it appears, retain
if written upon separate paper (/) ; or, if written upon the
abstract itself, he may erase them before returning it (#) .

But the purchaser of a mere contract for sale is not en- where he
titled to require his immediate vendor to show the original
vendor's title (h) ; as the subject-matter of the subsale is, sale'

(a) Some v. Wingfield, 3 Sc. N. E. (/) 2 Taunt. 270 ; but see Sug.
340 ; Sug. 406. 428, and Alexander v. Crosbie, 2 IT.

(b) Morris v. Kearsley, 2 Y. & C. Eq. R. 141 ; a decision referable to
139; Keyse v. Hat/den, 20 L. T. 0. S. the passage in the treatise, see 143.
244. (g] Wood v. Court, 2 S. Atk. Conv.

(c) 2 Taunt. 278 ; Sug. 428. 463.

(j) Roberts v. Wyatt, 2 Taunt. 268 ; (A) Kintrea v. Preston, 1 H. & N.

but see Langsloiv v. Cox, 1 Chit. 98. 357, where the contract was for a

(e) 2 Taunt. 277. lease ; and see Phipps v. Child, 3 Dr.

709.

320

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. not the property itself, but the rights therein of the original

— — purchaser under the original contract. Whether the owner

of a moiety of an estate to whom is given the right of pre-
emption over the other moiety, can insist on having an abstract
of the common title, has been doubted (/) : but in the ordinary
case of a surviving partner purchasing the share of his deceased
partner, a stipulation that the vendor shall deliver an " abstract
of their title " has been held to mean an abstract of the general
title £.

Vendor pays The vendor, as a general rule, pays for the abstract (/) ;
but on sales to a company under the provisions of the Lands

Except on . x

sales to rail- Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, whether such sales be volun-
&c ^ tary or compulsory, and whether made by absolute or merely

limited owners, the costs of the abstract (in the absence of
agreement) are thrown on the company (m) : and similar
provisions (») are contained in most of the earlier railway and
other similar Acts : such costs seem to be included in any
general stipulation throwing on the purchaser the costs of the
contract (o).

Copy abstract. A solicitor, who merely furnishes a copy of a former ab-
stract, is not justified in making the usual charge for preparing
an abstract de novo (p] : cases, however, may often occur in
which the adaptation of an old abstract to the existing cir-
cumstances of the sale may require so much skill and labour
as to justify more than a mere charge for a stationer's copy,
although the actual alterations may not be considerable, if
estimated by their length in folios.

(i) See and consider Brooke v.
Garrod, 2 D. & J. 62.

(/.;) Morris v. Eearsley, 2 Y. & C.
139.

(1} Sug. 406.

(m) 8 & 9 V. c. 18, s. 82.

(») See Re London and Greenwich
It. Co., 3 Ha. 22.

(o) See Ex p. Addie's Charity, 3
Ha. 22, 25 ; and see post, pp. 803,
804.

(p) M'Culloch v. Gregory, 1 K. &
J. 291. It is conceived the scale
prescribed by Schedule I. to the rules
under the Solicitors Remuneration
Act, 1881, applies in such a case;
but not where no abstract is fur-
nished. See Re Lacey, 25 Ch. D. 301 ;
and see Re Sec. of State for War and
Denne, 33 W. R. 120 ; Ex p. Mayor
of London, 34 Ch. D. 452.

THE ABSTRACT. 321

(2.) As to when the abstract is perfect; — what it must contain Chap. VIII.

1 J Sect. 2.

and show.

As to when

For the purpose of conditions. &c., as to time, an abstract the abstract is

• . . perfect;

is said to be "perfect," if it be as perfect an abstract as the what it must

vendor is able to furnish at the time of delivery (q) ; although

the title shown by it may be defective. An abstract is, in the "When " per-
stricter sense of the term, "perfect" or complete, when it meaning of
shows a perfect title (r) ; that is, when it shows that the 0118 of

vendor is either himself competent to convey to, or can other- When "per-
wise procure to be vested in, the purchaser, the legal and 8howimr a
equitable estates free from incumbrances (.9). If, on the face sufficient title.
of the abstract delivered, the vendor has shown, say a sixty, dersley's
or in the case of a contract entered into since 1874, a forty, ?ffigrfe°t»°f &
years' title (t), and if for the purpose of supporting that abstract.
title, it is necessary to show that a person died intestate, or
any other fact — if the facts are alleged with sufficient speci-
fication on the abstract — then it shows a good title, although
the proof of the matters shown may be the subject of ulterior
investigation (?,/).

For instance, the non-registration of deeds, which can be Certain im-

perfections

registered (#), the existence 01 incumbrances, when the in- in, notcon-
cumbrancers can be compelled to receive their money and fectg Of
join in the conveyance (?/), the outstanding of the legal
estate in a trustee (s), or in a married woman whose interest
is bound by an order of the Court (a), are not, at least in

(q) Morley\. Cook, 2 Ha. Ill ; and («) Per V.-C. Kindersley, in Parr

see, at law, Blackburn v. Smith, 2 Ex. v. Lovegrove, 4 Dr. 177; and see

783 ; Steer v. Crowley, 1 1 W. R. 861 ; Oakden v. Pike, 13 W. R. 673 ; and see

Gray v. Fowler, L. R. 8 Ex. 249, 279, also Steer v. Crowley, 11 W. R. 861.
in which the passage in the text was (x) Stotvell v. Robinson, 3 Bing. N".

approved in the judgment ; Bitrnaby C. 928, 935.

v. Equit. Rev. Society, 54 L. J. Ch. (y) Townsend v. Champernown, 1

466, 472. Y. & J. 449 ; and see 2 Moll. 683 ;

(r) 2 Ha. Ill ; Sug. 427. but not if their concurrence cannot

(s) See and consider Lord Bray- be compelled; see Page v. Adam, 4

brooke v. Inskip, 8 V. 436 ; Boehm v. B. 269 ; Sug. 425.
Wood, 1 J. &W. 419,421; Jumpson (z) Berkeley v. Dauh, 16 V. 380;

v. Pitchers, 1 Coll. 13, 15 ; Sug. 423. Sellick v. Trevor, 11 M. & W. 728.

(t) See 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 1. (a) Jumpson v. Pitchers, 1 Coll. 13.

T). VOL. I. Y

322

2

THE ABSTRACT.

a Court of Equity (b) , regarded as imperfections of title ; so
if, on the completion of a contract entered into since 1874,
the purchaser will have an equitable right to the produc-
tion (c) of the deeds, the inability of the vendor to furnish a
legal covenant for their production is no objection to the title
at Law or in Equity.

Title defective But, consistently with the terms of the above proposition,
charge can be where vendors cannot give to or procure for the purchaser
purchase- a valid. discharge for the purchase-money, the title is de-
fective (d).

And this is
not always
sufficient.

Should state And the mere statement on the face of the abstract that a
sent of parties party who is not compellable has agreed to join, although
usual, is, it is submitted, insufficient ; and, in Equity, the fact
of a third party, whose concurrence is necessary, being under
no legal or equitable obligation to join in the sale, has been
held to be an objection, not merely of conveyance, but of
title (e) . A written agreement to concur, enforceable against
the party, as being founded on a valuable consideration,
should, in strictness, be procured and abstracted (/) : nor is
such agreement sufficient, if it do not absolutely bind the
interest of the party signing it ; <?. g., a title dependent on an
agreement by a tenant in tail to bar his estate tail, would be
imperfect (g) ; so, also, would be a mere agreement by a
married woman, with or without her husband, to concur
in respect of her interest in real estate not settled to her
separate use, and over which she has no general power of
appointment.

Must show So, if the legal estate be outstanding, the abstract must

standing legal show in whom it is vested (7^) ; or that the vendor can get it

estate is
vested.

(b} But see, at Law, Hanslip v.
PadwicJc, 5 Ex. 622, 623.

(c) 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 2, sub-s. 3.

(d) Forbes v. Peacock, 12 Si. 528.

(e) Esdaile v. Stcphenson, 6 Mad.
366 ; and see Douglas v. L. % N. W.
It. Co., 3K. & J. 181.

(/) See Nock v. Newman, post,
p. 1179; Phillips v, Edwards, 33 B.
440.

(g} Leivin v. Guest, 1 Rus. 325 ;
3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, s. 47 ; and see
post, p. 1117, n. (c}.

(h) Wynne v. Griffith, 1 Bus. 283.

THE ABSTRACT. 323

in ; but when it is shown that the legal estate can be got in,

Sect. 2.

the abstract is perfect (t).

Where an estate is sold free from land-tax, the abstract Must

. , . that land-tax

should set out the certificate of redemption, unless there is has been re-

a condition binding the purchaser to accept less conclusive the^stato is

evidence (£). The existence of land-tax, or insufficient proof ^ld free from
x ' the tax.

that it has been redeemed, renders the title defective, if the
estate is sold free from the tax (/). Where the estate is sold
subject to the tax, its existence need not be mentioned ;
though it is usual and convenient to specify the amount in
the particulars : a statement so made must of course be veri-
fied. Where it is sold free from tithe, the ground of exemp-
tion from tithe must be shown by the abstract.

The expression used by Lord Eldon (m) is, that the abstract Showing

future right

is complete, "whenever it appears that, upon certain acts to property,

done, the legal and equitable estates will be in the purchaser :" Law: semble.

it was, however, suggested in the first two editions of this

work that, at least in a Court of Law, it would not be suffi-

cient for the abstract to show merely a future (although

certain and early) right to the property ; and that the exist- As in case of

ence of an incumbrance which cannot be discharged on or which cannot

before the time fixed for completion (n), would amount at arged.

Law to a defect of title (o) : but in a modern case, where the

vendor, who was not bound to convey the estate by any

(t) Camber well Building Society v. speciality of the contract) Forster v.

Holloway, 13 Ch. D. 754, 763; Hoygart, 15 Q. B. 155. A mort-

Kitchcn v. Palmer, 46 L. J. Ch. 611 ; gagee, we may remark, need not re-

and see Avarne v. Brown, 14 Si. 303. ceive his money before the day fixed

(£) As, c. g., a copy of the register, for redemption, although previously

or a statutory declaration that the tendered with interest up to such

tax has not been paid for a certain day ; Brown v. Cole, 14 Si. 427. It

number of years. must, however, be observed, that

(I) Buchanan v. Poppleton, 4 C. B. since the Judicature Acts time is not

N. S. 40. of the essence of the contract at Law

(m) Lord BraybrooJce v. Inskip, 8 when it is not so in Equity ; 36 & 37

Ves. 436. See also the judgment of V. c. 66, s. 25 (7).
Jessel, M. B,., in Camber well Building (0} See Hamlip v. Padwick, 5 Ex.

Society v. Hollo way, 13 Ch. D. 763. 615 ; and compare Webb v. Austin,

(n) See (a case depending on the 7 Man. & Gr. 701.

Y2

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII.
Sect. 2.

Incum-
brances ;
•whether a
defect in title
in Equity.

Title gool,
although im-
mediate con-
veyance not
procurable.

particular day, deduced a good title to the equity of redemp-
tion, the existence of mortgages affecting the property was held
not to be a defect of title ; although they were not mentioned
in the contract, and no notice had been given of the intention
to pay them off (p). In Equity, as a general rule, mortgages
and other incumbrances are considered merely matters of
conveyance (q) : and this doctrine has even been extended to
cases where the property was mortgaged to an amount con-
siderably exceeding its value (r) : they seem, however, to
have been decided on the principle that the vendor had the
legal power, if he used the necessary means, of procuring a
conveyance ; and the conclusion would, it is conceived, be
different, if, by reason of an agreement for the continuance
of the charge, or otherwise, the vendor had no right to call
on the incumbrancer to join in the conveyance («). The
equitable doctrine as to the consolidation of securities furnishes
a strong argument against the obligation of a purchaser to
accept the conveyance of a mere equity of redemption instead
of an unincumbered estate (t). Lord Langdale observes, on
the general question, " Where an interest is vested in a party
to secure a right, the satisfaction of which right entitles the
party who has sold the estate to call for a conveyance, then
the Court considers it a question of conveyance only ; but I
think it has never gone further than that " (u) : in which it
seems to be assumed that the right is capable of being satisfied
at the time when the question of title or no title arises. At
any rate it may be considered that the title is perfect, when-
ever it appears that under the contract the purchaser either
already has, or will necessarily before the time fixed for com-
pletion be able to acquire, an immediate and indisputable
right to the legal and equitable estates ; even although the

(p) Savory v. Underwood, 23 L. T.
0. S. 141.

(q) Townsend v. Champcrnown, 1
Y. & J. 449 ; Kitchen v. Palmer, 46
L. J. Ch. 611.

(r) Stephens v. Gitppy, and Eawson
v. Tasburgh, cited 1 Y. & J. 450.

(*) See 2 Moll. 583 ; Page v. Adam,
4 B. 2G9.

(t) Although the doctrine does not
primd facie apply in the case of a
mortgage made since the 31st of
December, 1881, the operation of
the Act in this respect may be, and
generally is, excluded ; Conv. Act,
1881, s. 17 ; and see post, pp. 1036
et seq.

(u) Sidebotham v. Harrington, 3 B.
528.

THE ABSTRACT.

absence of parties, or other circumstances, may considerably Chap viir.
delay the conveyance (#) .

It has, in fact, been held, that the Master, under the old

7 ' sufficient if

practice, was warranted in finding that a good title was de- abstract
duced, when it appeared by the abstract that the vendor was that vendor is
tenant in tail in possession, and able to convey the fee simple J^
by an enrolled conveyance (y) : this decision, so far as it may
tend to establish, for it by no means decides, that such a
vendor is not bound at once to execute a disentailing assur-
ance, and limit the fee simple either to his own use or to his
appointment, seems open to observation. It is clear that his
contract would give to the purchaser no right which he could
enforce in the event of the vendor's death before the execution
of the conveyance ; which sufficiently distinguishes it from
the case put by the plaintiff's counsel, of a contract entered
into by a tenant for life with a power of sale : for a contract
to exercise such a power, if entered into for valuable con-
sideration, would be enforced in Equity against the issue in
tail and remaindermen (z) : whereas, in the case of the tenant
in tail, the jurisdiction of Equity is expressly excluded by
statute (a) : and it seems unreasonable that a purchaser should
be put to the expense of investigating the title and preparing
his conveyance, when the death of the vendor would deprive
him of the estate, and possibly leave him without available
remedy for recovery of his costs, and deposit (if any has been
paid). These remarks apply more forcibly where a future
day is fixed for completion, before which the vendor is not
bound to convey ; so that it does not rest with the purchaser
to get rid of the state of uncertainty by at once accepting the
title and taking a conveyance. In such a case the title de-
duced is not, it is submitted, with reference to the terms of a

(x) As to when a good title is first (y) Cattell v. Corrall, 4 Y. & C.

shown, see Sherwin v. Shakspear, 17 228.

B. 267 ; o D. M. & G. 517 ; Bridges (z) Sug. Pow. 557.

v. Longman, 21 B. 27; Parr v. Love- (a) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, s. 47;

grove, 4 Dr. 177 ; Lyle v. Earl of but see Eanlces v. Small, 35 W. R.

Yarborough, John. 70. 765; and post, p. 1117, n. (c).

326

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. contract, stipulating for a conveyance in future, an absolutely

good title ; but a title defeasible in the event of the vendor's

death before the time fixed for completion.

Section 3.

As to what
abstract
should be
furnished in
various
cases :

On sales in
lots.

On purchase
by a tenant
in common.

On purchase
of allotments.

Tenure of
allotments.

Of land taken
in exchange.

(3.) As to what abstract should be furnished in various cases.

On a sale of any property in lots, the purchaser of two or
more lots held wholly or partly under the same title, has not
now a right to more than one abstract of the common title,
except at his own expense (b).

If one tenant in common purchase of another, he is en-
titled to an abstract of their general title, if the vendor
stipulates in general terms for the delivery of an abstract (c) ;
but, in the absence of such a stipulation, it seems doubtful
whether he can require more than an abstract showing his
vendor's separate title (d).

Upon the sale of lands allotted under an Inclosure Act,
the abstract down to the award must be that of the title to
the lands in respect of which the allotment was made (e) :
and when the allotment has been made indiscriminately in
respect of lands held under different titles, all such titles
must be shown by the abstract (/). It may be observed that
if the Act omits the usual clause assimilating the tenure, an
allotment is freehold ; although made in respect of customary
lands : and this, notwithstanding the Act directs that allot-
ments shall be held to the same uses, &c., as the lands in
respect of which they are allotted (g).

Where the estate has been taken in exchange at common
law, or under mutual conveyances with eviction clauses, the
abstract must, down to the exchange, show the titles to both

(b) Conv. Act, 1881, s. 3 (7).

(c) Morris v. Kearsley, 2 Y. & C.
139.

(d} Law v. Law, 9 Jur. 745 ; and
see Phipps v. Child, 3 Dr. 709 ;
Brooke v. Garrod, 2 D. & J. 62.

(e) Sug. 373.

(/) See and consider King v.
Moody, 2 S. & S. 579 ; Major v.
Ward, 5 Ha. 604.

(g] Doe v. Davidson, 2 M. & S.
175 ; Doe v. Hillard, 9 B. & C. 789.

THE ABSTRACT. 327

estates (//) ; unless, iu the case of a common law exchange Chap. VIII.

o6Cv* o«

(as to the future operation of which see 8 & 9 Yict. c. 106, -
s. 4), the estate given in exchange has since been aliened (z),
and the vendor can prove the alienation.

Where the estate has been taken in exchange under the °f land taken

. . . in exchange

Acts authorizing the exchange of ecclesiastical property (£), from the

or under an Inclosure Act, or the provisions of the 4 & 5
Will. IV. c. 30 (authorizing the exchange of Common Lands), 8ure Acte-
the title down to the exchange must be that of the estate
given in exchange. Lord St. Leonards, in fact (speaking of
exchanges under Inclosure Acts), states, that " the title of the
person holding the estate is the only one relating to it" (I) :
this may be admitted if the validity of the exchange be
assumed : but, as such exchanges, and also exchanges of
common-field land under the 4 & 5 Will. IY. c. 30, are only
authorized to be made by or with the consent, in writing of
persons having certain specified interests in both estates (m) ,
it is conceived that, in such cases, an abstract can scarcely be
regarded as perfect, unless it disclose at least so much of the
prior title to the estate taken in exchange as may be suffi-
cient to show that the transaction was within the provisions

(h) Bustard's case, 4 Co. 121 a ; (m) See 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 30,

Sug. 372. ss. 2, 4, and 25, in which note the

(i) 1 Jarm. Conv. 75. words, "according- to the provision?,"

(k) 55 Geo. III. c. 147, see s. 3; &c. ; and 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 115,

and 56 Geo. III. c. 52 ; 1 Geo. IV. -s. 35. See also 3 & 4 V. c. 31, s. 1,

c. 6 ; and 6 Geo. IV. c. 8 ; 7 Geo. IV. which, in cases falling within the

c. 66; 1 & 2 V. cc. 23, 29, 106 ; 2 & Act, makes the award conclusive

3 V. c. 49; 3 & 4 V. c. 113, s. 59; evidence that the provisions of the

5 & 6 V. c. 54, s. 5 ; 9 & 10 V. c. 73, general Inclosure Act, and of the 6
s. 22 ; 23 & 24 V. c. 93, s. 41 ; 41 & & 7 Will. IV. c. 115, have been com-
42V. c. 42, s. 7. See, as to con- plied with, and that all necessary con-
firmation of void exchanges by the sents have been given ; but, query,
tithe -commutation commissioners, 5 whether this meets the difficulty in

6 6 V. c. 54, s. 7 ; and £. v. Tithe the case of an exchange ; it would
Commrs., 19 L. J. Q. B. 177. Ex- rather seem to refer merely to such
change of charity lands held valid, consents as are requisite to the va-
although the consenting Bishop was lidity of the inclosure. See Duke of
a trustee of the charity; A.-G. v. Beaufort v. Neeld, 12 C. & F. 248;
Bishop of Worcester, 9 Ha. 328. Doe v. Gore, 2 M. & W. 320.

(0 Sug. 373.

328 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. Of the Act. But where the estate has been taken in ex-

change under the general provisions of the Commons Inclo-

sure Act, 8 & 9 Yict. c. 118 (ri), the single title alone seems
necessary ; as the Act contains a clause making the award,
when confirmed, conclusive evidence that the directions of
the Act have been complied with, and declaring that every
allotment, exchange, &c., specified and set forth in the award,
shall be binding and conclusive on all persons whomsoever (0) :
and the same may probably be the case as respects private
exchanges under sect. 147 of the Act(j9). So, also, if the title
be described in the particulars or conditions as arising under
an exchange by virtue of an award under an Inclosure Act,
it is sufficient if the abstract show a title by award in respect
of other lands and common rights, without showing the par-
ticulars of the exchange : and if the agreement be that the
title shall commence with the award, the purchaser cannot
require the title of the lands given in exchange for those
contracted to be sold (q).

Of land taken Formerly where the title depended upon an exchange under
from a the 1 & 2 Greo. IV. c. 92 (authorizing the exchange of charity

chanty. lands), itwas necessary that the abstract should show the title

as well to the lands given as to the lands taken in exchange :
inasmuch as the right of re-entry in case of eviction was ex-
pressly reserved to the charity trustees (r) ; and it is conceived
that the purchaser might require evidence of the land given
in exchange having been quietly enjoyed by the charity.

(n) Amended by 9 & 10 V. c. 70, have power under this section to

s. 11 ; and extended by 10 & 11 V. exchange gavelkind lands for lands

c. Ill, ss. 4 and 6 ; and 12 & 13 V. held in common socage, and the

c. 83, ss. 7 and 11 ; and see 15 & 16 tenure of the lands is not altered by

V. c. 79, ss. 17, 31, 32; 17 & 18V. such exchange^ Minetv.LemantTD.

c. 97 ; 20 & 21 V. c. 31 ; 22 & 23 V. M. & G. 340. On exchanging free-

c. 43 ; 31 & 32 V. c. 89 ; and 39 & hold lands subject to heriots and re-

40 V. c. 56. liefs there is no power in the com-

(6) Sect. 105 ; as to evidence of missioners to make the allotted lands

the award, see sect. 146; and see as to so subject ; Mayor of Basingstoke v.

partitions by the commissioners, 11 Lord Bolton, 3 Dr. 50; and see 12 &

& 12 V. c. 99, ss. 13, 14, and 15 & 13 V. c. 83, s. 11.

16 V. c. 79, ss. 17, 31, 32. (?) Cattellv. Corrall, 4 Y. & C. 228.

(p) The commissioners appear to (r) See sect. 9 of Act.

THE ABSTRACT. 329

But the above Act is now repealed («), and such exchanges .

take place under sects. 24 to 26 of the Charitable Trusts Act, -
1853 (£), under which, no similar right being reserved, no
such evidence can be required.

Under a modern statute (w), where the trustees or persons Under the
acting in the administration of a charity have power to deter-
mine on any sale, exchange, partition, lease, or other disposi-
tion of the charity estate, a majority present and voting at a
meeting of their body duly constituted, are to have full power
to execute and do all such assurances and things as may be
requisite for carrying such sale, &c., into effect ; and their
assurances and acts are to have the same effect as if executed
by all the trustees or administrators, and by the official
trustee of charity lands. Where the title is derived under
this Act, or the previous Charitable Trusts Acts incorporated
with it, the abstract must show that all the statutory require-
ments have been complied with.

So, where land has been exonerated from tithe by an Of land

f^^f OT1PTV1 fj^d

exchange under the 6 & 7 "Will. IV. c. 71, s. 30 (#), the from tithe
title to the land given in exchange for the tithe must be und^e&

shown (y). Will. IV.

c. 71, s. 30.

The title to terms of years attendant upon the inheritance, Of estate
and which are considered to have merged under the 8 & 9 attendant
Yict. c. 112, must still be traced so as to show in whom they
were vested at the time when they became subject to the
operation of the Act (z) ; viz., by abstracting, if practicable,
the deed creating the terms, and the modern mesne assign-
ments : these latter, however, may be abstracted very con-

(s) 36 & 37 V. c. 91. to be construed with this statute.

(t) 16 & 17 V. c. 137. (x) And see 5 & 6 V. c. 54, ss. 6

(») 32 & 33 V. c. 110, s. 12. This and 7.

section seems retrospective. See the (y] See 2 & 3 V. c. 62, s. 20.
Acts 16 & 17 V. c. 137; 18 & 19V. (z) Lyle v. Earl of Yarborough,

c. 124 ; 23 & 24 V. c. 136 ; 25 & 26 V. John. 70, 74. As to what is a satis-

c. 112, which are, so far as consistent fied term, see Shaw v. Johnson, 1 Dr.

therewith and not repealed thereby, & S. 412.

330

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. oisely (a) : and when such deeds are numerous and voluminous,

O J o «/ \ /

—^ — it is not uncommon for counsel when settling conditions
of sale or a contract on behalf of a vendor to stipulate that
such deeds shall be abstracted merely by giving their dates
and a short statement of their effect, unless the purchaser
chooses to have a full abstract at his own expense. The Act,
it may be remarked, does not appear to extend to copyholds,
customary freeholds (b) , or leaseholds (c) : and it has been
doubted, although apparently without sufficient ground,
whether the first and second sections extend to any heredita-
ments other than land ordinarily so called (d). It must,
however, be borne in mind that a term does not become satis-
fied within the Act, unless the beneficial interest in the whole
charge secured by the term and the beneficial interest in the
whole estate are united and merged in the same person (c) .

Of enfran-
chised copy-
holds.

Upon a sale of land formerly of copyhold or customary
tenure, but which has been enfranchised, the purchaser cannot
now (/) , under a contract for the purchase of the freehold, call
for the title to make the enfranchisement. It is, however,
conceived that he may object to the title on grounds ascer-
tained al'mnde. Where the enfranchisement has been effected
under the general enfranchisement Acts, it has never been
necessary to show the lord's title (g).

Of leaseholds Previously to the 37 & 38 Viet. c. 78, the rule was, that

— freehold

title must upon a sale of leaseholds the abstract must (except in the

P°oduc&d ; ° case °^ a Bishop's lease (h) ) show the lessor's title, as well

as the subsequent title to the term (?') ; even although the

(«) Sug. 370.

(b) See Dav. C. Free. 30.

(c) See sect. 3.

(d) Dav. C. Prec. 25, 30.

(#) Anderson v. Pignet, 8 Ch. 180.

(/) Conv. Act, 1881, s. 3 (2).

(g] 4 & 5 V. c. 35, see s. 64 ;
15 & 16V. c. 51, ss. 11, 22, 33, 34,
and 47 ; and see the saving in sect. 48,
et qitare. And see sect. 10 of 21 & 22

V. c. 94, which is substituted for
sect. 11 of 15 & 16V. c. 51 ; Myers v.
Hodgson, 1 C. P. I). 609; and see
Kerr v. Pawson, 25 B. 394, a case
under the Copyhold Act, 1852; and
vide ante, p. 189.

(Ji) fane v. Spencer, 2 Mer. 430.

(i) So/iter v. Drake, 5 B. & Ad.
992 ; Hall v. Betty, 4 Man. & G.
410 ; dive v. Beaumont, 1 De G. &

THE ABSTRACT. 331

lessors were a corporation, and the lease was one of loner Chap. VIII.

Sect. 3.
standing (A1). The rule, as to the non-production of the -

Bishop's title (/), rested on the ground of the lease having been
granted in a mode prescribed by an Act of Parliament, and
upon the presumed notoriety arising from the use of the
episcopal seal ; and it would seem to apply to leases granted
by a Dean and Chapter, and possibly to other cases : and the
general rule did not apply when the purchaser entered into
the contract with notice that the freehold title could not be
produced (m) ; nor was it clear that the rule applied where,
on the sale of a lease of great antiquity, the vendor showed
the creation of the term, and deduced the leasehold title for

the last sixty years (n). But under the Y. & P. Act, 1874, but not under

the V. & P.
on the completion of any contract made after 1874, for the Act, 1874.

grant or assignment of a term of years, whether original or
derivative, the intended grantee or assign is not entitled to
call for the freehold title (o). And the Conveyancing Act,

1881 (j9), precludes a purchaser of a term of years derived
out of a leasehold interest in land from calling for the title
to the leasehold reversion. By the Conveyancing Act,

1882 (7), an "intended assign" of a lease made under a
power is precluded from requiring an abstract or production
of any preliminary contract for or relating to the lease.

These enactments, except perhaps the last, do not apply to Except in

i i i i j> T what cases.

leaseholds lor lives.

It has been held at Law that there is no difference between Whether the

, , agreement be

an agreement to grant a lease and an agreement to assign to grant or
one, as regards the liability to make a good title (r). A per- as81£n a lease-
son who agrees to let land agrees to grant a valid lease, just

S. 397, 406 ; Gaston v. Frankum, 2 (m) Sug. 369.

De G. & S. 561 ; Smith v. Capron, 7 (n) I Jarm. Conv. 69.

Ha. 185. And see StranJcs v. St. (o) 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 2.

John, L. E. 2 C. P. 376. (p) Sect. 3 (1).

(k) Purvis v. Rayer, 9 Pr. 488 ; see (q) Sect. 4.

p. 522 ; and see Frend v. Buckley, (r) Stranks v. St. John, L. R. 2

L. K. 5 Q. B. 213. C. P. 376 ; and cases cited ; and see

(1) Fane v. Spencer, 2 Mer. 430. Macbryde v. JFeckes, 22 B. 533.

332

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. ag a person who agrees to sell land agrees to execute a valid

Sect. 3. &

conveyance oi it (s).

Of renewable
leaseholds.

Of leases for
lives.

Sales under
Settled Land
Act.

Of shares in
mines.

Upon a sale of renewable leaseholds, if (as generally
happens) the subsisting lease be expressed to be granted in
consideration of the surrender of the prior lease, the abstract
must show that the surrenderor was the equitable as well as
the legal owner of the surrendered lease (t) .

If the lease be held for lives, evidence must, of course, be
given, that the lives are in existence ; and this, although
there be a covenant for perpetual renewal (11).

On a sale under the powers of the Settled Land Act, the
dealings with the property between the dates of the settle-
ment and the exercise of the power are immaterial to the
title, excepting such dealings as are specified in sect. 20 and
sect. 50 (3).

Upon a sale of shares in mines, the purchaser is not entitled
to a regular abstract of title to the mines themselves, as if
he were purchasing a share in the land in which they are
worked : but he is entitled to such evidence of the consti-
tution of the company, and of the nature of the title under
which the mines are worked, as will show that the subject-
matter of the purchase is what it professes to be, and that
the proposed form of transfer will give him a valid title to
the shares (x).

Of railway or
» s ares.

Upon the sale of railway or other shares, little evidence of
nee^e(i ^ . Until the seller has paid up all his calls,

(*) Per Willes, J., in StranJcs v.
St. John, L. K. 2 C. P. 376.

(f) Coppin v. Fernyhough, 2 Br.
C. C. 291 ; Hodgkinson v. Cooper, 9
B. 304.

(u) Anderson v. Higgins, 1 J. & L.
718. As to the construction of cove-
nants for renewal, see the very recent

case of Swinburne v. Milburn, 9 Ap.
Ca. 844.

(x) Curling v. Flight, 2 Ph. 613 ;
see 6 Ha. 41.

(y) Shaw v. Fisher, 5 D. M. & G.
596 ; Wynne v. Price, 3 De G. & S.
310.

THE ABSTRACT.

333

the company may refuse to register the transfer (2) ; but if Chap. VIII.

oGCt/. o»

they acknowledge the transferee as a shareholder, they cannot
recover from him the arrears due from his vendor (a). It is
the purchaser's duty to see that the transfer is registered (b) ;
but in order fully to protect himself from all liability in respect
of future calls, the vendor should see that the purchaser's
name is substituted in the register (c) ; for if he fail to do so,
his name will be put on the list of contributories in the event
of a winding-up. In such a case, the vendor will be entitled
to an indemnity from the purchaser, notwithstanding that the
transfer may not have been registered (d).

A company which has issued debentures in the form of a °* property

forming' part

floating security, and reserving power to sell and lease until of a floating
default is made in payment of the principal sum secured or debentures!
some part thereof, must, on making a sale of part of its pro-
perty, supply reasonable evidence that no default has been
made (e).

Upon the sale of a messuage with pews claimed as appur- Of pews ;
tenant thereto, the right to the pews must be proved, either
by production of the faculty, or by evidence of prescription (/) .
With respect to seats in the chancel, if the Rector allows seats
to be erected or placed there by the parish, they seem to be
thenceforth in the same position as pews in the body of the

chancel.

(z) See as to shares in companies
under the Act of 1862, sect. 15.

(a) Watson v. Hales, 23 B. 294.

(*) Sayles v. Elane, 14 Q. B. 205 ;
Walker v. Bartktt, 18 C. B. 845, 861 ;
Re Ward and Henrys case, 2 Ch. 431,
438.

(c) Shepherd's case, 2 Ch. 16 ; Head's
case, 3 Eq. 84 ; White's case, ib. 86 ;
and see Shepherd v. Gillespie, 3 Ch.
764 ; Cruse v. Paine, 6 Eq. 641.

(d) Wynne v. Price, 3 De G. & S.
310; Walker's case, 2 Eq. 564; Head's
case, 3 Eq. 84 ; White's case, ib. 86 ;
Boivrivg v. Shepherd, L. R. 6 Q. B.
309 ; Castellan v. Hobson, 10 Eq. 47.
See as to the usages of the Stock

Exchange, and their bearing on the
contract, Grissell v. Bristowe, L. R.
4 C. P. 36 ; Coles v. Bristowe, 4 Ch.
3 ; Loring v. Davics, 32 Ch. D. 625 ;
and see post, p. 1106.

(e) He Home and Hellard, 29 Ch. D.
736.

(/) See, on the right to pews,
Shelf. R. P. 115 ; and Pepper v. Bar-
nard, 12 L. J. Q. B. 361 ; Knapp v.
St. Mary, Willesden, 15 Jur. 473.
Section 2 of the Prescription Act
does not apply to pews in a parish
church ; as to what evidence is
necessary to prove a prescriptive
title to such a pew, see Crisp v.
Martin, 2 P. D. 15.

334

THE ABSTRACT.

Sect 3 church, and to be subject to the like jurisdiction of the
" Ordinary : but the Ordinary cannot interfere with pews occu-
pied by the Hector and his family and tenants, nor, indeed,
with any he has licensed ; and he cannot introduce pews or
seats into the chancel without the Rector's consent (g) .

Must extend As to the commencement of the title, — Before the V. & P.

over what

period— sixty Act, 1874 (h), the rule was that upon a sale of freeholds, or
ye' (it is conceived) of copyholds or renewable leaseholds, except

where the first lease was of more recent date, the title must
go back at least sixty years (?') ; but by the Act, the period
of forty years is substituted for that of sixty years, subject
however to the purchaser being entitled to call for a title
going further back than forty years in any case where, before
the passing of the Act, he might have required more than a
sixty years' title (k) .

One hundred
years on sale
of advowson.

The title to an advowson must be carried back at least one
hundred years (/) ; and the abstract should be accompanied
by a list of the presentations during the period over which it
extends (m). The rule, it is conceived, is the same, whether
the advowson be sold as in gross or appendant ; for although
a sixty, or now a forty, years' title might be sufficient, if it
could be shown that the advowson was in fact appendant to
the principal estate, yet the purchaser, it may be contended,
has a right to see that no destruction of the appendancy, by
severance of the advowson, is disclosed by the earlier title.

(g] Ayliffe'sParergon,4S6;Degge's
Parson's Counsellor, 213 (173), 7th ed.
1820 ; Watson's Clergyman's Law,
388, 4th ed. 1747; Nelson's Rights
of the Clergy, 494 ; Prideaux's Direc-
tions to Churchwardens, 4th ed. 1716,
74, 75 ; seeBrownl. &G-. 45, dictum per
Lord Coke ; Clifford v. Wicks, 1 B. &
Aid. 498 ; Morgan v. Curtis, 3 Man.
& R. 389. A pew in a chancel differs
from one in the body of the church,
since it may belong to a person in
respect of the ownership of a house ;
and even a tenant of the house may
acquire a permissive right to it, so as

to bring an action for perturbation ;
Parker v. Leach, L. R. 1 P. C. 312,
327. As to property in a chancel
generally, see Chapman v. Jones,
L. R. 4 Ex. 273 ; Arbuthnot v. Duke
of Norfolk, 5 C. P. D. 390.

(h) 37 & 38 V. c. 78.

(i) Cooper v. Emery, 1 Ph. 388 ;
Hodgkinson v. Cooper, 9 B. 304 ;
Finch v. Shaw, 19 B. 500; seeMoulton
v. Edmonds, 1 D. F. & J. 246.

(k) 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 1.

(0 See 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27,
s. 30.

(m) Sug. 367.

THE ABSTRACT. 335

"We may remark here, that the word " living " is sufficient ^gjj^111'
to pass the advowson ; though it may be restrained by the -
context to the next presentation (;?).

Upon the sale of a reversionary interest, whatever may Must show
be its antiquity, the abstract must go back sufficiently far reversionary
to show its creation ; and it should also be shown that the JJJ^hereof
estate has been enjoyed in possession conformably with the
instrument which created the reversionary interest (o). This,
however, only applies to the sale of reversionary interests
commonly so called, and not to the sale of an estate subject
to an attendant term ; in such a case it is sufficient to show
a good sixty years' (or now a forty years') title to the free-
hold, and to the possession of the term, abstracting also the
deed creating the term ; and even if this be lost, the loss is
said to be immaterial (p).

It was stated in former editions that upon the sale of an Showing
old term of years, it is sufficient if the abstract show the title^to old*
creation of the term and a sixty years' title to the possession, ^™t^r uffi.
omitting the intermediate title ; and that the absence of the cwmt.
deed creating the term would not render the title unmarket-
able (q). However, in one case (r), where the passage in
the text and the authorities on which it is based were cited,
the Court of Exchequer Chamber held, that a vendor of
leaseholds, who deduced a good title for more than sixty
years, was bound to produce a lease dated in 160G, under
which the property was held, there being nothing in the
contract to prevent the purchaser from requiring its pro-
duction.

And it is conceived that in the case of the sale of an old On sale of
term originally created by way of mortgage, or upon trust gross,
for raising portions, or for any other limited purpose, the
abstract should set out, not only the instrument creating the
term, but also those which evidence its subsistence as an

(n) Webb v. Byng, 2 K. & J. 669, (q) 1 Jarm. Conv. 69 ; 1 Prest.

aff. 10 H. L. C. 171. Abst. 11, 249 ; and see Sug. 370.

(o) 1 Jarm. Conv. 61. (r) Frend v. Buckley, L. R. 5 Q. B.

(p) 1 Prest. Abst. 249. 213.

336

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. absolute estate : e.g., a, decree of foreclosure, or an assignment
— under a power of sale in the case of the mortgage term, or
an assignment on the sale of a term for raising portions. A
new danger arises in the case of the purchase of such a term
by the operation of sect. 20 of the Settled Land Act, which
enables the tenant for life, subject to a term, to convey free
from the term, unless it has been conveyed, or created for
securing money actually raised at the date of the conveyance
by the tenant for life. Numerous instances occur in practice
in which estates really held merely for the residues of old
terms of this description have for many years been dealt with
and treated as freehold ; and their existence constitutes a
source of danger to titles which it may often be impossible to
guard against by any amount of professional vigilance.

On sale of
tithes or other
property de-
rived from the
Crown must
show original
grant.

Upon the sale of tithes held as a lay property, or of any
other property held (as such tithes generally (s) are) under a
grant from the Crown, the abstract should set forth the
original grant, and then, omitting intermediate instruments,
take up the history so as to show a good sixty (or now forty)
years' title (t) : so, where the tithes are considered to have
been merged by the tithe-owner under the late Acts (11), and
the estate is sold as tithe-free, the early title to the tithes
must be similarly deduced (./•) ; except in cases where the
merger purports to have been effected by an instrument made
with the consent of the Commissioners since the passing of
the9& 10 Yict. c. 73 (y).

Eulesnot If the purchaser have agreed not to call for the legal

estate being estate, this will not shorten the period over which a title must

merely
equitable.

(s) Tithes may be held as lay pro-
perty (inter alia) by virtue of sales
for redemption of land tax.

(t} Pickering v. Lord Sherborne, 1
Crawf . & Dix, 254 ; 1 Jarm.
Conv. 68 ; Sug. 367. It is conceived
that sect. 1 of the 37 & 38 V. c. 78,
which in terms applies only to a
contract for sale of land, cannot apply
to a contract for the sale of incor-
poreal hereditaments like tithes ; but

see 13 & 14V. c. 21, s. 4.

(«) 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, s. 71 ;
1 & 2 V. c. 64 ; 2 & 3 V. c. 62 ;
9 & 10 V. c. 73, ss. 18, 19. It seems
that impropriate tithes cannot be
merged. See 2 Phil. EC. Law, 1506;
Shelford on Tithes, 292, n., 3rd ed.

(x) Ibid.

(y] See Walker v. Bentley, 9 Ha.
629, 632.

THE ABSTRACT. 337

be shown to the equitable estate ; and it must also be shown Chap. VIII.
that no adverse use can be made of the legal estate. , — —

(4.) As to the preparation, contents, and delivery of the abstract. Section 4.

The abstract must always commence with a document, of A* to pre-
at least the requisite age, if the vendor have one : but neither tents, and
can a purchaser require, nor would the vendor's solicitor be °

justified in furnishing, an abstract of deeds prior in date to Must if pos-
that which would constitute a good root of title (z) . Where mence with a
the root of the title, as abstracted, is insufficient per se (as, document;
e.g., in the case of a general devise without proof of the tes- to be ab-
tator's seisin), the purchaser may require an inspection of the stracted
earlier title deeds in the vendor's possession ; but a purchaser produced if
cannot require the production, or any abstract or copy, of any
document of title, dated or made before the time prescribed
by law, or stipulated for commencement of the title, even
though such document creates a power subsequently exercised
by an instrument abstracted in the abstract furnished to the
purchaser ; and he cannot require any information, or make
any requisition, objection, or inquiry, with respect to any
such document of title, or the prior title, notwithstanding that
such document, or prior title, is recited, covenanted to be pro-
duced, or noticed ; and he is bound to assume, unless the
contrary appears, that the recitals, contained in the abstracted
instruments, of any document of title forming part of the
prior title are correct, and give all the material contents of
such recited document, and that every such recited document
was duly executed and perfected (a).

It must be carefully borne in mind that the rule above Effect of
stated does not in the slightest degree affect the principles purchaser's
upon which a purchaser is entitled to assume that the docu- n& ^ *° „

abstract, &c.

ment specified, either expressly, or, it is conceived, by impli-
cation of law, as the commencement of the title, discloses a
good root of title, and that, therefore, where this is not the

(z) 1 Jarm. Conv. 63 ; but see and vide infra.
Frend v. Buckley, L. R. 5 Q. B. 213 ; (a) Conv. Act, 1881, s. 3 (3).

D. VOL. I. Z

£38 .THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. case, it is necessary to state this in the conditions or agree-

•Sect. 4.

ment (b) .

Must com- As a general rule, the first abstracted documents should

- Plu>Port to deal with the entire legal and equitable estates in

tion of docu- the property ; or should at least afford primd facie evidence

ment as a root

of title. that the title to such legal and equitable estates was, at the

date of such documents, consistent with the title as subse-
quently deduced : they should not be dependent for their
validity upon any previous instrument ; and should contain
nothing raising a fair doubt whether the parties claiming
the interests there purported to be dealt with, were in fact
entitled so to deal with them.

Not with will Thus, a general devise in a will of real estate is an insuffi -

gene^aim& cient root of title, there being nothing to show that the pro-

devise. perty in question was intended to, or could, have passed by

it : the conveyance to the testator should be abstracted ; or,

if there are no earlier deeds, evidence should be furnished of

his seisin at the date of his will : and even a specific devise is

not an eligible root of title (c).

Whether with So also, it is conceived, a mortgage for a term of years, or
a term— or a a lease, is an improper commencement of an abstract of title
ease' to the fee simple, where the vendor has earlier documents ;

unless, perhaps, in cases where, independently of the mere
fact of the demise (which might be attributed to a power, or
to a mere chattel interest in the grantor), the instrument
contains matter which furnishes a fair presumption that he
was the absolute owner in fee. A vendor, however, in pos-
session of earlier documents, could not be advised (except
under very special circumstances) to commence his abstract
with a lease, as it would almost inevitably lead to expensive
discussions with the purchaser. And where a lease is relied
on, it is necessary, unless it expired before the time of living

(1} See ante, pp. 173, 174; and e.g. (c) See Parr v. Lovegrove, 4 Dr.

Me Marsh and Earl Granville, 24 Ch. 170 ; Re Canister, 12 Ch. D. 131.
D. 11.

THE ABSTRACT. 339

memory, to show that the lessee had actual possession of the Chap. VIII.
estate (d).

So, also, a voluntary conveyance is not a proper root of Voluntary

.... , . conveyance.

title (e).

So, also, an instrument relied upon as an exercise of a Nor with in-

. . strument de-

power should be preceded by the instrument creating the pendent for its
power ; and the admittance to copyholds should be preceded previous°iji-
by the surrender; and a recovery deed or a disentailing »trument-
assurance, if it disclose an entail, by the deed creating the
entail (/).

" If, however, such deed is lost, and possession has gone Except in
along with the estates created by the recovery for a con- _i0ss of prior
siderable length of time, and the presumption is in favour of instrumen •
the recovery having been duly suffered," the loss of the deed,
and want of evidence of its contents, are no objection to the
title (g) ; and the same principle would probably apply in
the case of the absence of a deed creating a power (h) ; or in
the case of the loss of an ancient lease, on a sale of long
leaseholds (i).

So, if the first abstracted document contain recitals or other Nor with
matter throwing a reasonable doubt upon the title as respects ^idTthrows

the contents or construction of the earlier documents, the a d.0.ubt °?

earlier title.

purchaser may require the vendor, not only to produce, but
also to abstract, so much of the prior title as may be sufficient
to remove such doubt ; but, in the absence of such reasonable
doubt, the mere fact of earlier documents being recited would
not entitle the purchaser to an abstract of them, even where
he may require their production if in the vendor's possession

(rf) ClarJcson v. Woodhouse, 5 T. R. of the Conv. Act, 1881 ; ante, p. 337.

412 ; Burt. Comp. pi. 428. (y) Coussmakcrv. Sewell, Sug. 366.

(e) Re Marsh and Earl Granville, (h) See Nouaille v. Greenwood, T.

24 Ch. D. 11. & R. 26.

(/) 1 Jarm. Conv. 67. It is con- (i) But see Frend v. Buckky, L. R.

ceived that the proposition in the 5 Q. B. 213, et qiitere ; ante, p. 335.
text is in no way affected by sect. 3 (3)

7 2

340 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. or power (k) : and it is sufficient to produce (without abstract-
- ing) an instrument which is required simply " to establish a
fact or negative an inference" (/). In cases coming within
sect. 2 (2) of the Yendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, or sect. 3 (3)
of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, the burden lies on the pur-
chaser to show that recitals to which the sections apply are
inaccurate (m).

Need not in Jt is not essential that the origin of the title should be

all cases com- • i i i

mence with a shown either by deed or will ; in the absence of documents
it may be sufficient to produce evidence of such long uninter-
rupted possession, enjoyment, and dealing with the property,
as to afford a reasonable presumption that there is an abso-
lute title in fee simple (n). But the proof of title by evidence
of possession is not admissible in cases where documents
forming part of the modern title are lost or destroyed : in
such cases the vendor must prove their contents and execu-
tion (0) ; for which purpose, when the land is in a register
county, a registered memorial is good secondary evidence (p) .

Recitals in As a general rule, the recitals in any document which is

first document

should befully abstracted as a root of title, should, so far as it may in any
way affect the estate comprised in the contract, be set out
fully ; even though the purchaser may be precluded from
founding any requisition or objection thereon.

Wherever The title, wherever taken up, should be thence continued

should thence either in chronological or some other regular order. Where

continued^7 sePara^e parts of the estate are held under separate titles,

such titles should, of course, be traced separately so long as

they remain distinct : every subsequent document dealing

with the legal estate (except expired leases, and with the

exceptions already referred to (<?),) should be abstracted (r) ;

(k) See Prosser v. Watts, 6 Mad. (o) Bryant v. Busk, 4 Rus. 1 ;

69 ; 1 Jarm. Conv. 63 and 64 ; 1 Sug-. 438.

Hayes, Conv. 566. (p) Cathrow v. Eade, 4 De G-. & S.

(0 Sug. 418. 527.

(m) See Bolton v. London School (q) Ante, p. 335.

Board, 1 Ch. D. 766 ; Re Marsh and (r) See the comments on this state-

Earl Granville, 24 Ch. D. 11. ment in Gray v. Fowler t L. R. 8 Ex.

(M) Cottrell v. TTatkins, 1 B. 365. 249, 265.

THE ABSTRACT. 341

for instance, a mortgage and a reconveyance are not to be
suppressed under the notion that the title has been thereby
brought back to its original state (s) ; such may, or may not,
have been the case ; and is a point to be determined by the
advisers of the purchaser, not of the vendor. All documents Documents
forming part of the title should be abstracted in chief ; the abstracted in
introduction of them merely as recitals in other abstracted cllief<
instruments (which is not uncommon, especially in the case
of wills) is, it is apprehended, clearly improper : were it not
so, a copy of the conveyance to the vendor might, in many
cases, take the place of an abstract ; besides which, the omis-
sion to abstract a document in chief may proceed from a
desire to avoid noticing matters of a suspicious character
occurring in such document, but which are not noticed in the
recital. It is convenient to introduce, in their proper places, Statements of
direct statements of deaths, marriages, and other matters of pedigree,
pedigree ; and not, as is frequently done, to trust to the
recitals in the abstracted documents : and in cases of compli-
cated descents, &c., a regular pedigree should accompany the
abstract.

Documents affecting merely equitable interests give rise to Suppression
considerations of greater difficulty. Lord St. Leonards states evidencing
generally, that the solicitor " should abstract every document immaterial or
upon which the title depends, or upon which any difficulty equities-
has arisen ; wherever he begins the root of the title, he ought justifiable,
to abstract every subsequent deed" (t). This, however, it is
conceived, must be understood to mean every document upon
which the purchaser's title will necessarily depend. If, for
instance, the vendor be possessed of a document declaring
that a prior owner who purchased, apparently on his own
account, was in fact a trustee, or, that a mortgage-debt was
trust-money, the title of the vendor who has notice of the
trust may depend upon various instruments which would be
altogether immaterial to a purchaser destitute of such notice ;
and it would, it is conceived, be unusual, and improper, for

(.«) As to the danger and impro- see Heath v. Crealock, 10 Ch. 22.
priety of suppressing a mortgage, (t) Sug. 407.

342 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. fae solicitor to allow notice of such a trust to appear upon

Sect. 4.

" his ahstract. This, however, it must he admitted, is, pro
tanto, a departure from the general principle, that it is for
the purchaser's solicitor, and not the vendor's, to judge of
the materiality of the muniments of title ; but it is sanctioned
by convenience and universal practice (M) . Other cases may
perhaps occur in which a document may be, without material
risk, suppressed ; as, for instance, where a good title is shown
to the legal estate, and a charge, which clearly operated
merely in Equity, has been paid off and no trace of it appears
upon the subsequent title. The difference between the sup-
pression of such an instrument and a legal mortgage is
evident : the equitable charge has no operation as against
a subsequent purchaser for valuable consideration taking the
legal estate without notice ; and his title, therefore, is not
dependent on the sufficiency of the release ; nor does there
seem to be any good reason for making a distinction between
an equitable charge by deed, and a mere memorandum
accompanying an old equitable mortgage by deposit, which,
except upon special grounds, is never abstracted. But, in
the case of a legal mortgage, the purchaser's title at Law
will depend (theoretically if not practically) upon the legal
validity of the deed of reconveyance, whether its existence
be known to him or not. Still, even in the case of the
equitable charge, it seems at least probable that a solicitor
who suppresses it, under the idea that it is unimportant to
Deed which the title, does so at a risk (x) ; and it is submitted, that such
m^^afestate a course should rarely, or never, be taken, in respect of an

should never instrument which is so framed that it could by possibility
be suppressed.

affect the legal estate (y) ; as, for instance, a mortgage of an
equity of redemption, drawn as a conveyance with a proviso
for redemption ; and which, although merely a charge in
Equity if the first mortgage be valid in Law, would yet pass
the legal estate, supposing it not to have been effectually
transferred by the prior instrument.

(u] See Re Harman and Uxbridge (y) See Palmer v. Locke, 18 Ch. D.

J?. Co., 24 Ch. D. 720. 381.

(x) See Sug. 411.

THE ABSTRACT.

343

But in one case (z). it was held that a vendor was not Chap. VIII.

Sect. 4.

justified in suppressing a letter creating an equitable charge, — — — •
which was intended to be paid off ; and, also, that he would Tracey.
not have been justified in so doing, even if the charge had
been actually satisfied : and the Court, in commenting on the
above passage in the text (as appearing in the 3rd edition),
observed that it " must probably mean that where an equit-
able charge has been discharged, it may be advisable not to
put it on the face of the abstract ; but that he (the Y.-C)
had no doubt that such charges ought in some way to be
communicated to a purchaser." The intention of the writer,
however, was not to limit the rule in the way suggested by
the Court : but to lay it down generally, that where an in-
formal equitable charge has been satisfied, its past existence
may, except under special and exceptional circumstances, be
altogether suppressed by the vendor's solicitor. The strict
rule laid down by the Yice-Chancellor, Sir "W. P. Wood, in
Dnimmondv. Tracey, and sanctioned by Lord St. Leonards (a),
may be theoretically correct : but its practical inconvenience,
as much to purchasers as to vendors, is so great, that in prac-
tice it had previously been all but universally ignored : nor
has the practice, it is believed, been materially, if at all,
affected by that decision. Thus, to take a common instance,
a solicitor, who is conducting a sale of his client's property,
frequently makes him an advance in anticipation of the sale,
and, as a security, takes an informal equitable charge upon
the property, or the expected sale-proceeds, out of which, on
completion of the purchase, the debt is satisfied. The exis-
tence of such an incumbrance is seldom, if ever, disclosed. Its
suppression can in nowise prejudice the purchaser : its intro-
duction upon the face of the title would be a probable source
of future difficulty and expense. If the rule be really as laid
down in Drummond v. Tracey, the conclusion seems to be in-
evitable that the astuteness with which modern conveyancers
have striven to avoid the unnecessary disclosure upon a title
of mere equities, has been altogether a mistake ; — although

(z) Drummond v. Tracey, John. 608, 612. (a) Sug. 411.

344 THE ABSTRACT.

CLap. VIII. their practice, in this respect, has been sanctioned by the
- example of the Court of Chancery itself, in its own convey-
ancing transactions ; — and that every defunct equity, which,
during the last sixty — or now forty — years, has affected the
property, whether created by writing or merely by parol (for
there is no valid distinction between the two modes of effecting
the same result), ought to be abstracted : for of course it would
be mere waste of time to communicate their past existence to
the purchaser, and leave him to require the abstract to be
amended. Upon the whole, with the greatest possible respect
for the very eminent judge who decided Dmmmond v. Tracey,
it is submitted that the rule, as stated by the writer, is one
which is in conformity with long established conveyancing
usage : and as such, and as being also based upon considera-
tions of great practical convenience, it ought not lightly to be
annulled or shaken. Of course, if the vendor or his solicitor
is especially required to state whether there are any undis-
closed incumbrances affecting the property, the existence of
such an equitable charge, if subsisting, must be divulged. It
is one of the inconveniences of such a requisition, that it may
elicit information, which has been judiciously withheld.

As to liability If the vendor's solicitor, by fraudulently suppressing a
solicitor under document, damnify the purchaser, he is answerable for the

l°ss' an(^ *s ma(^e criminally responsible. By the 24th
suppressing section of 22 & 23 Yict. c. 35, a seller or mortgagor, or his

incumbrance, . . .

&c. solicitor or agent, who conceals any instrument material to the

title, or any incumbrance, from the purchaser or mortgagee,
or who falsifies any pedigree, on which the title does or may
depend, in order to induce such purchaser or mortgagee to
accept the title, with intent to defraud, is made guilty of
misdemeanor, and also liable to an action for damages. This
section, it is conceived, can only apply to the fraudulent
concealment of an existing incumbrance; nor will the vendor's
solicitor be criminally responsible, if he suppress a mere
equitable charge, which has been satisfied, or which no longer
affects the title. The section plainly contemplates that there
may be documents of title which are not material ; what are,

THE ABSTRACT. 345

and what are not, material in each particular case may safely Chap. VIII.
be left to the discretion of the solicitor, who, with the - — —
penal consequences of this statute in view, is not likely to
make an omission which will prejudice a purchaser.

The loss of a deed of a date subsequent to the commence- As to loss of
ment of the abstract, is no objection to the title, if, under all
the circumstances, the clear presumption be that the instru-
ment, if produced, would not throw any difficulty about the
title (b) ; this doctrine, however, must be applied with the
greatest hesitation to cases where modern deeds are lost, and
no satisfactory evidence exists of their contents (c).

The abstract should notice all drainage and land improve- All charges
ment loans (d) and other subsisting charges upon the pro- noticed.
perty ; and should also, if the tithe has been commuted, state
the amount and particulars of the commutation rent-charge.

Copies of wills abstracted (if of an at all informal cha- Should be
cter), and of private Acts of Parliamen
depends, should accompany the abstract.

racter), and of private Acts of Parliament upon which the title by

It has been held at Law to be sufficient for the purpose of Plans may be
identification that the abstract should refer to, without con- ,

but copies

taining copies of, maps or plans indorsed upon the deeds (e) ; should gene-
but this can scarcely be so in cases where, as now often nished.
happens, a deed contains no substantive description of the
property, but conveys it either merely, or as respects its
details, by reference to the plan. According to present prac-
tice, a plan is generally employed, if not to define, at any
rate to elucidate the description of the parcels : a tracing of
it, when not sent with the abstract, is usually furnished upon

(b) Minchin v. Vance, 2 S. Atk. see (in ejectment) Doe\. Brooks, 3 A.

Conv. 386, b. See, as to earlier & E. 513.

documents, Prosser v. Watts, 6 Mad. (c) Vide infra.

59 ; and as to the loss of the lease (d) Ante, p. 97 ; post, p. 523.

under which the property is held, (e) See Blackburn v. Smith, 2 Ex.

Frend v. Buckley, L. R. 5 Q. B. 213 ; 792 ; scd quare.

346

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. the purchaser's request ; and may, it is conceived, in most
- cases be insisted on (/).

And by state-
ment of evi-
dence.

As to con-
sulting-
counsel
thereon on
behalf of
vendor.

Table of con-
tents.

A statement of the evidence which the vendor is able to
produce in support of the title may conveniently accompany
the abstract ; this, however, is not often attended to. When
matters of importance are to be proved by statutory declara-
tion, it is desirable, with a view to expediting business, that
copies of the proposed declarations should accompany the
abstract.

Cases not unfrequently occur of complicated titles, in which
the solicitor who prepares the abstract will be justified in
laying it before counsel on behalf of his own client; this
remark applies particularly to heavy mortgage transactions,
in which considerable expense to the mortgagor may fre-
quently be saved by the delivery in the first instance of a
perfect and well- verified abstract.

It not unfrequently occurs that a heavy abstract is pre-
faced by a concise analytical table of contents. The practice
is a most commendable one.

How to be
copied.

An abstract may be written so illegibly, or upon paper of
such an inconvenient size or substance, as to justify the
purchaser's solicitor or counsel in declining to receive it (g).

Effect of non- The non-delivery of a perfect or sufficient (h) abstract on
abstract °on ^ne day named, discharges the purchaser from any conditions
Puf?kaser's binding him to make objections, &c., within a specified time

liability under

the contract, after delivery (i) ; and, at Law, formerly relieved him alto-

(/) As to the importance of a plan
in ascertaining the parcels, see Lyle
v. Richards, L. R. 1 H. L. 222 ; and
post, p. 1092.

(ff) See Sug. 406. Abstracts, it
appears, ought in strictness to con-
tain ten, but are usually passed on
taxation if containing on an average
eight, folios per sheet ; Re Walsh,
12 B. 490 ; the fee for perusal has not

been altered by the Sol. Hem. Act,
1881, see Re Parker, 29 Ch. D. 199;
and cf. Re Robertson, 19 Q. B. D. 1.

(h} Vide ante, p. 321 ; as to what
is a perfect or sufficient abstract.

(i} Southby v. Hutt, 2 M. & C. 211 ;
and see Roberts v. Berry, 3 D. M. &
G. 291 ; Sherwin v. Shakspcare, 5 D.
M. & G. 517 ; Upperton v. Nickolson, 6
Ch. 436 ; Venn v. Cattcll, 27 L. T. 469.

THE ABSTRACT. 347

gether from the contract (k) : now. however, both at Law and Chap. VIII.

. , Sect. 4.
in Equity (/), the purchaser will be bound if either he neglect

to apply for the abstract within a reasonable time before the
day fixed for its delivery (m) ; or if, upon its being subse-
quently tendered, he receive it without objection («) : but
the wilful (o) neglect on the part of a vendor to prepare the
abstract within proper time, when pressed by the purchaser
to do so, will entitle the purchaser to avoid the contract so
soon as the time fixed for completion has elapsed (/;) : where Non-delivery,
the purchaser's solicitor intends to rely upon the non-delivery taken advan-
of the abstract upon the day named, or (if no day have been tage of •
named) within a reasonable time before the day fixed for
completion, as a ground for refusing to complete the purchase,
he should decline to receive it ; or, if forwarded to him under
circumstances which gave no opportunity for its rejection, he
should at once return it, and without reading it (q).

Where it is important to the purchaser to complete (if at Suggested
all) at or about the time fixed for completion, and the ab- ceeding by
stract, having been called for, is delivered so late as to render Purchaser-
it doubtful whether this can be accomplished, the most ex-
pedient course would appear to be, to return it unread ;
offering, however, to receive it again, without prejudice to
the purchaser's right to annul the contract, if, on investigat-
ing the title, it should be found impossible to complete at (or
within some short specified period after) the time originally
fixed for completion.

Upon a sale of an estate with a title registered under the Abstract of
Land Registry Act, 25 & 26 Yict. c. 53, the abstract should ^tn
consist of copies of such entries upon the register as are necessary tered tltle-
in order to show the subsisting state of the title, as appearing,
for the time being, upon the register, and irrespectively of

(k) Sug. 260 ; Berry v. Young, 2 2 Anst. 527.
Esp. 640, n. (o) See Roberts v. Berry, 3 D. M. &

(1) Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (7). G. 284 ; Tilky v. Thomas, 3 Ch. 61.

(m) Guest v. Homfray, 5V. 818, (p) Sug. 261; Seton v. Slade, 7V.

823 ; Jones v. Price, 3 Anst. 924. 265.

(n) Sug. 261 ; Smith v. Burnam, (q) See 7 V. 278.

348 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. the antecedent history of the title. Sometimes, however, the

— - — entries relating to the subsisting title refer to the antecedent

entries in such a manner as to incorporate them with the
later entries ; and in such a case, of course, such antecedent
entries must themselves also be abstracted.

Sections. (5.) As to the examination and perusal of the abstract.

As to the exa- The purchaser's solicitor may, if he please, compare the
he abstract with the deeds before investigating the title, and the

abstract. vendor (assuming that there is a binding contract) must pay
compared ° ' "the costs if the title prove bad (r) ; but unless the abstract be
with deeds apparently defective, it is better to defer doing so until
gation of title, counsel's opinion (if taken) is obtained upon it (*).

As to con- A purchaser's solicitor, it is conceived, is primd facie legally

counsel justified in incurring the expense of counsel's opinion upon the

thereon on abstract. In London, perhaps, the majority of titles (except

behalf of pur- v ^ r

chaser. those of the simplest description) are, or used to be, submitted

to counsel : in the country, the practice inclines considerably the
other way : it appears, however, that a solicitor ought himself
to peruse an abstract before submitting it to counsel ; and
that he will be allowed a fee for such perusal, and also the
stationer's charge for making a copy of the abstract (t).
Titles, it is believed, are constantly accepted, almost without
investigation, merely upon the faith of their having, on some
previous occasion, been advised upon and accepted by counsel
of eminence. It should, however, be remembered that the
decisions of the various Courts of Law and Equity have
As to the a retrospective effect upon titles ; so that, in estimating the
opinions in value of a favourable opinion taken a few years previously,

favour of a allowance must be made for the possibility of the title having
title.

been since rendered unmarketable, possibly unsafe, by some
intermediate and unexpected exposition of the law (u). It is

(r) Hodges v. Earl of Lichfield, 1 (u) The decision in Honey wood v.

Bing. N. C. 499. Forster, 30 B. 1, and followed by

(s) Sug. 411. that in Gibbons v. Snape, 1 D. J. &

(t) Drax v. Scroupe, 1 Dowl. 69. S. 621 ; and Green v. Patcrson, 32

.THE ABSTRACT. 349

also important to know whether the counsel who accepted Chap. VIII.

. . . Sect. 5.

the title did so upon an open contract, or under the restrictive

influence of special conditions ; and whether any special
reasons may have existed, which would probably render him
astute in endeavouring to take a favourable view of the title.
It may also be of some importance to know whether the
investigation was on behalf of a purchaser or a mortgagee.
For in some respects the requirements of counsel are, or ought
to be, more, and in others they may properly be less, strict
when advising on behalf of a mortgagee than when advising
on behalf of a purchaser. For a mortgagee who looks merely
to a return of his money, and cares nothing for the estate or
any part of it except so far as it is a security for his money,
on the one hand requires an absolutely safe title to a sufficient
amount of property to leave him perfectly secure in all events ;
and if satisfied as to this, he may be comparatively indifferent
to defects in title to that which he can afford to regard as a
mere margin to his security. He might, therefore, on the
one hand, in the case of a residential property, be indifferent
as to a probable want of title to some particular part of it,
the loss of which would be all-important to a purchaser, as
destructive to the place as a residence, yet would leave an
amount of unsightly but productive acreage amply sufficient
to cover the amount of the mortgage debt. While, on the
other hand, a mere shade of doubt respecting the soundness
of the general title, which might very possibly be disregarded
by a purchaser eager to acquire an attractive property, would
be a sufficient reason for a mortgagee at once declining to
advance his money. Land adjoining, or in the immediate
vicinity of, residential property, and which if in other hands
might be so used as to depreciate the principal estate, will
often be purchased by the owner of such estate in disregard
of great uncertainty respecting, or even of positive and serious
objections to, the title. The above remarks apply particularly
'to questions as to evidence of identity of parcels, and as to

Ch. D. 95, establishing the necessity within six calendar months after
for entering a disentailing deed of execution, may be cited in illustra-
copyholds upon the Court Rolls tion.

350

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. boundaries, and easements. As respects mere pecuniary

Sect. 5. ' .

charges, it is obvious that when an estate is of very ample

value, a question as to the possible existence of charges of
limited amount, and which would be of serious importance to
a purchaser, may be altogether disregarded by a mortgagee,
who is about to advance his money upon that which, even
minus the charge, is a perfectly satisfactory security.

Copy of agree-
ment should
accompany
abstract.

Acceptance of
title shown by
— to what it
extends.

Defects in
client's title
must not be
disclosed to
client entitled
to take
advantage
thereof.

Section 6.
As to the

0

The abstract, when submitted to counsel, should, of course,
be accompanied by a copy of the agreement and conditions of
sale (if any).

The acceptance of a title is no waiver of objections which
are not disclosed by the abstract (x) ; nor is a client bound by
his counsel's acceptance of a defective title, even although
the defect appear upon the abstract (y) ; if, however, counsel
waive a requisition, and the purchaser adopt his opinion and
deal with the vendor on that view, he cannot afterwards re-
pudiate it (z).

If a solicitor be concerned for both parties, although of
course bound to see that the purchaser does not buy with a
defective title, or buy that which is in fact his own, he is not
at liberty to disclose defects in the vendor's title of which the
purchaser might himself take advantage ; and a solicitor
acting in contravention of the rule has been held liable in
an action for damages (a) .

Verification

of abstract —

verification of the abstract.

Assuming that an apparently good title is deduced by the
abstract, the next matter for consideration is, the evidence

(x) Const v. Barr, 2 Mer. 57 ;
A.-G. v. Sitwell, 1 Y. & C. 570;
Ward v. Trathen, 14 Si. 82 ; 8 Jur.
303 ; McCulloch v. Gregory, 1 K. &
J. 286 ; and see Sown v. Sienson, 24
B. 631 ; Turquandv. Shades, 37 L. J.
Ch. 830, where the purchaser had
taken possession, and yet was allowed
to rescind, on the ground of sorious

misdescription discovered aliunde.

(y) See Deverell v. Lord Bolton, 18
V. 505 ; Stewart v. Allison, 1 Mer.
33 ; McCulloch v. Gregory, 1 K. & J.
292.

(z) Alexander v. Crosby, 1 J. & L.
666.

(a] Taylor v. Blackloiv, 3 Bing.
N. C. 235.

THE ABSTRACT. 351

which a purchaser may require in support of it; and this Chap. VIII.
subject naturally divides itself into two heads ; viz., first, what -
evidence may be required of the existence and genuineness of may bo
abstracted documents ; and, secondly, what evidence may be ^"J^ m
required of other matters of fact. documents

and facts.

A private Act of Parliament directed to be noticed as a As. *° pr?°* of

private Acts,
public one, is sufficiently proved by the printed copy, if

printed 'by the Queen's printer (b) ; and it is by an Act of the
present reign rendered unnecessary to prove that the copy
purporting to be, was in fact, so printed (c) ; nor was such
proof previously necessary as respects Acts which contained
the usual clause making printed copies evidence ; in default
of such evidence, an Act had to be proved by a copy examined
with the original (d).

An award under an Inclosure Act is proved by a copy, or of awards
extract, signed by the proper officer of the Court, if the en- ^^\^^"
rolment have been made in one of the Courts at Westminster ;
or by the clerk of the peace for the county, or his deputy,
if the enrolment have been made with the clerk of the
peace (e).

Copyhold assurances are proved by the copies of Court Of copyhold
Boll signed by the steward; and it appears that, in strictness,
evidence may be required of the steward's handwriting (/),
except, perhaps, where he is dead (#), and the document is
above thirty years old and comes from the proper custody (//) :
such a requisition, however, when even modern copies come
from the proper custody, is not usual, in practice, unless there
are special grounds for suspicion. Copies authenticated by

(b} Beaumont v. Mountain, lOBing. (e) See 41 Geo. III. c. 109, s. 35;

404. 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 87, s. 2.

(c) 8 & 9 V. c. 113, s. 3. (/) Scriven, 496.

(d) 1 Jann. Conv. 169 ; as to (g] And death may, for this pur-
proof of old private Act, which has pose, be presumed after 30 years ;
been omitted from the Parliament Doe\. Michael, 15 Jur. 677.

Roll, see Doe v. Brydges, 7 Sc. N. R. (h) Scriven, 497 ; Wynne v. Tyr-

333. whitt, 4 B. & Aid. 376.

352 .THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. the steward are evidence, although they are not the copies
— — originally delivered to the tenant (i) ; and so also are mere
examined copies (k). The purchaser may, it is conceived, in
the absence of special agreement, generally compel the vendor
(at his own expense) to verify his abstract by the production
of authenticated or examined copies (kk) , in cases where the
originals are lost, even although the steward will allow the
purchaser to inspect the Court Rolls ; probably, however,
the rule might be different when, as may often happen, the
vendor's solicitor, by being himself the steward, or otherwise,
is enabled to produce the original Rolls at the proper place
for verification of the abstract, and can satisfactorily account
for the absence of the original copies, so as to avoid any
difficulty which may be raised by the doctrine of Whitbrcad
v. Jordan (I). If the vendor be thus obliged to procure fresh
copies for the purpose of verification, they will (unless he sell
to another person an estate of greater value held under the
same title, or himself retain property held under the same
title) belong to the purchaser (m) . If a surrender have been
by attorney, the power of attorney must be produced, and
evidence must be given of the principal having been alive at
the time of its being acted on (n) ; unless, indeed, it contain
a declaration of irrevocability under the Conveyancing Act,
1882, and has been deposited under section 48 of the Act of
1881 : and where the power was not given for valuable con-
sideration (0) , inquiry should be made, except in cases coming
within the above-mentioned Acts, whether it was revoked
prior to its apparent exercise : the statement of a power of
attorney on the Court Bolls is secondary evidence of the
original, if the latter cannot be found (p).

(i) Breeze v. Hawker, 14 Si. 350 ; (m) Sug. 476.

and see now 14 & 15 V. c. 99, s. 14. (n) See cases cited 5 C. B. 917, n. ;

(K) See Doe v. Freeman, 12 M. & Sug. 417.

"W. 844 ; and examined copies, not (o) Which would render it irre-

signed by the steward, do not require vocable, see Abbott v. Straiten, 3

stamps: S. C. J. & L. 603, 613; Smart v. Sandars,

(kk) This rule is of course subject 5 C. B. 917.

to the provisions of the Conv. Act, (p) Doe d. Counsell v. Caperton, 9

.8. 3, as to expense of production. C. & P. 112.

(/) 1 Y. & C. 303.

THE ABSTRACT. 353

Deeds abstracted must be proved by the production of the Ch*P- VIII.
originals, if not lost or destroyed (q) ; the attesting witness, -
or one of the attesting witnesses (if alive) may, perhaps, in
strictness, be required at Law to prove the due execution (r),
unless the deed be thirty years old and comes from the proper
custody («) ; but this, where a modern deed comes from such
custody (^), is never urged in practice except upon special
grounds («/) ; and such a requisition, unless made upon special
and sufficient grounds, would probably be discountenanced
by the Court. And now by the Common Law Procedure
Act, 1854(#),it is not necessary to prove by the attesting
witness, any instrument to the validity of which attestation
is not requisite ; and such instrument may be proved by ad-
mission or otherwise, as if there had been no attesting witness
thereto. When a deed has been executed by attorney, the
same requisitions and inquiry should be made as in the case
of a surrender by attorney (y) . Where the loss or destruction
of a deed can be proved (s), secondary evidence may be given
of its contents ; but proof must also be given of its due exe-
cution and delivery (a) : an attested copy, however, taken and
kept for 110 years in a public office, of a deed which could
not be found, was admitted by Lord Hardwicke as sufficient
evidence of the original ; and he intimated that, under the
special circumstances, a plain copy would have been ad-
missible (/;) : so, in a modern Peerage case, the House of

(q} Ante, p. 159. As to mutila- circumstances, on the sale of free-

tion of deeds, and defects in the holds, to prove the due execution of

stamps, &c., post, pp. 369, 370. the conveyance of the fee to the

(r) Laythoarp v. Bryant, 1 Bing. vendor : Sug. 439 ; see Thomson v.

N. C. 421. Miles, 1 Esp. 184; Nash v. Turner,

(s) 1 Taylor, 598 ; Man v. Ricketts, ibid. 217 ; but see also Crosby v. Percy,

7 B. 93; Doe v. Michael, 17 Q. B. 1 Camp. 303.
276. (x) 17 & 18 V. c. 125, s. 26.

(t] I. e., a place where it may (y} Ante, p. 352.

reasonably be expected to be found, (z) As to what evidence of loss is

although not the most proper place of sufficient, vide ante, p. 159, n. (f).
custody; Croughton v. Blake, 12 M. & (a) Bryant v. Busk, 4 Russ. 1;

W. 205 ; Doe v. Phillips, 8 Q. B. 158. Southby v. Hutt, 2 M. & C. 207 ; see

(u) 1 Jarm. Conv. 179. Lord St. Doe v. Brydgcs, 1 Sc. N. R. 339.
Leonards seems to think that it is (b} Harvey v. Philips, 2 Atk. 541.

sufficient, in the absence of special

P. VOL. I. A A

354 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. Lords admitted as evidence an attested copy of a settlement
- dated in 1693, produced from the proper custody, and accord-
ing to which possession of the estates had gone for many
years (c). Examined copies of the enrolment of deeds re-
quired by Law to be enrolled are, it appears, sufficient evi-
dence of the originals ; but, where the enrolment is not
compulsory, a copy is evidence only as against the parties on
whose acknowledgment enrolment was made, and their repre-
sentatives (d) : and the non-production of the original should
Recitals of— be accounted for. The recital of a deed is evidence of its
dence. A existence as against all parties executing the deed containing

the recital, and those claiming under them, but is no evidence
of its contents or effect beyond what its name and nature
necessarily imply, unless proof be given of its loss or destruc-
tion (e) ; there are, however, exceptions to this rule in the
case of ancient documents purporting to confer possession,
from which the law has always permitted the inference to be
drawn that such possession was had (/) ; and in cases falling
within section 2 (2) of the Yendor and Purchaser Act, 1874,
under which recitals, statements, and descriptions of facts,
matters, and parties, contained in deeds, instruments, Acts of
Parliament, or statutory declarations, twenty years old at
the date of the contract, are sufficient evidence in the absence
of proof to the contrary. An examined copy of the memorial
of a deed registered in a register county is secondary evi-
dence of the deed against the parties thereto, and all persons
claiming under them (g) ; but probably not as against
strangers (h).

The enrolment or an examined copy of the enrolment of

(c) Fitzwalter Peerage, 10 C. & F. (g) Wollastonv.Halceivill,Z~Mi&n.8c
952. G. 297 ; Doe v. Clifford, 2 C. & K.

(d) 1 Jarm. Conv. 170. 448; see Hobhonse v. Hamilton, 1 Sell.

(e) Burt. Comp. pi. 478 et seq. ; see & L. 207.

Gilletl v. Abbott, 7 A. & E. 783; (h) Doe v. Clifford, supra; Allen

Bringloe v. Goodson, 5 Bing. N. C. v. Allen, 1 Con. & L. 427, 457 ; but
738. see Collins v. Manic, 8 C. & P. 502.

(/) Bristow v. Cormican, 3 Ap. Ca. As to memorials of assignments of
641, 688. Irish judgments, see Fitzgerald v.

Fitzgerald, 8 C. B. 592.

THE ABSTRACT. 355

any deed, executed under the provisions of the Acts relating Chap. VIII.

oCCt. u.

to the Duchy of Cornwall, is sufficient proof of the contents -
and due execution of the original, although its non-produc-
tion be not accounted for (i) : so, too, the office copy of an
enrolled bargain and sale is sufficient (k).

In a case in Ireland, by a settlement executed in 1745,
estates were limited in strict settlement, with a power of
revocation reserved to the settlor; this power was stated
to have been exercised by a will dated in 1761, but of which
neither the original nor any copy could be produced ; the
estates were re-settled in 1763 by a deed which recited the
power of revocation and exercise of the power by the will,
and possession had ever since gone under this deed ; under
these circumstances, Lord St. Leonards held the recital to
be sufficient evidence of the contents and execution of the

The same estates were limited in strict settlement in 1788 ;
in February, 1814, the tenant for life and first tenant in tail
entered into articles of agreement to bar the entail and re-
settle the estates to certain specified uses, with a power of
revocation : neither the original nor any copy of the articles
could be produced, although search had been made for them ;
they were, however, recited in the deed making the tenant to
the pnecipe, which was dated March, 1814 : in 1815, upon
the marriage of the tenant in tail, the power of revocation
was exercised, and the estates were re-settled, and had since
been enjoyed accordingly. Lord St. Leonards, after remark-
ing that the articles appeared to have been voluntary, and
that the settlement was for consideration, held, that, under
the special circumstances of the case, the recital was sufficient
evidence of the contents of the articles (m) .

(i) 7 & 8 V. c. 65, s. 34. (I) Alexander v. Crosby, U. & L.

(k) 10 Anne, c. 28 (Ruff. c. 18), 666 ; Prosser v. Watts, 6 Mad. 59.
s. 3. (m) Alexander v. Crosby, supra.

AA2

356

THE ABSTRACT.

Lease for a
year proved
by recital.

Renewed

ecclesiastical

lease.

Acknow-
ledged deed.

Chap. VIII. Possibly, in the above case, the decision might have been

Sect. 6.

- different, if, instead of mere articles of agreement, the miss-
ing instrument had been one which affected the legal estate.

The recital or mention of a lease for a year in any convey-
ance executed before the 15th May, 1841, is sufficient evidence
of the execution of such lease, without proof of its loss (n) :
and in any renewed ecclesiastical lease granted since the 21st
June, 1836 (unless in pursuance of a covenant or agreement
entered into before the 1st March, 1836), the recital of
the old lease, and of the deaths, &c. of the cestuis que vie, is
conclusive evidence thereof (o) .

Where the title depends upon a deed acknowledged by a
married woman, under the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, evidence
should be given of the certificate of acknowledgment having
been duly filed (/?).

A fine should be proved by the chirograph, or an exem-
plification under the seal (q) of the Court, or a copy exa-
mined with the original roll, and proved by the oath of the
examiner (r) : mere office extracts, although often relied on,
and generally received by conveyancers, are not evidence (s) .

A recovery is proved by an exemplification or an examined
copy (0.

A sealed certificate by the proper officer of the enrolment
of a disentailing assurance, or any other deed or document
enrolled in Chancery, is sufficient primd facie evidence that
the same was duly enrolled at the time mentioned in the

Fines.

Recoveries.

Proof under
statutes.

(») 4 & 5 V. c. 21, s. 2. See as
to Ireland, 9 Geo. 2, c. 5 ; 1 Geo. 3,
c. 3.

(o) 6 Will. IV. c. 20, ss. 2 and 9.

(p) Jolly v. Handcock, 7 Ex. 820.
As to the mode and practice of taking
acknowledgment, vide post, pp. 645
ct seq.

(q) The loss of the seal is imma-
terial, if the document come from the
proper custody ; Mayor of Beverley v.
Craven, 2 Mo. & R. 140.

(r) Burt. Comp. pi. 487; Doe v.
Ross, 7 M. & W. 102.

(s} Buller's N. P. 227.

\t) Burt. Comp. pi. 490.

THE ABSTRACT. 307

certificate ; and copies of all enrolments, if stamped with the
seal of the Chancery Enrolment Office, are evidence to the
same extent and in the same manner as the original enrol-
ments (w).

So, certified copies of, or extracts from, deeds, documents, Certified

copies.

maps, &c., deposited in the Office of Land Revenue, Records,
and Enrolments, are admissible in every case in which the
original would have been admitted as evidence (#).

Statements made for public purposes in public documents Public docu-

7 , ments.

are admissible as evidence. Public documents are such as
are made, for the purpose of the public making use of them
and being able to refer to them, by a public officer whose
judicial or quasi- judicial office it is to make them (y). On
this ground, entries of births and marriages, taken from the
registers which are kept in India by order of the Indian
Office, are admissible (z). So, too, an inquisition, directed by
the Duke of Lancaster to three of his justices in 1360 A.D.,
a time when he had sovereign rights in the Duchy (a) . So,
too, a record, showing that a court of competent jurisdiction
inquired into, and pronounced upon, a state of facts, or
question of usage, at a time before living memory; for,
though not properly evidence of reputation, such evidence is as
strong as, if not stronger than, reputation : and the autho-
rities are agreed that it is admissible, at least in cases where
reputation would be admissible (b) . So, too, the Heralds'
Books, so long as the heralds made authoritative visita-
tions (c).

Evidence of reputation to be admissible must be that of Reputation,
persons having, or presumed to have, competent knowledge.

(M) 12 & 13 V. c. 109, ss. 18, 19. (a) Mayor of Manchester v. Lyons,

(x) 15 & 16 V. c. 62, s. 8. 22 Ch. D. 287, 299.

(y) Sturla v. Frcccia, 5 Ap. Ca. (b) Neill v. Dulte of Devonshire, 8

623, 643. Ap. Ca. 135, 186.

(z) Queen's Proctor v. Fry, 4 P. D. (c) Sturla v. Frcccia, 5 Ap. Ca.

230. 623, 644 ; and see post, p. 394.

358

THE ABSTRACT.

Sect 6 Tims, the depositions of deceased tenants of, or even mere
" residents on, a manor are admissible as to the customs or
bounds (d) . So, also, declarations of a deceased lord as to
the extent of the wastes, but not as to the extent of his
rights (e). So, also, depositions purporting to be made by
copyholders in an ancient suit, are admissible without further
proof of the witnesses having been copyholders, the special
ground being that only as copyholders could such witnesses
have given evidence (/). And reputation is generally admis-
sible in evidence, though unsupported by proof of usage (#).

Recovery.

Under Fines
and Recove-
ries Act.

Where an estate has been purchased and held for twenty
years or upwards under a title which depends upon a re-
covery which has not been enrolled, the deed duly making
the tenant to the praecipe, and leading the uses of the
recovery, is sufficient evidence thereof, as in favour of the
purchaser, and all parties claiming under him (ti) .

The 3 & 4 Will. IY. c. 74, s. 13, provides for the change of
custody of the Records of Fines and Recoveries levied and
suffered at Westminster, Lancaster, and Durham ; and makes
extracts and copies, supplied after such change of custody,
as available in evidence as they would have been if supplied
in the usual way before the passing of the Act ; and by the
5 Viet, c. 32, provision is made for the enrolment, in the
office of the Registrar of the Court of Common Pleas at
Westminster, of the proceedings in Fines and Recoveries
levied and suffered in the Courts of Great Session in Wales,
and the Court of Great Session in Cheshire, and for remedy-
ing in certain cases defects in the original records (i), and
for supplying evidence of the fines having been levied with

(d) Lord Dunraven v. Llewellyn,
15 Q. B. 791, per Parke, B., at
p. 809.

(c} Crease v. Barrett, 1 C. M. & R.
919.

(/) Freeman v. Phillipps, 4 M. &
S. 486.

(g] Crease v. Barrett, uli supra.

As to evidence of customs of manors
generally, seeA.-G. v. Tomline, 5 Ch.
D. 750 ; Lascellcs v. Lord Onslow, 2
Q. B. D. 433.

(h) 14 Geo. II. c. 20, s. 4 ; re-
pealed, Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1867.

(i) See Doe v. Price, 16 M. & W.
603.

THE ABSTRACT. 359

proclamations; and as regards proclamations, the 11 & 12

> t.'i'l. U.

Viet. c. 70, contains a similar provision as to fines at West- -
minster.

A grant from the Crown is regularly proved by an exem- Proof of grant
plification, or certified copy ; but if the original be lost, and
the vendor's solicitor ascertain and inform the purchaser
where the grant is enrolled, the latter cannot, it appears,
require a copy, but must examine the enrolment at his own
expense (£).

Proceedings in the Courts of Law and Equity are regu- Ofproceed-
larly proved by exemplifications under the seals of the

in

Courts, or authenticated by the signature of the Judge (in E(lulty-
cases where the Court has no seal) (/) ; and proof of the
seal or signature is rendered unnecessary by the 8 & 9 Viet.
c. 113 (w).

Proceedings in Bankruptcy and Insolvency are proved by And ™-
copies certified in manner directed by the several Acts (n) ; and Insol-
proof of the seals and signatures is rendered unnecessary by
the 8 & 9 Viet. c. 113, and also by the Bankruptcy Acts of
1849, 1861, 1869, and 1883 (o).

The fiat (or, if the case be under the Acts of 1849 or As to the

enrolment of

1861 (p), the petition), adjudication, and certificate of ap- proceedings
pointment of assignees, if not enrolled, ought to have been

(/„•) Sug. 431. 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 56, s. 29 ; 12 & 13

(0 Ahcs v. Bunbury, 4 Camp. 28. V. c. 106, as. 232 et seq. ; 24 & 25 V.
As to foreign and colonial proceed- c. 134, ss. 203 et seq. ; and see no-w-
ings, see 14 & 15 Viet. c. 99, s. 7 ; as 46 & 47 V. c. 52, s. 134, and under
to Irish documents, see sect. 10. the former Act, 32 & 33 V. c. 71,

(in] See last note. ss. 107, 108.

(*) See, as to Insolvency, 53 Geo. (o) See 12 & 13 V. c. 106, s. 236,

III. c. 102, s. 24 ; 7 Geo. IV. c. 57, not repealed by the later Act; and

s. 76 (see Doe v. Evans, 1 C. & M. see 24 & 25 V. c. 134, ss. 203, 204,

450; Doe v. Story, 7 A. & E. 909) ; 206, 207; 32 & 33 V. c. 7i, s. 109 ;

1 & 2 V. c. 110, s. 105 ; 5 & 6 V. and see 46 & 47 V. c. 52, s. 137, and

c. 116, s. 11 ; 7 & 8 V. c. 96, s. 37 ; G. R. 1886, r. 58.
24 & 25 V. c. 134, s. 206 : and as to (p) 12 & 13 V. c. 106 ; 24 & 25 V.

Bankruptcy, 6 Geo. TV. c. 16, s. 97 ; c. 134.

360 THE ABSTRACT.

.Chap. VIII. entered on record by the vendor, and at his expense; Mr.

O6Cu» 0«

- Jarman considered that this was necessary, although the
bankrupt was willing to join in the conveyance (q) ; Lord
St. Leonards held the contrary ; and also, that such a
requisition could not be insisted on if it were too late to
upset the bankruptcy (r) : and this seems to be the sounder
opinion.

Proceedings A certificate by the Court as to the appointment of a
ruptcy under trustee, and as to any change in the trusteeship, is by the
'e c ' recent Act made conclusive evidence that the person named
in such certificate is trustee (s) . And a minute, signed by
the registrar, or other person presiding at a meeting of
creditors under the Act, of the resolutions and proceedings
at such meeting is to be received as evidence in all legal
proceedings (t). And any petition, or copy of a petition,
in Bankruptcy, or any order or copy of an order, or any
certificate or copy of a certificate, made by any Court having
jurisdiction in Bankruptcy, or any deed or copy of a deed of
arrangement in Bankruptcy, or any other instrument or copy
of an instrument, affidavit, or document made or used in the
course of any Bankruptcy proceedings, or other proceedings
had under the Act, shall, if it appears to be sealed with the
seal of any Court having jurisdiction in Bankruptcy, or
purports to be signed by any Judge thereof, or is certified as
a true copy by any registrar thereof, be receivable in evidence
in all legal proceedings whatever (u) ; and provision is made
for the admission of sealed copies of the depositions of a
deceased witness (x) .

As to awards Copies of , and extracts from, every registered award under

T1T1O.PT* "I" n A

Copyhold En- "the Copyhold Enfranchisement Act, 1852 (y), purporting to
franchisement j^ sealed or stamped with the seal of the commissioners, are
evidence, without the necessity of further proof.

(q) 1 Jarm. Conv. 97. (s} 32 & 33 V. c. 71, s. 18, and

(r) Sug. 542; see 12 & 13 V. sect. 54 (4) of 46 & 47 V. c. 52.

c. 106, s. 236 ; 24 & 25 V. c. 134, (t) Sect. 133.

s. 203; as to evidence by the Lon- (u) Sect. 134.

don Gazette under the Act of 1883, (x) Sect. 136.

see s. 132, and Yate-Lee, 552. (y) 15 & 16 V. c. 51, s. 49.

THE ABSTRACT. 361

So, office copies of orders in Lunacy, purporting to be CkjP- VIII.

feoct. 6«

signed by the Registrar in Lunacy, and sealed or stamped -
with the seal of his office, are evidence for all purposes of Lunacy.
such orders (z) .

Office copies (i. e., copies made by an officer of a Court Proof of by
under its authority), although not strictly evidence (a), except
in the causes or matters to which they belong, are received as
evidence by conveyancers.

And we may here remark, that by the 1 & 2 Viet. c. 94, As to certified

cot)ic8 of

the Records of the Courts of Chancery, Exchequer, Queen's records under
Bench, and Common Pleas, and of the abolished Courts in c g4
"Wales, Chester, Durham, and Isle of Ely, are committed to
the custody of the Master of the Rolls ; and by sections 12
and 13, certified copies of such Records under the seal of the
Record Office are made evidence equally with the originals.

British Diplomatic and Consular Agents abroad are em- As to notarial

, acts by Con-
powered to do notarial acts; and any document, impressed sular Agents.

or subscribed with the seal or signature of any such agent, in
testimony of such notarial act having been done by or before
him, is sufficient evidence, without proof of the seal or sig-
nature (b) .

And by the Act amending the law of evidence (c) it is As to exa-

minGQ. or ccr*

enacted that " whenever any book or other document is of tified copies
such a public nature as to be admissible in evidence on its y^t^c 99
mere production from the proper custody, and no statute
exists which renders its contents provable by means of a

(z) 16 & 17 V. c. 70, s. 100. bank v. Smith, 32 W. E. 675.

(a) But see now 14 & 15 V. c. 99, (c) 14 & 15 V. c. 99, s. 14. This
s. 14. rule does not apply to the Bank of

(b) 18 & 19 V. c. 42 ; Exp. Magcc, England, so as to compel it to depart

15 Q. B. D. 332 ; and R. S. C. 1883, from its practice in reference to proof
O. 38, r. 6, which reproduces 15 & of death; see Prosser v. BankofEng-

16 V. c. 86, s. 22; and see Cooke v. land, 13 Eq. 611 ; and for a similar
Wilby, 25 Ch. D. 769 ; Cooper v. reason does not, strictly speaking,
Moon, W. N. 1884, p. 78 ; Brettle- bind a purchaser.

362 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. copy, any copy thereof or extract therefrom shall be admis-
Sect. 6. •y ...

sible in evidence in any court of justice, or before any person

now or hereafter having by law or by consent of parties
authority to hear, receive, and examine evidence, provided it
be proved to be an examined copy or extract, or provided it
purport to be signed and certified as a true copy or extract
by the officer to whose custody the original is entrusted ; "
and such copies or extracts are to be furnished on request at a
charge not exceeding fourpence per folio of ninety words.

As to paro- Extracts from parochial registers, purporting to be signed
ters. and certified by the rector, incumbent, or even curate,

have been admitted in evidence, without verification of his
signature, or proof of his being the proper custodian of the
registers (d) ; and an extract from a register of births, pur-
porting to be signed by a Deputy Superintendent Registrar,
as the person having custody of the register, is admissible in
evidence on mere production (e).

Proof of will The probate, or (if that be lost) an official copy, is usually
received by conveyancers as sufficient evidence of a will,
whether relating to real or personal estate (/) ; although the
probate has been held to be in strictness inadmissible even
as secondary evidence, in a question of title to freehold (/)
or copyhold (rf) property : however, in some modern Peerage
cases, the copy of a will produced from the Prerogative Office
was received in evidence, upon the absence of the original
from the office being accounted for (h) ; and it has been held

(d) He Neddy Halt* s Estate, 17 Jur. of a will, the original of which is
29 ; incorrectly reported in 2 D. abroad or has been lost, Pullan v.
M. & Gr. 748 ; see Re Porter's Trust, Raivlins, 4 B. 142, and notes of cases
2 Jur. N. S. 349. subjoined ; and Rand v. Macmahon,

(e) Reg. v. Weaver, L. R. 2 C. C. 12 Si. 553.

85. (h) Fitzivaltcr Peerage, 10 C. & F.

(/) 1 Jam. Conv. 178; Eerkinv. 952; Braye Peerage, 6 C. & F. 767;

Kerkin, 18 Jur. 813. see, however, the Nettervillc Peerage,

(ff) Scriven, 499, n. (s) ; Jervoise v. 2 Dow & C. 342, where Lord Eldon

Duke of Northumberland, 1 J. & W. 570 ; held that proof must be given of the

but see Archer v. Slater, 10 Si. 624 ; actual loss or destruction of the

11 Si. 507. And see, as to the proof original.

THE ABSTRACT. 363

that, under special circumstances, a purchaser of merely real Chap. VIII.

DCCt. O.

estate might require a testamentary instrument to be proved -
in the Ecclesiastical Court (i). Now, under the recent Act to Under recent
amend the Law relating "to Probates and Letters of Adminis-
tration in England (A-), where a will affecting real estate is
proved in solemn form, or where its validity is disputed, the
heir and persons interested in the real estate are to be cited
to appear (/) ; and where the will is proved in solemn form,
or its validity otherwise decided on by the decree or order of
the Court, the probate or a stamped copy of the will is made
conclusive evidence of the contents and validity of the will,
except in proceedings by way of appeal under the Act (m) ;
and except in cases where the validity of the will is put in
issue, the probate or an office copy is made evidence of the
will and of its validity and contents ; although it may not
have been proved in solemn form, or declared valid in a con-
tentious cause or matter (•»).

The Probate Act Book of the Ecclesiastical Court is evi- Proof of ap-
dence of the appointment of executors (o) ; and an official execotors. C
extract from such book has been usually received in practice,
where (as in the case of tracing a title to a chattel real held
in trust) there is little chance of the will containing a specific
bequest of the term which may have been assented to by the
executor ( p) ; and such an extract is made evidence by the
14 & 15 Yict. c. 99, s. 14 (q) : where, however, a title has to
be shown to a beneficial chattel interest, the risk of there
having been such a bequest and consent renders it necessary
to examine the entire will ; and it is conceived that the pur-
chaser may, in either case, require production of the probate
or an office copy. A will thirty years old, produced from the
proper custody, proves itself ; and it has been held that the
thirty years are to be computed from the date of the will

(i) JFcddallv. Nixon, 17 B. 160. (p) The clause disposing of trust

(&) 20 & 21 V. c. 77. estates is generally so worded as to

(J) Sect. 61, and see sect. 63. exclude chattels real ; besides which

(m) Sect. 62. the devisees in trust are usually the

(«) Sect. 64. executors,
(o) Cox v. Allingham, Jac. 514. (q) Dorrett v. Meux, 15 C. B. 142.

364

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. and not from the time of the death (r) .

Sect. 6.

In deducing
title to chattel
interests pro-
bate must be
seen to have
been granted
by proper
Court.

Probate of
leaseholds.

"Will need not
be proved in
Equity.

Whether or not

probate of a will in a colony is sufficient evidence depends on
the constituted jurisdiction of the Court which granted such
probate (s).

In examining the title to a chattel interest, care should be
taken to see that probate has been granted by a Court having
jurisdiction. Where an executor took out prerogative pro-
bate, and died leaving an executor who proved in a Diocesan
Court, the title of the second executor, as a representative of
the original testator, was held too doubtful to be forced upon
a purchaser (t). Under the present law this question cannot
now arise, for the Court of Probate has the same powers as
formerly belonged to the Prerogative Court of the Archbishop
of Canterbury (ti) . It must be remembered that the validity
of the testamentary disposition of an interest in immovable
property is governed by the lex loci, and not by the law of
the domicil(p).

Upon a sale by a devisee of a freehold estate, the purchaser
could not under the old law (a?), except under special circum-
stances (y)9 require the will to be proved in Equity against
the heir-at-law ; and it is conceived that the modern powers
of the Probate Division of the High Court (z) have not
affected the rule.

Documents It may sometimes happen that a purchaser can require the
title must production of an instrument, although it forms no part of

(r) Man v. Ricketts, 7 B. 93 ; see
Doe v. Michael, 17 Q. B. 276.

(*) Be TootaVs Trusts, 23 Ch. D.
532; Be Vallance, 24 Ch. D. 177.
For the purposes of the usual pre-
liminary judgment in a partition
action, letters testimonial of the Su-
perior Court of Victoria have been
held sufficient ; Waite v. Bingley, 21
Ch. D. 674.

(t) Williams v. Eland, 2 Coll. 575.

(«) See 20 & 21 V. c. 77, s. 23.

(v) FreJce v. Lord Carbery, 16 Eq.
461.

(x) See Cotton v. Wikon, 3 P. W.
190 ; Wakeman v. Duchess of Rutland,
3 V. 234 ; Mackrell v. Hunt, 2 Mad. 34,
37 ; Bellamy v. Liversedge, Sug. 439 ;
Smith v. Hibbard, 2 Dick. 730 ; post,
p. 1130.

(y) Grove v. Bastard, 2 Ph. 619;
McCulloch v. Gregory, 3 K. & J. 12.

(z) See 20 & 21 V. c. 77, ss. 61,
63.

THE ABSTRACT. 365

the title, and although he cannot claim an attested copy on
completion: c. #., where property is vested in trustees, in B0metimea ^
trust to sell, with power to give receipts, and the trusts of produced as

P i , negative

the purchase-money are declared by a settlement referred to evidence,
in the conveyance, it is generally considered that a purchaser
can require the production of the settlement for the purpose
of seeing that it contains nothing inconsistent with the power
to give receipts, nor any other matter affecting the title, but
that he is not entitled to any attested copy or covenant for
production ; and the fact of his not being entitled to such
covenant or copy, negatives, it is conceived, the right of any
subsequent purchaser to require the production of the settle-
ment, unless it happen to be in the possession or power of the
immediate vendor (a) . It must, however, be noticed, that in
a case of Cooper v. Emery (b), upon a sale by a party claiming
under the heir-at-law of a deceased owner who left a will,
Sir L. Shadwell, Y.-C., is reported to have held that the pur-
chaser was entitled to inspect the will, but could not insist
upon a covenant for its production; thus, apparently, de-
ciding that he was bound to accept a title without the ordi-
nary means of proving its validity on a resale.

In many cases, however, where the possession has been Deficiencies in

. .... .. „ . . .,, .. -, proof of docu-

consistent with the pnma facie title, presumption may supply ments, how

deficiencies in proof of the existence, or due execution of
material instruments (c) : the principle in the case of deeds
(and which, in general, seems equally applicable to other
instruments operating inter vivos), being this, ris.9 that where
there has been long enjoyment of any right which could have
had no lawful origin except by deed, there, in favour of such
enjoyment, all necessary deeds may be presumed, if there be
nothing to negative such presumption (d). For instance, a

(a) West v. Reid, 2 Ha. 260. son, 1 Si. 285 ; A.-G. v. Fishmonger*'

(b) Cited, 1 Hayes, Conv. 573. Co., 5 M. & C., at p. 25 ; and early

(c) See Chalmer v. Bradley, 1 J. & cases collected in Head v. Brookman,
"W". 63. 3 T. R. 151 ; and see Delarue v.

(d) Lyon v. Reed, 13 M. & W. 285, Church, 20 L. J. Ch. 183 ; and A.-G.
303 ; approved in Creagh v. Blood, 3 v. Eivelme Hospital, 17 B. 390.

J. & L. 1 33 ; and see Monck v. Hitskis-

366

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII.
Sect. 6.

Presumption
of grant from
Crown.

Of reconvey-
ance of legal
estate.

Of lease by
production of
counterpart.

Of copyhold
surrender.

grant from the Crown of an advowson (excepted in a former
grant under general words) has been presumed as against a
purchaser, after an uninterrupted possession evidenced by
title deeds for 133 years and three presentations (e) ; so, a
grant of foreshore has been presumed from a series of acts
of ownership over it by an adjoining proprietor (/) ; so, a
confirmatory or supplementary grant has been presumed,
where the original grant would have been void for un-
certainty (g) ; so, a reconveyance of the legal estate from
trustees has been presumed, the property having for 110
years been dealt with without reference to its remaining out-
standing, although the enjoyment was consistent with the
supposition of such being the case (h) : so, the fact of a lease
having been duly executed has been held sufficiently proved
by the production of the counterpart (?') ; so, where copyholds
were devised to trustees, upon trust to pay testator's debts,
funeral expenses, two annuities, and a legacy, and then to
convey the premises to T. "W. ; and T. "W. was admitted in
1771, and a party claiming under him accepted an enfran-
chisement in 1791, the validity of which was considered to

(e} Gibson v. Clark, 1 J. & W.
159; A.-G. v. Ewelme Hospital, 17
B. 390 ; and see Ee Alston's Est., 5
W. R. 189.

(/) Calmady v. Rowe, 6 C. B. 861 ;
Mulhollancl v. Killen, 9 Ir. R. Eq.
471. As to what sort of ownership
must be established in order to admit
of this presumption being drawn, see
Henest v. Pipon, 1 Kn. 60. It is not
necessary to prove acts of ownership
on every part of the foreshore claimed,
and the right to the whole may be
presumed from acts of ownership in
various parts of it; A.-G. v. Mayor
of Portsmouth, 25 W. R. 559. The
presumption does not so readily arise
in the case of a Crown or public
grant, as in the case of a grant from
a private person. But as against a
third party it is sufficient to show a
possessory title without giving evi-
dence sufficient to displace the title

of the Crown ; nor is it open to the
defendant in trespass, at the suit of
persons claiming under such a title,
to prove any acts of ownership by
the Crown, except such as are proved
to have been done with the know-
ledge of the plaintiffs : Corp. of
Hastings v. Ivall, 19 Eq. 558.

(g) Des Barres v. Skey, 22 W. R.
273.

(K) Hillary v. Waller, 12 V. 239 ;
and see Emery v. Grocock, 6 Mad.
54 ; Noel v. Eewley, 3 Si. 103 ; Eng-
land v. Slade, 4 T. R. 682.

(i] Houghton v. IConig, 18 C. B.
235. The counterpart has been
allowed to be used for the purpose
of correcting the lease, where there
was clearly a clerical error in the
latter ; Eurchell v. Clark, 2 C. P. D.
88 ; and see Wit ham v. Vane, 32 W.
R. 617.

THE ABSTRACT. 367

depend upon the regularity of T. W.'s admittance, a prior Chap. VIII.

surrender by the trustees to the use of T. W. was presumed •

as between vendor and purchaser (k) : so, payment of a rnort- mortgage,

gage debt, and a reconveyance of the legal estate, have been
presumed after an interval of eighty years, the mortgage not
being subsequently mentioned in the title deeds, and the
mortgage deeds having for twenty-five years been in the pos-
session of the vendor and his ancestors, during which period
no claim, it was alleged, had been made for principal or
interest (/) ; but the lapse of forty-six years from the death of
a testator, and of thirty-nine years from the last notice of
legacies charged by his will, has been held insufficient to
warrant a presumption of their payment (m) : so, where
property was demised in 1586 for 2000 years, with a covenant
to convey the fee, if required by the lessees within seven
years, it was presumed, from the dealings with it, that the
property was freehold in 1715 ; and the presumption was not
rebutted by its having been treated as leasehold in documents
subsequent to that date (n). So, payment of purchase-money
has been presumed after forty-years (o) : so, where a memo-
randum of deposit, by way of equitable mortgage, by a former
owner, is found with the title deeds, it will be presumed
that the charge has been satisfied or released (/?): so, Of surrender
after forty years' possession of copyholds under a will, a wiu.c
surrender to the use of the will was presumed in an early
case (q) : so, the enfranchisement of a copyhold has, after Of enfran-
an enjoyment of 160 years, been presumed even against
the Crown (r) : so, in general, it will be presumed that Of mesne

assignment of
terms.

(k) TFihon v. Allen, 1 J. & W. et vide infra.

614.' («) Jeffreys v. MacUu, 29 B. 344 ;

(/) Cookc v. SoUatt, 2 S. & St. 154 ; but see Pickett v. Packham, 4 Ch.

and see Sands to Thompson, 22 Ch. D. 190.

614. (o) Bidlake v. Arundel, 1 Ch. R.

(m) Shields v. Rice, 3 Jur. 950; 50.

Prior v. Hornibkiv, 2 Y. & C. 200; (p) Nicoll v. Chambers, 11 C. B.

and see Warren v. JJateman, Fl. & 996 ; but the point does not seem to

K. 448, as to the insufficiency of the have been discussed,

evidence of non-payment, out of the (q) Lyford v. Coward, 1 Vern. 195.

particular lands, of interest upon (r) Roe v. Ireland, 1 1 Ea. 280.
charges which also affect other lands ;

368

THE ABSTRACT.

Presumption
of surrender.

Chap. VIII. mesne assignments of attendant terms have been regularly
made (*•) .

" The current of the later authorities shows that where a
term has been assigned to attend the inheritance, a surrender
ought not to be presumed, unless there has been a dealing
with the estate in a way in which reasonable men and men of
business would not have dealt with it unless the term had
been put an end to " (t) ; but such surrender is not to be pre-
sumed from a mere lapse of time (u) ; nor can it be presumed
by a Court of Law, without the intervention of a jury (#).
The Act of 8 & 9 Yict. c. 112, has deprived the doctrine of
much of its practical importance ; it must, however, be re-
membered that the Act is not of universal application (//) ;
and that where it applies, a vendor must still show in whom
old terms supposed to have been destroyed by the Act, were
vested on the day when it came into operation ; and that they
were then attendant on the inheritance : so that the doctrine
above referred to, of presuming the existence of mesne assign-
ments, is still of practical moment.

So, the grant of an easement will be presumed after twenty
years' enjoyment (z) ; but, to raise such presumption, it is
necessary to show, not only enjoyment, but that the party to
whom the grant is attributed had power to make it (a) ; and
a grant of an easement cannot be presumed where the user
was not an injury to, or capable of being prevented by, the
owner of the servient tenement (b) .

Of grant or
easement.

(s) Earlv. Baxter ', 2 W. Bl. 1228;
White v. Foljambe, 11 V. 337, 350.

(t) Per Cur. in Gerrard v. Tuck, 8
C. B. 249.

(M) Doc v. Langdon, 12 Q. B. 711,
719.

(x) CoUrcll v. Hughes, 15 C. B.
532.

(y] Ante, pp. 329, 330.

(z) See Darwin v. Upton, cited 3
T. R. 159 ; and later cases cited in 4
Jarm. Conv. 151.

(a) Barker v. Richardson, 4 B. &
Aid. 579 ; as to the statutory title

which may be acquired under the
Acts, and which is independent of
the title which may be acquired
under the ordinary doctrine of pre-
sumption ( Welcome v. Upton, 5 M. &
W. 398 ; Dewhirat v. Wrigley, C. P.
Coop. 329), vide pp. 403 et seq. ; and as
to the Prescription Act having super-
seded the necessity of presuming a
lost grant, see Lord Westbury's judg-
ment, in Taplingy. Jones, 11 H. L.
Ca. 290.

(b) Stitrges v. Bridgman, 11 Ch. D.
852, 859.

THE ABSTRACT. 369

presumed to be of gavelkind tenure,
unless shown to be disgavelled : but the presumption may

Land in Kent is presumed to be of gavelkind tenure, Chap. vill.

> i t;t . u.

be rebutted by showing from Domesday Book that it was in gavelkind.
then held in frankalmoign : or, in the case of a manor,
(including its demesnes, but excluding the tenemental free-
holds (c),) that it was held in ancient demesne ; or that it
was held by barony (d), or by great or little serjeanty (?), or
by knight-service (/). The appendix to a valuable work (g)
upon the Kentish tenures, gives a list of nearly 600 manors
in the county, which were held by knight-service : and
which, as also the lands formerly held of them, including
the enfranchised copyholds, descend according to the common
law ; although most of them have been long considered to be
of gavelkind tenure.

So, the formalities of a deed are readily presumed ; for Of the forma-

• T TIT -n i if e lities of deeds.

instance, sealing and delivery will be presumed irom proof
of signing, and the whole will (if the deed comes from proper
custody) be presumed after thirty years without any proof
at all (h) ; or within that time from proof of a deceased
subscribing witness's handwriting (i) : and this rule is not
confined to deeds or wills, but extends to all written docu-
ments, provided that they purport to be thirty years old, and
come from the proper custody (k). In a modern case, the Notwith-
House of Lords held that a parchment writing, purporting to mutilation,
be the first skin of an indenture consisting originally of two
or more skins, and severed by a sharp instrument, but which
came from the proper custody, was properly received in evi-
dence in ejectment ; and that the mutilation of a deed forms
an objection rather to the value than to the admissibility of
the evidence (/) : so, livery of seisin will be presumed after Livery of

seism.

(c) Elton on the Tenures of Kent, (t) 2 Taylor, 1571.

p. 183. (£) 1 Taylor, 111. Quare, whether

(d) Ib. p. 197. the rule applies to a deed tinder the

(e) Ib. p. 221. seal of a corporation? See per Ld.
(/) Ib. p. 280. Tenterden in R. v. Xathwick, 2 B. &
(?) Ib. Ad. 648.

(A) As to loss of a seal, ante, p. (Z) Lord Trimlestown v. Kemmis, 9

356, n. (q). 0. & F. 773, 775.

D. VOL. I. B B

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII.
Sect. 6.

Of appoint-
ment of In-
closure Com-
missioners.

Of deeds
having been
duly stamped.

But not of
forms re-
quired by-
Law on
grounds of
general
policy ;

twenty years' consistent possession (m) : so it will be presumed
that persons who have executed an award under the general
Inclosure Act, were regularly appointed and took the neces-
sary oaths (ri) : so, also, that an instrument, duly executed
and which is lost, was also duly stamped (0) ; unless 'the par-
ticular circumstances of the case forbid such a conclusion ; as
where the instrument has been fraudulently destroyed by the
party chargeable thereon, and it can be shown to have been
unstamped when it came into his possession (p). And the
burden of proving that a deed, which is either lost or cannot
be produced, was not properly stamped rests with the person
who raises such a contention, since the Court will presume, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it was duly
stamped (q) . But the presumption is destroyed by evidence
that at any one time it was actually unstamped, in which
case the party relying on the deed must prove that it was
subsequently stamped (r) : so, also, it will be presumed that
stamps, the amount of which is obliterated, were of the right
amount (s) : but the Courts will not presume that forms have
been complied with, which the Legislature, upon grounds of
general policy, has made essential to the validity of an
instrument ; as, for instance, the enrolment under the Statute
of Charitable Uses of the conveyance of an estate to trustees
for a charity (t) : nor will the Court presume the surrender of

(m) Sees v. Lloyd, "Wight. 123 ; and
see Doe v. Gardiner, 12 C. B. 333 ; 1
Taylor, 151.

(n) Casamajor\. Strode, 5 Si. 87, 98;
2 M. & K. 708 ; and as to persons
who have acted in an official capacity,
there is a general presumption in
favour of their due appointment ; 1
Taylor, 187 et seq. "With regard to
joint stock companies, a stranger
dealing with them has a right to
assume that all requisites of internal
management have been complied
with, in the absence of notice actual
or constructive ; Royal British Bank
v. Turquand, 5 E. & B. 248 ; 6 E. &
B. 327 ; Mahony v. East Holy ford

Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 8G9.

(0} Hart v. Hart, 1 Ha. 1 ; and see
Hughes v. Clark, 15 Jur. 430, case of
a counterpart lease ; Closmadcnc v.
Carrel, 18 C. B. 36 ; 1 Taylor, 168.

(p) Smith v. Henley, 1 Ph. 391 ; and
see Blair v. Ormond, 1 De G. & S.
428.

(q) 1 Taylor, 168, and cases there
cited.

(r) Marine Investment Co. v. Havi-
side, L. R. 7 H. L. 624.

(s) Doe v. Coombs, 6 Jur. 930.

(t) Doe v. Waterton, 3 B. & Aid.
149 ; Wright v. Smythies, 10 Ea.
409.

THE ABSTRACT. 371

a prior life estate in order to set up a recovery, on the mere C^P- VIn-

Sect. 6.

ground that, without it, there would have been no valid —

tenant to the proecipe («) : and there would seem to be, in nor»

. matters of

general, a difficulty in presuming any fact or document which, record,
had it ever occurred or existed, ought to remain on record.

And it seems that, as a general rule between vendor and General rule
purchaser, the latter must admit, as presumptions, all matters gumption be-
which, in a Court of Law, the judge would clearly direct the ^|enjendor
jury to presume; but not matters as to which the judge chaser,
would leave it to the jury to pronounce upon the effect of the
evidence (x).

And now, as between vendor and purchaser, under a con- Rule as to
tract made since 1874, and subject to any stipulation to the being eVi_
contrary in. the contract, recitals, statements, and descriptions faTv^&^P*
of facts, matters, and parties contained in deeds, instruments, Act, 1874.
Acts of Parliament, or statutory declarations twenty years old
at the date of the contract, are, unless and except so far as
they shall be proved to be inaccurate, to be taken to be suffi-
cient evidence of the truth of such facts, matters, and
descriptions. It is conceived that this and the other rules
laid down by section 2 of the recent Act, could not be held to
apply to a case in which an option of purchase or right of
pre-emption has been created on or before the 31st December,
1874, and is exercised so as to perfect the contract at a later
date (y).

By the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (2), a purchaser under a Under the
contract dated subsequently to the 31st December, 1881, is
bound to assume, unless the contrary appears, that the recitals,
contained in the abstracted instruments, of any deed, will, or
other document, forming part of the title prior to the time

(u) Penny v. Allen, 7D.H.&G.409. vendor and purchaser ; and see post,

(x) Emery v. Grocock, 6 Mad. 54 ; pp. 1233, 1235, and cases cited, p.

Games v. Bonnor, 33 W. R. 64 ; Hillary 1276.

v. Waller, 12 V. see p. 270; see Bald- (y) 37 & 38 V. c. 78, sect. 2, sub-

win v. Peach, 1 Y. & C. 453, which, sect. 2.

however, was not a case between (z) Sect. 3 (3\

372 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. prescribed by law or stipulated for commencement of the
- title, are correct, and give all the material contents of the
deed, will, or other document so recited, and that every
document so recited was duly executed by all necessary
parties, and perfected, if and as required, by fine, recovery,
acknowledgment, inrolment, or otherwise.

Evidence of As respects evidence upon matters of fact (other than
fact. documentary facts), it may, it is conceived, be laid down as

As to what a general rule, that a purchaser can, in strictness, require
chaser can evidence of all facts material to the title from the date at
prove? which its regular deduction commences, whether such facts

are to be used as positive or negative proofs ; that is, of all
facts whose existence must be either proved or assumed in
order to establish affirmatively the vendor's title, e. g., the
heirship of a vendor who claims by descent ; and of all facts
the existence of which must be either proved or assumed in
order to establish such title merely by displacing the known
or presumptive title of others, e. g., the failure, determina-
tion, or release of some prior estate or incumbrance the exist-
ence of which is either known, or may be presumed as
between vendor and purchaser : so also, he may require a
satisfactory explanation of matters which tend to impeach
the validity or sufficiency of the abstracted instruments (z) .

Negative evi- But, as a general rule, a purchaser cannot compel the

dence cannot -. . , „ , , ...

be required if vendor to procure evidence lor the purpose ot negativing
dor'^posses- mere possibilities (a) ; although he may require him to answer
sion or power, to the best of his knowledge any relevant question on the

but vendor . . . . 1

must, if he subject, and to furnish all evidence in his possession or

all relevant power (b) ; e.g., where a power has been created, and there

questions. js no trace of its subsequent execution, the purchaser,

although he can require the vendor and his solicitors to state

whether to their knowledge or belief the power was ever

exercised, and may, perhaps, require the vendor to make a

(z) See Hobson v. Settt 3 Jur. 190 ; (a] Re Ford and Hill, 10 Ch. D.

a case of erasures, as to which, how- 365.
ever, aeopost, p. 480. (*) Ante, p. 173.

THE ABSTRACT. 373

statutory declaration upon the point, cannot, it is conceived,
call for such a declaration by any other person ; neither can
he require the vendor to search for judgments or other
incumbrances ; so, neither, where the title commences with a
conveyance by a person who conveys as heir-at-law, can the
purchaser require any other evidence of the ancestor's intes-
tacy than such (if any) as is in the vendor's possession (c) :
so, where a vendor is or has been married, the purchaser
should inquire whether any settlement was executed on his
marriage, and, if this were the case, may require to see the
settlement if in the vendor's possession or power ; but if the
vendor cannot produce it or a copy, the purchaser, it is con-
ceived, must rest content with his assurance or statutory
declaration that it did not affect the property in question ;
although, as a matter of prudence, he should, of course, make
inquiries of the wife's family on the subject (cc). In fact, the
general rule would seem to be, that, where a primd facie title
is shown, the purchaser can require no evidence, not in the
vendor's possession or power, tending to negative any matter,
the existence of which may not be presumed, either from the
contents or nature of the abstracted documents, or by the
ordinary rules of Law or Equity.

And it seems that, where a primd facie title is shown, the But vendor
purchaser cannot require from the vendor a general explana- primdJLie
tion of circumstances which the purchaser may consider to be tltle need not

* answer mere

of a doubtful character, but must confine himself to questions general

directed to the particular defect which he apprehends : questions ;
where, for instance, a tenant for life with power of appoint-
ment exercised such power in favour of his eldest child, and
the father and child then concurred in mortgaging the pro-
perty (a transaction which is primd facie valid under the
authority of N' Queen v. Farquhar (a?),) upon a suit for specific
performance, and an examination of the vendor upon inter-
rogatories, an interrogatory as to the existence of an under-

(c) Sug. 439. Sutcliffe, 2 Jur. N. S. 323 ; and
(cc) See post, p. 970. compare Hannah v. Hodgson, 30 B.

(d) 11 V. 467 ; and see Cockroft v. 19.

374

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. hand agreement that the child should join in the mortgage

^ — was not excepted to by his counsel, and appears to have been

considered unobjectionable by the Court; but a general
interrogatory as to " what was his motive or object in making
the appointment " was held to be inadmissible (e).

and need not And where an appointment had been made under similar
tionsinre- circumstances in favour of an eldest child who joined with
adverse notice ^e Paren^s *& mortgaging the estate, and upon the mort-
which has not gagee attempting a sale one of the younger children gave

Deen acted en j

notice to the purchaser not to complete, stating that the
appointment was a fraud upon the power, but not alleging
any fact in support of this assertion, and did not follow up
the notice by any proceeding, it was held, that a good title
was shown, and that the notice did not oblige the vendor to
render any further explanations (/) .

Where, however, at a sale by auction by mortgagees under
their power, a person entitled to redeem made a tender of
the principal and interest, which was refused, and the sale
proceeded, it was held that the purchaser, who saw the
tender made and refused, was bound to make further in-
quiry (p).

but has under
special cir-
cumstances
been required
to prove in
Equity a will
already esta-
blished by a
verdict at
Law.

And where a will had been executed in favour of (inter
alios) the medical man and solicitor of the testator, and the
heir-at-law disputed the will and brought an ejectment, but
a verdict was given for the defendants, it was, nevertheless,
held by Lord Cottenham, that a purchaser could require the
devisees to file a bill to establish the will against the heir (K).

Vendor need It appears that the purchaser cannot require the vendor to
confidential disclose confidential communications made by him to his

(e) Pearse v. Pearse, 1 De G. & S. but the will being established, Lord

12, 16, and 17.

(/) Green v. Pulsfonl, 2 B. 70.
(g} Jenkins v. Jones, 2 Gif. 99.
(h) Grove v. Bastard, 2 Ph. 619;

Truro made him pay costs in the
suit for specific performance ; 1 D.
M. & G. 69 ; and see M'Culloch v.
Gregory, 2 K. & J. 12.

THE ABSTRACT. 375

solicitors or counsel, or cases laid before counsel respecting Chap. VIII.

Sect. 6.
the property, at least on points which may in any way what- -

communica-
ever become the subject of litigation, although in no way tions.

apprehended, even where the same were made and prepared
merely on behalf of the vendor, and not during a suit, or
during a dispute, or after the threat of a suit (t).

Where the title is derived through an heir who took pos- Whether he
session upon the ground of the assumed invalidity of his wm as nega-

ancestor's will, which professed to deal with the estate, a
purchaser may require the production of the will or evidence facie title-
of its contents (k) : so, on a sale by a devisee or party claim-
ing under him, the purchaser may require the production of
any subsequent will or codicil, or evidence of its contents (/).
What the rule may be in cases where a will is known to
have existed, but there is nothing to indicate that it pur-
ported to affect the property in question, seems to be more
doubtful. The purchaser would, no doubt, be entitled to see
either the original or the best evidence of its contents which
the vendor had the means of supplying (m) ; but if none such
could be procured, and, after making inquiries on the subject,
no special grounds for supposing the estate to be affected by
the will were found to exist, the purchaser, it is conceived,
would be obliged to take the title (n).

Where codicils are referred to, but not abstracted, on the Codicils
alleged ground that they do not affect the devises contained immaterial
in the will, the purchaser should always require them to be produced!
produced, in order that he may satisfy himself that such is
the case.

Where, in cases not coming within section 30 of the Convey- "Will of
ancing Act, 1881, the title is deduced through trustees or trustee^

or

(t) Pearsev. Pearse, 1 De Gr. & S. 439.

12 ; post, p. 994 ; and see further (1) See and consider, Ilowarth v.

as to confidential communications Smith, 6 Si. 161.

ante litem motam, Macfarlan v. Holt, (m) See Cooper v. Emery, 1 Hayes,

14 Eq. 580 ; and Bray on Discovery, Conv. 573.

368 et seq. (n) See the remarks of Wigram,

(k) Stevens v. Guppy, 2 S. & S. V.-C., in West v. Reid, 2 Ha. 260.

376 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. mortgagees, the will of the last surviving trustee or mort-
Sect. 6.

gagee, though not containing any specific devise of trust or

mortgage estates, should be abstracted, and probate or office
produced. copy produced, if it contains any general devise. It is
frequently overlooked in the preparation of the abstract, that
a mere general devise is sufficient to pass estates vested in the
testator as trustee or mortgagee, unless from the form of the
limitations, or from the purposes to which the testator has
devoted the property, or from other circumstances, an inten-
tion can be inferred that trust and mortgage estates should
not pass. What is sufficient evidence of such an intention
can, in many cases, only be ascertained by an attentive
perusal of the whole will. It appears to have been con-
sidered that the introduction into the devise of words of
severance will not prevent such devise from operating upon
trust and mortgage estates (o) ; but the case usually relied
on as an authority seems scarcely to warrant such a conclu-
sion (p)> at any rate as respects trust estates.

How far And it is the universal practice, where a descent has

to furnish occurred within a recent period, to require proof of the
facy. C " ancestor's intestacy as respects the property offered for sale,
even although no trace of a will appears on the title : how
far this can in strictness be insisted on (except as respects
evidence which the vendor may have in his own possession
or power) is perhaps doubtful : the length of time which
may be considered sufficient to render such evidence unim-
portant must depend upon the state of the particular title :
where an estate has been repeatedly sold or mortgaged, an
interval of thirty or forty years is generally considered
satisfactory.

Purchaser ^ A purchaser is not entitled to copies of any instruments
copies of which are produced merely to negative a possibility, and

(o) See 1 Jarm. 661, 3rd ed. Uses, 421, n. ; and see comments on

(p) Exp. Whiteacrey cited 1 Sand. this case, 1 Jarm. 697, 4th ed.

THE ABSTRACT. 377

which he could not have compelled the vendor to produce, if Chap. VIII.
...... . ,. . Sect. 6.

they had not been in his possession.

documents
produced as

The unsupported statutory declaration of the vendor as to negative evi-
a matter of fact material to the title, and peculiarly within statutory
his own knowledge, although very often accepted in practice, ^^^jjf
is not such evidence thereof as a purchaser is bound to ac- insufficient,
cept (<?) ; and it must be remembered that although statutory
declarations by disinterested persons form in many cases
the only evidence available to the conveyancer, and may be
sufficient as between vendor and purchaser, such declarations
except in cases where the general rule is relaxed by reason of
the deaths of the declarants, and of the declarations being in
respect to matters of pedigree, and made by members of the
family, or being against the pecuniary or proprietary inte-
rests of the declarants, are not evidence in hostile litigation
with third parties.

The want of evidence of matters of fact (other than docu- Want of proof
mentary), as well as of the existence of documents conferring facts may
a title, may, however, be supplied by presumption ; and the
rule laid down in Emery v. Grocock (r), as to a purchaser
being bound to presume whatever a judge at Law would
clearly direct a jury to presume, applies (it is conceived)
generally, although not universally (s), to questions of
matters of fact between vendor and purchaser (f) .

Thus, where, in construing an ancient deed, a question Evidence of
arises as to what passed by the terms of a particular grant, as to what
modern usage and enjoyment for a number of years is evi- ancient"11
dence to raise a presumption that the same course was adopted &rants-
from an earlier period ; and so to prove a similar usage and
enjoyment at the date of the deed (w).

(q) Hobsm v. Sell, 2 B. 17. able Titles, 397.

(r) Ante, p. 371 ; 6 Mad. 54. (u) See Lord Waterpark v. Fennell,

(s) See Sug. 399 ; and Games v. 7 H. L. C. 650 ; where the question

Bonnor, 33 W. R. 664. was as to what was included in the

(t) See Lapham v. Pike, Rolls, term " village " in a lease granted in

1831 ; cited in Atkinson on Market- 1704 ; and see also Duke of Beaufort

THE ABSTRACT.

. VIII. go where, in 1801, an allotment under an Inclosure Act

Sect. 6.

— r was made to A. in lieu of four acres of common field land.

Presumption

of identity of the Court, in 1847, assumed in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, that the four acres formed part of five acres and a
half of common land comprised in a deed dated in 1784 (#),
but the vendor^ was held bound to make inquiries on the
subject, and to produce the best evidence in his power of the
five acres and a half having formed the only commonable
land belonging to the allottee (</) .

Of identity of
individuals.

So, where a person, whose name and description correspond
with those of a person previously named in the title, deals
with the property in a manner consistent with the supposition
of the two being identical, such identity must, in the absence
of any reasonable grounds for suspicion, be assumed by a
purchaser : this doctrine seems to be supported by a decision
the case of the Bra ye Barony (s), where it was held

in

sufficient to identify A. — described in the ancient record, as
of B. — with a person named A. in the pedigree, to show
alhmde that the latter held land in B.

Of seisin. Seisin may be presumed from facts which tend to show

that the ancestor or testator acted as if he were the owner
of the premises, e.g., the production of leases which he has
granted, and which have been followed by possession or
payment of rent (a] ; or of a grant of an annuity by a

v. Mayor of Swansea, 3 Ex. 413 ; Re
Belfast Deck Act, 1 I. R. Eq. 128 ;
llcaly v. Thome, 4 I. R. C. L. 495 ;
Brew v. Harcn, 11 I. R. C. L. 198 ;
and see Eex v. Osbournc, 4 Ea. 327 ;
A.-G. v. Fortter, 10V. 338; Bailiff*,
§c. ofTeivlcesburyv. Bricknell, 2 Taunt.
120 ; Ccrp. of Hastings v. Ivall, 19 Eq.
558, 581.

(x) Major v. Ward, 5 Ha. 604.

(y] S. C., 12 Jur. 476. And see
Garrard v. Tuck, 8 C. B. 248. As to
the identity of lands of ecclesiastical
and collegiate corporations, see 2 & 3

"Will. 4, c. 80 ; of enfranchised copy-
holds, see 4 & 5 V. c. 35, s. 21 ; and
15 & 16 V. c. 51, s. 24; and of
lands charged with tithe- commuta-
tion rent-charge, see 1 V. c. 69, s. 9.
A tithe commutation map is not
evidence of boundary in a case of
disputed title ; Wilberforce v. Hear-
field, 5 Ch. D. 709.

(z) Cited Hub. on Ev. 465.

(a] See ClarJcson v. Woodhouse, 5
T. R. 412, n. ; 3 Doug. 189 ; White
v. Lisle, 4 Mad. 214 ; Welcome v.
Upton, 6 M. & W. 536.

THE ABSTRACT. 379

person in possession, and which states that A. B. is the
legal owner of the fee (b) ; or the production of receipts for
rent given to persons who are proved aliunde (e.g., by the
production of land tax assessments, entries in parochial rate-
books, &c.), to have been in the occupation of the premises;
or by the declarations of such occupiers that they held of
the party in question : but mere personal occupation, although
sufficient to raise a presumption of title in ejectment (c),
does not appear to have that effect as between vendor and
purchaser (d).

Strips of waste lying beside an ancient highway or a As respects
river are, together with the soil to the middle of the way waste.
or river, presumed to belong to the owner of the adjoining
inclosed lands (e) . This presumption, however, seems to arise
only as between such owner and the lord of the manor,
and does not apply as between parties deriving title through
different conveyances from a former owner of both the
inclosed and waste land (/) ; and, even as against the lord
of the manor, although it is not essential that the encroach-
ment should be contiguous to, or have any direct commu-
nication with, the adjoining enclosed lands (<?), yet the
presumption may be rebutted by the circumstance of the
strip communicating with a common or other large piece of
waste (h), or by the fact that other strips, lying along the
same highway but not necessarily adjoining the locus in
quo (/'), are held adversely to the landowner (/) ; nor does
the presumption arise where the highway is modern, as,

(b) Doe v. Coulthred, 7 A. & E. thwait v. Ncwlay Bridge Co., 33 Ch.
235. D. 133. The presumption does not

(c) Doe v. Penfold, 8 C. & P. 536. arise in the case of land merely in-

(d ) Hub. on Ev. 131. See, on this tended to be dedicated as a highway ;
subject, Suttey v. Pulley, 9 Ch. 739 ; Leigh v. Jack, 5 Ex. D. 264, 273.
and 1 Taylor, 601 et seq. (/) White v. Rill, 6 Q. B. 487.

(e) 1 Jarm. Conv. 79, and cases (g) Earl of Lit bum v. Davis, L. R.
there cited ; and, in particular, Lord 1 C. P. 259, and vide ante, p. 188.
Tenterden's judgment in Steel v. (h) Grose v. West, 1 Taun. 39.
Frickett, 2 Stark. 463 ; Simpson v. (i) Dcndy v. Simpson, 18 C. B.
Dendy, 8 C. B. N. S. 433 ; affd. 7 831 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 642, in the Ex. Ch.
Jur. N. S. 1058 ; and see Micklc- (j) Doe v. Hampson, 4 C. B. 267.

380

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII.
Sect. 6.

Of continu-
ance of seisin.

e.g., where made under the General Inclosure Act (k).
Accretions to riparian property, caused by the gradual
action of the stream, follow in title the adjoining land (/) :
conversely, land gradually encroached upon by water ceases
to belong to the former owner (m) .

Seisin being once proved, or presumed, will be presumed to
have continued until the contrary is shown (n).

Of intestacy. Intestacy is a fact which, strictly speaking, does not admit
of proof, but is merely matter of presumption : letters of ad-
ministration are, in the absence of special circumstances,
received by conveyancers as sufficient to raise the presump-
tion ; so is a will or probate of a will not affecting the estate
in question, nor putting the heir to his election.

Of official ap-
pointments.

So, it will be presumed that persons who have acted in
official capacities were duly appointed thereto (0), although
the statements of such persons to that effect are not of them-
selves evidence of the fact.

Of person So, the statutory presumption that the person last entitled

having been to land was the purchaser, and the stock of descent under the

descent.

Inheritance Act, will hold good as between vendor and
purchaser (p). It has been observed, in a valuable work upon

(k) Rex v. Hatfidd, 4 A. & E. 156.
See as to what evidence will rebut
ihe presumption, Gcry v. lied man, 1
Q. B. D. 160.

(I) Callis on Sewers, 51, and Eex
v. Yarborough, 3 B. & C. 91.

(m) Ee Hull and Selby Ry. Co., 5
M. & W. 327. An exclusive right
of fishery in a stream is not affected
by its gradual deviation, nor does
the owner of the land encroached
upon acquire any right of fishery by
such encroachment ; foster v. Wright,
4 C. P. D. 438. But such a right of
fishery will not follow the waters of
a river which has not deviated merely,

but has permanently altered its
channel; Mayor of Carlisle \. Graham,
L. E. 4 Ex. 361 ; and see Miller v.
Little, 4 L. R. Ir. 302.

(#) CocJcman v. Farrar, T. Jonef,
182.

(0} See, as to Inclosure Commis-
sioners, Casamajor v. Strode, 5 Si. 87,
98 ; 2 M. & K. 703 ; as to Church-
wardens, Ganvill v. Vtting, 9 Jur.
1081 ; as to Charity Trustees, A.-G.
v. Dalton, 13 B. 141 ; 1 Taylor, 187
et seq.

(p) See 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 106,
s. 2 ; Dorling v. Claydon, 1 H. & M.
402.

THE ABSTRACT. 381

evidence (o), that the presumption cannot safely be relied on Chap. VIII.
by the conveyancer, because it might, after completion, be -
shown in litigating the title that such owner had not pur-
chased but inherited the land, and that the vendor, though
the heir of the immediate, was not the heir of the more
remote ancestor : this, no doubt, is true ; but in every case of
presumption there is likewise a risk of the conclusion being
shown to be unfounded. And it has been decided, that until
some proof to the contrary is adduced, a vendor may rely on
the statutory presumption, without any obligation to produce
affirmative evidence in his possession ; though he is bound to
disclose matters within his own knowledge which tend to
rebut the presumption (p).

Thus also, (to come to matters of pedigree,) it is a general Presumption
presumption of law, that a child born in wedlock, even a pedigree— of
day after the marriage (q), is the child of the husband : and

this, although the parties have separated by voluntary agree- wedlock.
inent (r), and the wife be living in adultery (s) : but the pre-
sumption does not arise in the case of a child born after an
interval, exceeding the usual period of gestation, since the
date of a divorce a mensd ct thoro (£), or, it is imagined, since
the commencement of the suit in the Ecclesiastical Court. '
The ordinary presumption is not to be rebutted by circum- How re-

1 \ • -1 4- 4- fif\

stances which create only doubt and suspicion ; but it may
be wholly removed by proper and sufficient evidence, showing
that the husband was, 1st, incompetent ; 2ndly, entirely
absent at the period during which the child must in the
course of nature have been begotten ; or 3rdly, only present
under such circumstances as afford clear and satisfactory
proof that there was no sexual intercourse («) : and it also

(o) Hubback, p. 121. 555 ; The Queen v. The Inhabitants of

(p) Dorling v. Claydon, 1 H. & M. Mansfield, 1 Q. B. 444.

402. (t) Parish of St. George v. St. Mar-

(q) See Co. Litt. 244 a. garet, 1 Salk. 123 ; Hetherington v.

(r) Parish of St. George v. St. Mar- Hetherington, 12 P. D. 112.

paret, 1 Salk. 123 ; 1 Taylor, 129. («) Per Lord Langdale, in Har-

(&} Bury v. Phillpot, 2 M. & K. grave v. Hargrave, 9 B. p. 555. His

349 ; Morrif v. Davies, 5 C. & F. Lordship puts another case, viz.,

163; Hargrave v. Hargrave, 9 B. that of "the entire absence of the

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII.
Sect. 6.

Declaration
of husband
and wife in-
admissible.

seems that where the interview between the husband and
wife has not been such as to raise an irresistible presumption
of the fact of sexual intercourse, the subsequent conduct of
the parties may be referred to for the purpose of establish-
ing the fact of non-intercourse; e.g., the circumstance that
the wife who was living in adultery concealed the birth of
the child, that the husband acted up to his death as if
no such child were in existence, and that the adulterer
aided in concealing the birth and subsequently reared and
educated the child and left it all his property by his
will(#). The old doctrine of quatuor niaria has been long
exploded (y) .

The evidence and declarations of the husband and wife
are inadmissible for the purpose of establishing the fact of
non-intercourse (z) . It seems to have been considered that
the rule is limited to this — that a married couple shall not
be admitted to prove that they have had no connexion after
marriage, and that the issue born in due time after marriage
is spurious (a) ; but the principle seems to apply equally to
a case where it is sought to establish the illegitimacy of a
child conceived before, but born after, the marriage, by
proving from the admissions of husband or wife their non-
intercourse at the time of its conception ; and in one case the

husband, so as to have no intercourse
or communication of any kind with
the mother: " but this seems to be
an unnecessary extension of what is
above stated as the second proposi-
tion ; and see Aylesford Peerage, 1 1
Ap. Ca. 1.

(x] Morris v. Davies, 5 C. & F. 163 ;
Saye and Selc Barony, 1 H. L. C.
507 ; and see Bury v. Phillpot, 2 M.
& K. 349; Clarke v. Maynard, 6
Mad. 364 ; Re Sinclay, 17 B. 523 ;
Legge v. Edmonds, 25 L. J. Ch. 125 ;
Plowcs v. Bossey, 2 De G-. & S. 145 ;
Bosvile v. A.-G., 12 P. D. 177.

(y) See Pendrell v. Pendrell, 2 Stra.
925 ; and see, on the general subject,
Banlury Peerage case, 1 S. & S. 153 ;

Morris v. Davies, 5 C. & F. 262 ;
Hub. on Ev. p. 393 et scq. ; Saye and
Selc Barony, 1 H. L. C. 507 ; Hawes
v. Dracger, 23 Ch. D. 173.

(z) See Hub. on Ev. 382, 383 ; and
see 5 Cl. & F. 221 ; Rex v. Sour ton, 5
A. & E. 180; Atchleyv. Sprigg, 33
L. J. Ch. 345 ; and see Patchett v.
Ilolgate, 15 Jur. 308 ; also liar grave
v. Hargravc, 2 C. & K. 701. But
the rule does not extend to render
inadmissible letters or other docu-
ments in which such declarations are
contained ; Aylesford Peerage, 11 Ap.
Ca. 1.

(a) Anon. v. Anon., 22 B. 481,
482.

THE ABSTRACT. 383

Court refused to allow the wife to be asked in cross-examina- Chap. VIII.

Sect. 6.
tion, whether her husband had, or had not, access to her -

before marriage (b).

The rule has, however, been relaxed in the case of parties 32 & 33 Viet.

CO

to proceedings instituted in consequence of adultery, in which
the husband or wife may now give evidence (c).

So, where evidence of marriage cannot be procured, the Presumption
deficiency may be supplied by presumptions, arising either c
from cohabitation preceded by the usual preliminaries of
marriage, or by the conduct and behaviour of the parties
during cohabitation, and by the general reputation of the fact
of marriage (d) : for instance, in the cases of the Roscommon
Earldom and Stafford Barony (<?), the execution of marriage
articles, and the grant of a Royal licence to the intended
husband to marry his brother's widow, were respectively
admitted as raising a presumption that the subsequent co-
habitations had been preceded by marriage : so, in the case
of the Saye and Sele Barony (/), the fact of the cohabiting
parties having visited with families of respectability was
successfully relied on as raising a presumption of marriage :
so, in Lord Ochiltrce's case (#), the baptism of a child as if
legitimate was held to raise a like presumption : but where,
as in Scotland, mere consent will constitute marriage, coha-
bitation, if in the beginning illicit, will continue to bear that
character, unless it be clearly changed by the parties (h) : so,
in the Shreicsbury Peerage case (i), where it was necessary
to prove a marriage between W. T. and M. D., and, in the
absence of a certificate, the will of M. D.'s uncle was pro-

(b] Anon. v. Anon., 23 B. 273. (d) Re Nixon, 2 Jur. N. S. 970.

(c) 32 & 33 Viet. c. 68, s. 3 ; and (e) Cited in Hub. on Ev. p. 257 ;
see Re Hideout's Trusts, 10 Eq. 41 ; and see, in ejectment, Doe v. Graze-
Re Yearwood's Trusts, 5 Ch. D. 545. brook, 4 Q. B. 406.

Proceedings by guardians of the poor (/) Cited in Hub. on Ev. p. 247.

to compel a husband to maintain a (^) Hub. on Ev. 249.

child of which he repudiates the (h) Lapsley v. Grierson, 1 H. L. C.

paternity, are not within the section ; 498, 506.

Nottingham Guardians v. TomJcinson, (i) 7 H. L. C. 1.

4 C. P. D. 343.

384

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap.^vni. duced in these words, " All this I give to my nephew "W. T.,"
- the production of the Act book from Doctors' Commons
granting administration to "W. T., nephew, minor, and
legatee," was held sufficient to raise a presumption of mar-
riage between "W". T. and M. D.

Decisions, on such points, in Peerage claims, are, it may
be remarked, of higher authority between vendor and pur-
chaser than similar decisions, even by the House of Lords, in
adverse claims to property ; inasmuch as, the claimant of a
Peerage, like a vendor, is required to show not merely a
better title relatively to some other, but to show that the title
is absolutely and exclusively in himself (k) .

Presumption
as to validity
of marriage,

beiju? proved.

As to the
Legitimacy
Declaration
Act, 1858.

So, the mere factum of marriage being proved, the Law
raises every possible presumption in favour of the existence
of circumstances essential to its validity (/) ; but the Court
will not presume a marriage according to the lex loci between
persons living in the midst of an uncivilized community,
unless first satisfied with the evidence as to the laws and
customs of the natives in that respect (m).

By the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858 (w), any natural
born subject of the Queen, or any person whose right to be
deemed a natural born subject, depends wholly or in part
on his legitimacy, or on the validity of a marriage, being
domiciled in England or Ireland, or claiming any real or
personal estate in England, may petition the Probate Division
of the High Court for a decree declaring that he is the legiti-
mate child of his parents ; or that the marriage of his father

(k) See Hub. on Ev. 63.

(I) Piers v. Piers, 2 H. L. C. 331 ;
Dumoncclv. Dumoncel, 13 Ir. Eq. E-.
97; Harrison v. Corp. of Southampton,
4 D. M. & O. 137 ; Taylor, 190 ; De
Thoren v. A.-G., 1 Ap. Ca. 686;
Sastry v. Sembecutty, 6 Ap. Ca. 364 ;
and see as to consent, Re Birch, 1 B.
358 ; Rfff. v. St. Mary Magdalen, 2

E. & B. 809.

(m) Armitage v. Armitage, 3 Eq.
343 ; and see further on this sub-
ject, and as to marriages entitled to
the privilege of necessity, Ruding v.
Smith, 2 Hag. Consist. 371 ; Bright's
H. & W. 418 et seq.

(n) 21 & 22 Viet. c. 93 ; extended
to Ireland by 31 & 32 Viet. c. 20.

THE ABSTRACT. 8&0

and mother or of his grandfather and grandmother was a o
valid marriage ; or that his own marriage was or is valid ; —
and power is given to the Court to determine the question of
legitimacy, or of the validity of any such marriage : but its
decree is not to prejudice the rights of persons who are not
cited, or to have a valid effect if obtained by fraud or
collusion.

As between vendor and purchaser, no presumption of Presumption
death arises from the mere fact of a person having been between
unheard of for seven years (o) ; nor can any precise
period be fixed which will raise such a presumption; but
every case must depend upon its own particular circum-
stances. For instance, in a case like that of the President
steam vessel, never heard of after setting out to cross an
open ocean like the Atlantic, the Courts would probably at
the end of seven years presume the death of all parties on
board, even as between vendor and purchaser (p) ; while
they might hesitate, even after a very much longer period,
to come to the same conclusion, between vendor and pur-
chaser, in the case of a vessel supposed to have been lost in
navigating an ocean, thickly studded with islands, like some
parts of the Pacific.

There have been many decisions upon the above point as between
as between adverse claimants to property : for instance, the claimants to
mere absence beyond seas of a mortgagor for thirty years Pr°Perfcy-
without being heard of, was, in an old case, held sufficient
to entitle the heir to redeem (7) ; so, as between parties
claiming under a will, the death of the legatee has been
presumed from absence in America without tidings or reply
made to advertisements for twenty-two years (r) ; so, in

(o) Hub. on Ev. 178 ; as to evi- s. 8.

dence of sufficient inquiry, see Doe (p) See Sillick v. Sooth, 1 Y. & C.

v. Andrews, 15 Q. B. 756. In Scot- C. C. 117.

land the presumption of death after (q) Hasten v. Cookson, 2 Eq. Ca.

seven years has recently been created Ab. 414.
by Statute ; 44 & 45 Viet. c. 47, (r) Rust v. Baker, 8 Si. 443.

D. VOL. I. C C

386 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. Cuthbcrt v. furrier (s), where a fund was set apart to

•• answer an annuity to a native woman in India, of whom

nothing had been heard since 1815, Lord Cottenham, in
1837, ordered payment of the principal to the party entitled
subject to the annuity, without requiring any security to
refund (t) ; so, in Dowley v. Winfield(ii), (an administration
suit,) Shadwell, Y.-C., presumed the death of a legatee who,
when of the age of seventeen, had deserted his ship at one
of the Sandwich Islands, and had not been heard of for
twelve years : and in another case his honour ordered
payment out of Court of a sum of money to the adminis-
trators of a person who had gone to America and had not
been heard of for seven years (x) : but the Court will require
evidence of all practicable inquiry having been made (y) :
and has refused to act on the common presumption when
circumstances rendered it improbable that the absentee, if
alive, would have communicated with his friends (s).

Non-receipt The value of the non-receipt of intelligence of a person
raising pre^ wno nas gone abroad, and has not been heard of for several
of years, and who cannot be presumed to have perished by
some casualty, as the foundering of a vessel in which he is
known to have been a passenger, must depend upon the
special circumstances of each case; as, e.g., the duration of
his absence, and whether it can be satisfactorily explained
or not, the nature of the last communication received, and
whether the previous communications were frequent or in-
termittent, the station in life of the missing person, and
the degree of relationship or intimacy subsisting between
him and the persons with whom he was in the habit of
corresponding. In many cases the mere non-receipt of

(s) 2 Ph. 199. Re WeWs Estate, 5 I. R. Eq. 235.

(t) 2 Ph. see p. 200. (y) Re Creed, 1 Dr. 235 ; see Re

(w) 14 Si. 277 ; and see Watson v. Lyford's Tr., 17 Jur. 570.
England, 14 Si. 28. (z) Bowden v. Henderson, 2 S. & G-.

(x) Dunsmure v. Boulderson, 5 Jur. 360 ; see In re Mileham, 15 B. 507 ;

958 ; and see Whitlow v. Dilworth, 2 and Mullaly v. Walsh, 6 I. R. C. L.

S. & G. 35, in which, however, there 314.
were special circumstances ; see also

THE ABSTRACT. 387

tidings for a period of seven years is wholly insufficient to Chap. VIII.

oCCC» 0»

raise the presumption ; and in all cases the evidence of those -
who are interested in proving the fact of death must be
received with hesitation.

"We may hero remark, as connected with the present Proof of death
subject, that by the 18 & 19 Charles II. (Ruff. 19 Ch. II.) Q^CMtui que
c. 6, s. 2, if a person for whose life an estate is granted goes
abroad, and there is no sufficient evidence that he is alive, the
judge, in any action commenced for the recovery of the lands
by the lessors or reversioners (a), shall direct the jury to give
their verdict as if the person remaining abroad were dead :
and by the 6 Anne, c. 72 (Ruff. c. 18), s. 1, a reversioner or Production of

. , T ,. . m .-, cesttii que vie.

remainderman may, by proceedings in Chancery, procure the
production of tenant for life or cestui que vie (b).

As respects the time of death, the presumption, in cases of Presumption
adverse claims to property, used to be that the absentee died death,
at the end of the first seven years after he was last heard of ;
unless there were special circumstances for raising a presump-
tion, tantamount to proof, of death at an earlier period ; as,
e.g., the fact of the party when last heard of being in a bad
state of health, and having arranged to return to his friends
in six months (c) ; or the state of weather succeeding the
departure from port of a ship which is never afterwards
heard of (d). In Ommancy v. Stilwell (e), a mate in the last
Arctic Expedition under Sir John Franklin, which was never
heard of since June, 1845, was after considerable hesitation,
presumed to have survived his father, who died in January,
1850. There was evidence that about forty of the expedition,
which originally consisted of 133, were seen by Esquimaux in
the month of April or May 1850 ; and it was considered

(a) This has been held to include (c) Webster v. flirchmore, 13 V.
remaindermen. 362 ; Re Lyfortfs Tr., 17 Jur. 570.

(b) As to mode of procedure, see (d) Sillick v. Booth, 1 Y. & C. C. C.
Dan. C. P. 2197 et seq. ; and He Owen, 117.

10 Ch. D. 166 ; Re Thomas Stevens, (e) 23 B. 328.
31 Ch. D. 320.

C C 2

388 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. probable that this mate, who was a strong active young man,

— - — was among the number. In Re Corbishky's Trusts (/), a

trust was declared by deed in favour of a person who had not
been heard of for five years, and it was held that he must be
taken to have survived the settlor, and that his representatives,
and not those of the settlor, were entitled to the fund. In
Dowley v. Win field (g), the Court, in the absence of any
special circumstances, presumed that the legatee, a sailor, who
had left his ship in the spring of 1832, died before the death
of the testator, which occurred in September, 1833 ; and the
legatee's share was paid over to other parties on their giving
security to refund : so, in Cuthbert v. Purrier (/*), the Court
ordered the entire accumulations of the annuity, from the
time when the annuitant was last heard of, to be paid over to
the party entitled subject to the annuity, on his giving his
bond to refund : but these decisions cannot be reconciled
with the later authorities (i) which in effect lay down, first,
that although a person who has not been heard of for seven
years is presumed to be dead, yet, in the absence of special
circumstances, there is no presumption from that fact as to
the particular period at which he died ; secondly, that a
person, alive at a certain period of time, is to be presumed to
be alive at the expiration of any reasonable period after-
wards ; and thirdly, that the onus of proving death at any
particular period within the seven years lies with the party
alleging death at such particular period. In one case (A*),
Y.-C. Malins carried the doctrine still further, and laid it
down that as the presumption of death does not arise until
the expiration of the seven years, so within that period there

(/) 14 Ch. D. 846 ; and see Hick- 6 Ch. 356 ; Penncfathcr v. Penne-

man v. Upsall, 4 Ch. D. 144. father, 6 I. R. Eq. 171 ; Re Rhodes,

(g) 14 Si. 277. 28 L. T. 392 ; Prudential Assurance

(h] 2 Ph. 199, supra; and see Co. v. Edmonds, 2 Ap. Ca. 487, 509.

Grissall v. Stelfox, 9 Jur. 890 ; Wil- In the last case it was said by Lord

cock v. Purchase, ib. note. Blackburn that inquiry and search

(i) Doe v, Ncpean, 5 B. & Ad. 86 ; should be made among those who,

Nepean v. Doe, 2 M. & W. 894, 912 ; if he were alive, would be likely to

Lamb v. Orton, 6 Jur. N. S. 61 ; hear of him.

Dunn v. Snowden, 2 Dr. & S. 201 ; (£) Re Eenham*' Trusts, 4 Eq. 416,

Thomas v. Thomas, ib. 298 ; Re Phenes1 419.
Trusts, 5 Ch. 139; Re Lncef Trusts,

THE ABSTRACT. 389

is a presumption of the continuance of life ; but, on appeal, Chap- VIII.

the order of the V.-C. was discharged on the ground that the

time of death is not a matter of presumption, but of affir-
mative proof (/) : and this is now the well settled rule (m).

Presumptions, however, such as are above referred to, Rules upon,
would not necessarily be made as between vendor and pur- adverse
chaser (n) ; and the above cases must be considered as guides, howfar'appU-
rather than as authorities, for the conveyancer. In Doiclcy cable as

DC \i "woo ii

v. Winfieldy in particular, the presumption, not only of the vendor and
time but even of the fact of the death, (admitting for argu-
ment's sake its propriety for the purpose of enabling the
Court to distribute testamentary assets) would evidently be
of an extreme character if made upon a question of title.
The mere fact of a young sailor, who deserted his ship in the
Sandwich Islands, not being heard of for twelve years, can
scarcely, as a matter of common sense, be considered to raise
a stronger presumption of his death, than would the lapse of
an equal interval of time in the case of any other person of
the same age respecting whose existence no inquiry whatever
had been made. In such cases the Court may be supposed
to be (perhaps insensibly) influenced not only by a supposi-
tion that the party may be dead, but by the feeling that, if
alive, he will probably never return to claim the property.
It has, moreover, been observed by the same learned judge
who decided Dowley v. Winfield, that the old presumption
of death from absence, is, owing to the increased facilities of
travelling, becoming daily more untenable (0). In one case,
after absence and silence for nineteen years, the Court re-
fused to presume death when the circumstances rendered it
improbable that the party, if alive, would have communicated
with her friends (p) . The recent notorious litigation in
respect to the Tichborne estates is suggestive of the diffi-

(0 See 5 Ch. 141, note. (n} See Sug. 418.

(m) See Phenif Trusts, 5 Ch. 139 ; (o) See Watson v. England, 14 Si.

and judgment of L. J. Giffard, Ee 28; Hemming v. Spiers, 15 Si. 550.
Lewes' Trusts, 6 Ch. 356 ; Ee Rhodes, (p) Bmcden v. Henderson, 2 S. &

W. N. (1887), 175. G. 360.

390

Chap. VIII.
Sect. 6.

Presumption
as to sur-
vivorship.

Presumption
of failure of
issue.

THE ABSTRACT.

culties which may surround a title which depends upon mere
presumptive evidence of death.

There is no presumption of law arising from age or sex as
to survivorship among persons who perish by the same
casualty ; nor, on the other hand, is there any presumption
that they all died at the same moment. The question is one
merely of fact, depending entirely upon the evidence ; and
if no evidence on the point can be adduced, the law treats the
matter as incapable of being determined (q) .

Failure of issue is a negative fact of which no evidence,
strictly speaking, is capable of being given : all that can be
done is to prove facts which raise a presumption of the want
of issue : this proof, according to Mr. Hubback (r), may
consist " either of the testimony of living witnesses having
the means of knowledge («), the declarations of deceased rela-
tives, or family reputation otherwise established," and which
appears to extend to indirect or circumstantial declarations (£),
and (in conveyancing practice) to include declarations or
affidavits by persons acquainted with, although not actually
members of, the family (M) ; " or of facts or circumstances
irreconcilable with, or opposed to, the hypothesis that there
are any legitimate descendants of the supposed ancestor;"
such as facts which tend to show the celibacy of the party (v) ;
the non-mention of issue in wills (x) and other documents in
which issue, if existing, would naturally be noticed ; and the
devolution of dignities or property upon the assumption of
the want of issue ; or the grant of letters of administration to
distant relatives (y).

(q) Wing v. Angrave, 8 H. L. C.
183 ; and see Underwood v. Wing, 4
D. M. & G-. 633 ; Wollastonr. Berkeley,
2 Ch. D. 213 ; and see Ommaney v.
Stilwell, 23 B. 328, ante, p. 387.

(r) P. 203.

(s) As to which, see the case of
Hemming v. Spiers, 15 Si. 550 (a
case between vendor and purchaser) ;
and the cases upon peerage claims,
cited Hub. on Ev. p. 204.

(t) See cases on peerage claims,
cited Hub. on Ev. p. 205.

(u) Ibid. 230.

(v) See Hemming v. Spiers, 15 Si.
550 ; Re Webb's Estate, 5 I. E. Eq.
235 ; Re Hanby, 25 W. E. 427.

(x) Hung ate v. Gascoyne, 2 Ph. 25.

(y) See Mullaly v. Walsh, 6 I. E.
C. L. 314, a case in which it was
held that no presumption of failure
of issue arose.

THE ABSTRACT,

391

(z) See Leng v. Hodges, Jac. 585 ;
Brown v. Pringle, 4 Ha. 124, and
earlier cases there cited ; see the
judgment in Brandon v. Woodthorpe,
10 B. 463, where the practice was
admitted, although from other cir-
cumstances payment was refused.
Forty-nine was held to bo too early
in Re Overkill, 17 Jur. 342; but see
cases cited in next note.

(«) Miles v. Knight, 12 Jur. G6G ;
Edwards v. Tuck, 23 B. 268, the
woman being unmarried and fifty-
eight ; so,in Dodd v. Wake, 5 De G.
& S. 226, the woman being sixty-
four ; so in Re Window's Trusts, 1 1
Eq. 408, one of the parties being a
widow aged fifty -five years and lour
months, who had never had any
children, and the other a spinster,
aged fifty-three years and nine
months ; so in Re Milner's Estate, 14
Eq. 245, case of a married woman
aged forty -nine years and nine
mouths, who had never had any

child ; and see, for further in-
stances, Groves v. Groves, 12 "W. R.
45 ; Croxton v. May, 9 Ch. D. 388 ;
Maden v. Taylor, 45 L. J. Ch. 569 ;
Re Allason's Trusts, 36 L. T. 653 ;
Davidson v. Kimpton, 18 Ch. D. 213 ;
Hodges v. Hodges, 20 Ch. D. 752 ;
Graham v. Parsons, W. N. 1885, 146;
but in Re Warren's Settlement, 52
L. J. Ch. 928, the Court of Appeal
refused an application where the
husband was fifty- three, and had
been married for twenty -eight years
to the wife, who was fifty, without
having children, and there was
medical evidence that it was almost,
if not entirely, impossible that she
should have children.
(1} Sug. 418.

(c) Browne v. Warnock, 7 IT. L.
R. 3.

(d) Lyddatt v. Wcston, 2 Atk. 19 ;
eee Hillary v. Waller, 12V. 252; and
see post, p. 1231.

(e) See and consider Trevor v.

future

Many cases have occurred in which the Court of Chancery Chap. VIII.
has paid out of Court money, the title to which depended
upon the presumption that females of advanced age were
incapable of having issue (s) : the ago of fifty appears to have
been the earliest age at which the Court in any reported case
has acted upon this presumption (a) . The practice of Sir GK
Jessel, M. B., was in all cases to require evidence that the
menstrual periods had permanently ceased to recur. Lord
St. Leonards appears to think that the presumption that a
woman of advanced age is past childbearing would not be
made against a purchaser (b) ; but in a recent case in
Ireland (c), a title dependent on such a presumption was
forced upon a purchaser : and upon general principles, it
would seem that such a course would, if necessary, be adopted ;
it being a moral, and not a mathematical, certainty of a good
title, which a purchaser can require from a vendor (d). The
Courts do not appear to act upon a similar presumption in the
case of a male (e), and there are obvious reasons why the
doctrine should not be so extended.

392

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII.

— ' —
riages,' and

from paro-

C lllil I 111 M L

general re-

The ordinary evidence of the facts of birth, marriage, and
death (/), consists of certified extracts from the parochial
registers, or from the general register, established by the 6 &
7 Will. IV. c. 86, and amended by the 1 Yict. c. 22 : or, as
regards deaths, from the burial registers established by the
16 & 17 Yict. c. 134, s. 8 ; and by declarations as to the
identity of the parties. The parochial registers are not, as
a general rule, evidence of the time or order of birth (g) ;
although they may go far to enable the practitioner to form
an opinion upon these points (gg) ; nor do they seem to be
evidence of the time of death, except so far as by showing that
it must have occurred before the date of the burial, of which
they seem to be evidence (h) ; and they are evidence of the
time as well as of the fact of marriage (i). Under the 6 & 7
"Will. IY. c. 86, the birth or death, and not the baptism or
burial, is the subject of registration ; the date forms part of
the entry required by the Act, and certified copies of the
entries are to be received as evidence of the birth, death, or
marriage, to which the same relate (k) : it may, however, be
doubted whether a purchaser could be compelled to accept a
certificate of death as evidence of the fact, unless some suffi-
cient reason were given for the non-production of the certi-
ficate of burial (/). Extracts from non-parochial registers
have long been received by conveyancers as evidence ; and

Trevor, 2 M. & K. 677 ; LusUngton
v. Boldero, 15 B. 2.

(/) As to recital of death of cestui
que vie in renewed ecclesiastical lease
being evidence, vide ante, p. 356.

(g) See Doev. Barnes, 1 Mo. & R.
389.

(gg} See Be Turner, 29 Ch. D. 985.

(h] Hub. on Ev. 184.

(i) Doe v. Barnes, supra. See 14 &
15 V. c. 97, s. 25, remedying errors
in the solemnization in certain cases.
As to the identification of extracts
from the parochial registers, see 14 &
15 V. c. 99, ss. 14 and 17; Re
Porter's Trust, 2 Jur. N. S. 349 ;
Re Neddy Halfs Estate, 17 Jur. 29 ;
incorrectly reported, 2 D. M. & G.

748.

(Jc) Sect. 38.

(I) See Riseley v. Shepherd, 21 "W.
R. 782; A.-G. v. Culverwell, cited
in Hub. on Ev. 769; and Leach v.
Leach, 8 Jur. 211 ; but see Parkinson
v.Francis, 15 Si. 160. In Tomlimv.
Tomlins, 3 Jur. 167, Shad well, V.-C.,
decided, that the certificate of a dis-
trict registrar is not evidence under
the Act ; in the later case of Trail
v. Kibbleivhite, 10 Jur. 107, the same
learned Judge is stated to have acted
upon such a certificate ; but his
attention does not seem to have been
directed to the distinction between a
District Registrar's, and the Regis-
trar General's certificate.

THE ABSTRACT. 393

by the 3 & 4 Yict. o. 92, the non-parochial registers deposited Chap. VIII.
under the provisions of that Act (m), and certified extracts —
therefrom (n), are made evidence in the Courts of Law and
Equity (o).

In the absence of evidence of the above description, resort How other-
is necessarily had to evidence of a less formal character : _ by declara-
such as declarations by members of the family (p), whether tlon8' '
such declarations be made expressly for the purpose of
evidence, or consist of recitals in deeds or wills, statements
in pleadings in Chancery, &c. The declaration of a wife as
to the state of her husband's family is equally admissible
with that of a husband as to the state of his wife's family (q) ;
but before such a declaration can be admitted in evidence,
the relationship of the declarant cle jure by blood or marriage
must be established by testimony independent of the decla-
ration itself (r). Such evidence is inadmissible in Court
during the lifetime of the parties ; but in conveyancing,
statutory declarations form the only available means of pre-
serving the testimony of living witnesses, and, after their
deaths, become, subject to the rules relating to declarations of
deceased persons, admissible in Court ; and where such decla-
rations by relations cannot be procured, conveyancers act
upon similar declarations made by strangers who have been
acquainted with the family, although such declarations are
inadmissible in Court (s), unless made contrary to the pro-

(m) For a list of which, see Hub. 5 B. 597 ; and see Crouch v. Hooper*

on Ev. p. 772. 1G B. 182 ; Webb v. Haycock, 19

(ri) See sects. 11 and 13. B. 342.

(o) Attested copies of French re- (q) Shrewsbury Peerage case, 7 H.

gisters were received in a modern L. C. 1.

peerage case, upon the evidence of a (r) Plant v. Taylor, 7 H. & N. 211 ;

French advocate that the registers and see 1 Tayl. Ev. 564 ; Smith v.

were kept according to the French Tebbitt, L. R. 1 P. & D. 354. As to

law, and would be received in the what is meant by " blood relations "

French Courts : Perth Earldom, 2 H. within the meaning of this rule, see

L. C. 865. See 14 & 15V. c. 99, s. 7. 1 Tayl. Ev. 560.

(p) See the remarks of Lord Lang- («) Johnson v. Lawson, 2 Bing. 86 ;

dale upon the little value to be attri- Crease v. Barrett, 1 C. M. & R. 928 ;

buted to traditionary evidence in Casey v. 0' Shauncssy, 1 Jur. 1140.
pedigree cases, in Johnston v. Todd,

394

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII.
Sect. 6.

records of
Heralds'
College ;

entries in
books, &c. ;

prietary or pecuniary (t) interest of the declarant. So,
records or books from the Heralds' College are admitted as
evidence, but only in so far as they contain information
obtained by inquiries made under the judicial authority of
the Heralds i. e., information obtained by the Heralds in the
course of their visitations (u) : so, statements of pedigree con-
tained in letters, or entries in books, whether religious or
otherwise (#), are admissible in Court, if the handwriting be
old pedigrees; proved to be that of a deceased member of the family (?/) : so
also, old statements of pedigree are held admissible, on account
of their public exposure to and recognition by the family, even
although they cannot be distinctly attributed to any particular
member of it ; e.g., inscriptions on monuments or tomb-
stones (z), an authenticated copy of a mural inscription in the
parish church («), coffin plates (b), inscriptions upon portraits
or on the walls of the mansion house (c), engravings on
rings (d) ; hatchments (e) ; pedigrees hung up in the
mansion (/), or preserved in the family library (#), entries in
a family Bible, or, it would appear, in any other book which

inscriptions,
&c.

(t) See Sussex Peerage case, 11 C. &
F. 85, 112 ; Lloyd v. Wait, 1 Ph. 61.

(u) DC V 'Isle Peer 'age, 228 ; Shrews-
lury Peerage case, 7 H. L. C. 1, 24.
As the last of these visitations took
place in 1687, any later books are
apparently inadmissible ; see Sturla
v. Freccla, 5 Ap. Ca. 623, 644.

(x) See Herbert v. Tuckal,T. Raym.
84 ; Berkeley Peerage case, 4 Camp.
418 ; Slam Peerage case, 6 C. & F. 24 ;
Tracy Peerage, 10 C. & F. 154 ; but
see Walker v. Lady Bcauchamp, G C.
& P. 552.

(y] As to proof of which, see The
Fitzwalter Peerage, 10 C. & F. 193 ;
Tracy Peerage, 10 C. & F. 154.

(z) See Peerage Cases, cited Hub.
on Ev. 688 ; and see 10 C. & F. 154 ;
Shrewsbury Peerage case, 7 H. L. C. 1 ;
Monkton v. A.-G., 2 R. & M. 163 ;
Goodright v. Moss, 2 Cowp. 594. The
value of such evidence cannot, how-
ever, be put higher than this, that
its publicity gives it a #««ii-authen-

ticity, so that if it remain uncontra-
dicted for many years it will be taken
to be true in the absence of evidence
to the contrary ; Haslam v. Cron, 19
W. R. 968.

(a) Slaney v. Wade, 1 M. & C.
338 ; and see In re Perth Earldom,
2 H. L. C. 876.

(b) Chandos Peerage, 10; RoJccby
Peerage, 4 ; Lovat Peerage, 77 ;
Hub. on Ev. 693. Coffin plates
and monumental inscriptions fre-
quently misstate the age by reducing
it a year: anno cctatis being under-
takers' Latin for aged.

(c) Camay s Barony, 6 C. & F. 801.

(d) Vowles v. Young, 13 Ves. 144.

(e) Hung ate v. Gascoigne, 2 C. P.
Coop. t. Cott. 414.

(/) See Slaney v. Wade, 1 M. & C.
356.

(g] Camoys Barony, 6 C. & F. 802 ;
and see Davies v. Lowndes, 7 Sc.
N. R. 141 ; and In re Perth Earldom,
2 H. L. C. 876.

THE ABSTRACT. 395

had been treated by the family as being in the nature of a Chap. vni.
family register (h) ; and, if coming from proper custody, no
evidence of their authorship or handwriting is required (i) ; so,
also, a pedigree presented by a third person to a member of
the family, and recognised by him, is admissible in proof of
the relationship of persons therein described as living, and
who might be presumed to bo personally known to him, even
although the general pedigree be inadmissible by reason of its
purporting to be collected from registers, wills, &c., and
Jmtonj (k) : but a printed collection of monumental inscriptions
was rejected as evidence of what had been the inscription on a
partly-defaced tomb (/) : so, a case for the opinion of counsel
seems to be inadmissible, as being generally drawn by the
solicitor and not by the party himself, and being often
framed with a view to drive the opposite party to a reference,
or for other purposes (ni).

And it seems probable that such evidence is admissible to Whether ad-
prove not only the facts of birth, marriage, and death, but ™oofb0f col-
also such collateral matters (e.g.. the local derivation of the ]atcral mat'

4 v ters.

family) as tend to show the identity of the parties (n).

All such evidence is generally inadmissible if made during Such declara-

mst b
'ante

existing (o), or with a view to anticipated (p), litigation or US

(ti) See MonJcton v. A.-G., 2 R. & C. L. E. 17; and see Re Perton,

M. 162 ; Hood v. Beauchamp, 8 Si. 53 L. T. 707. But such evidence is

26 ; Slane Peerage case, 5 C. & F. 24 ; admissible only in proof of geneo-

BerJccley Peerage case, 4 Camp. 418 ; logical facts or of pedigrees, and not

Goodright v. Moss, 2 Cowp. 591. of title; Shields v. Boucher, supra; and

(i) Hubbard v. Lees, L. R. 1 Ex. see Smith v. Smith, 10 I. R. Eq. 273 ;

255. Ilaines v. Outline, 13 Q. B. D. 818.

(k) Dames v. Lowndcs, 7 Sc. N. R. (o) Reillyv. Fitzgerald, 6 Ir. Eq. R.

141, 208 et seq. 348 ; Dru. 153 ; see 1 Taylor, 554.

(1) Shrewsbury Peerage case, 7 H. (p) Slane Peerage, 5 Cl. & F. 23.

L. C. 1. A photograph of a subse- To be admissible the document must

quently defaced inscription would be a spontaneous family declaration

probably be now received in evidence. made before any question has arisen :

(m) Slane Peerage, 5 C. & F. 40. and therefore a deposition in the form

(n) See Shields v. Boucher, 1 De G-. of an affidavit, although not sworn,

& S. 40, and cases there cited ; and is ipso facto inadmissible ; Hill v.

Doe v. Davics, 10 Q. B. 314; Lloydv. Hibbit, 19 W. R. 250; and see

Wait, 1 Ph. 61 ; Betty v. Nail, 6 Ir. Dysart Peerage, 6 Ap. Ca. 489.

396

THE ABSTRACT.

I item motam
— extent of
the rule.

Chap. VIII. controversy involving the point in question : it seems, how-
ever, that the mere fact of the declarant having a distinct
object in view in making his declaration, e.g., the prevention
of disputes in a family, will not render the declaration inad-
missible, although such object can only be gained by using
the declaration in evidence (q) : and, in a peerage case cited
by Mr. Hubback(r), a pedigree transmitted by a father to
his son, with a view to induce him to make a claim to the
peerage, which, however, never was made, was held admis-
sible as evidence in favour of a party claiming through an
elder branch of the family.

What is a
Us mota ?

Old judg-
ment.

It seems to be now settled that, to constitute a " Us mota"
there must be not merely the existence of facts which may
lead to a suit, but an actual controversy : and also, if a
controversy exist, it must be on the very point in respect of
which the declarations are sought to be used (*) . It was held
in Slaney v. Wade (t), that a copy of an ancient mural
inscription was not rendered inadmissible in evidence by
reason of its having been made at the time when it was
known that, on the death of a tenant for life of the family
estates, questions would possibly arise as to who was entitled
under a limitation in a will to the testator's right heirs.

A verdict or judgment upon the matter directly at issue,
although the suit in which it was given was between other
parties, is good evidence of an adjudication by a competent
tribunal upon the state of facts and the question of usage at
that time, and is admissible wherever evidence of reputation
is received (?/).

(q) See Monkton v. A.-G., 2 R. &
M. 164 ; Berkeley Peerage case, 4
Camp. 418 ; Slaney v. Wade, 1 M. &
C. 338.

(r) Airth Earldom, Hub. on Ev.
668.

(*) Shcdden v. Patrick, 2 Sw. & Tr.
170, 188, f olio wing Rcillyv. Fitzgerald,
Dru. 122, and Davies v. Loicndcs, 7

Sc. N. R,. 198, which together must
be taken to have overruled Walker
v. Countess Bcauchamp, 6 C. & P. 552.

(t) 1 M. & C. 338.

(it) Pirn v. Curell, 6 M. & W. 234 ;
Neill v. Duke of Devonshire, 8 Ap.
Ca. 135, 147 ; and see Re Manor of
Walton-cum-Trimley, 21 W. R. 475.

THE ABSTRACT. 397

A declaration is not rendered inadmissible in evidence by C^P- vnl-

Sect. 6.

. ,

reason of the declarant, and the party relying on his decla-
ration, having been i
matter in question (a?).

ration, having been in the same situation with respect to the by party1 in

missible.

And, as against third parties (y) , recitals in a deed are not Recitals,

"wliGTi c vitlcncQ

evidence, unless the deed was executed by some disinterested Of pedigree.
member of the family (s), and even then only on the footing
of declarations or admissions. In a case where a conveyance
by parties claiming as heiresses of the bodies of two female
joint-tenants in tail recited their pedigree, this recital of
their title by the then vendors was held to be no evidence
against a subsequent purchaser, although the deed was
thirty years old ; there being nothing to show that the pre-
vious possession had been consistent with the pedigree (a) :
but in an ejectment case, where a person entitled in
remainder joined with the tenant for life (who was her
relation) in selling the property, and the conveyance recited
that she was the daughter of J. D., and the conveyance was
executed by the tenant for life, the recital was held by the
Court of Queen's Bench to be evidence of the fact " no
dispute having existed, and the parties having done that
which they had a right to do if members of the family" (b).

By the 37 & 38 Viet. c. 78 (c), recitals, &c., in Acts of Recitals in

1 . _ private Acts

Parliament twenty years old are, as between vendor and Of Parliament.

purchaser, made sufficient evidence of the truth of the facts

and matters stated, except so far as they may be disproved ;

and apparently, there is no distinction between a public and

a private Act as regards the application of this rule. Except

so far as it may have been altered by this enactment, the

general rule is that recitals in recent private Acts of Parliament

(x) Monkton v. A.-G. 2 R. & M. (z) Slaney v. Wade, 1 M. & C. 338

157 ; Doe v. Tarver, Ry. & Mo. 141 ; (but see the judgment of the V.-C.

Freeman v. Phillipps, 4 M. & S. 486, contra, 7 Si. 614) ; see Doe v. Davits,

491. 10 Q. B. 314, 325; and see now 37

(y) Including persons named as & 38 V. c. 78, sect. 2.

parties, but who do not execute ; see (a) Fort v. Clark, 1 Russ. 601.

Tull v. Owen, 4 Y. & C. 192. (*) Doe v. Davits, 10 Q. B. 314.

(c) See sect. 2.

398

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. arc not evidence of the facts stated in them, inasmuch as it is

. — no longer the practice to submit the evidence in support of

private hills to the judges for their report upon it (d). The
Court of Chancery has refused to act upon the recital of a
death in a private Act on the application of a person claiming
under the Act (e).

Land tax —
redemption
of, how
proved.

Land tax, if not noticed in the agreement, is presumed to
be a charge on the property ; if stated to be redeemed its
redemption should be shown by the certificate of the Com-
missioners, the receipt of the cashier of the Bank of England,
and memorandum of registration (/) : the loss of the receipt
is not, however, of any real importance ; for, as a matter of
practice, the certificate is never issued before the money is
paid. In one case (#), where an estate was described as
land-tax redeemed, a statutory declaration by a former owner
that no land tax had been paid in respect of the land,
" subsequently to the purchase or redemption thereof, in or
about the year 1799," was held insufficient to satisfy a
purchaser ; for it left it doubtful whether the land tax ever
was redeemed, so as to free the land from liability either
to the Crown or to a purchaser under the 42 Greo. III. c. 116,

(d) Shrewsbury Peerage case, 1 H.
L. C. 1.

(e) Coivell v. Chambers, 21 B. 619 ;
Moulton v. Edmonds, 1 D. F. & J. 246.

(/) See 42 Geo. III. c. 116, s. 38.
See as to sales for redemption of the
tax, Hicks v. Morant, 5 Bl. N. S.
643 ; 8. C., 2 Dow & C. 414 ; Lawrie
v. Lawrie, 2 Dow 556. As to the
right of a remainderman to pay off
the representatives of a tenant for
life who redeemed the land tax out
of his own money, see Cousins v.
Harris, 12 Q. B. 726. As to merger
of redeemed land tax, see Blundell v.
Stanley, 3 D. G. & S. 433 ; Sullceley
v. Hope, 1 K. & J. 482 ; Neame v.
Moorsom, 3 Eq. 91 ; when redeemed
by ecclesiastical incumbent, Kildcrbee
v. Ambrose, 10 Ex. 454. It should
be remembered that land tax re-

deemed by a person having a limited
interest under 38 Geo. III. c. 60, or
under 42 Geo. III. c. 116, s. 123,
is personal estate ; but a fee farm
rent in lieu of land tax, purchased
under 42 Geo. III. c. 116, is real
estate. Under 16 & 17 V. c. 117,
s. 2, merger took place in every
case of redemption under a contract
entered into after the 20th August,
1853 ; but as regards contracts
entered into after the 29th July,
1856, this section was repealed by
19 & 20 V. c. 80, s. 3. A subse-
quent inclosure of waste lands of a
manor will not revive the land tax,
if it has been previously redeemed ;
Hodgson v. Pearson, 31 L. T. 679.

(g] Buchanan v. Poppleton, 4 C. B.
N. S. 40.

THE ABSTRACT.

or his representatives : and in the same case it was also held, Chap. vm.

Sest. 6.

that a statement in the operative part of a conveyance that -
the consideration was for the absolute purchase of the land
" free from land tax," did not fall within the usual condition
making deeds of a specified age conclusive evidence of every-
thing recited or stated therein. On an exchange of lands
under the General Inclosure Act (h), the liability to land tax
is not transferred from the property exchanged to that taken
in exchange (?'), and the site of an ancient hospital, which
was exempt as such, retains the exemption, although the
hospital has been removed to another site, and the land
discharged from the charitable trusts (k) .

Tithe, also, is a burden the existence of which is presumed Tithes,
in the absence of agreement. The Law upon the subject is
rapidly becoming less important under the provisions of the
Tithe Commutation Acts (1) : the Commissioners acting under
which have power, in making their award (w), to decide, as

(A) 6&7WU1.IV. c. 115.

(i) Cooch v. Walden, 46 L. J. Ch.
639.

(&) Cox v. Rabbits, 3 Ap. Ca. 473.

(0 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71 ; and see
supplementary Acts, 7 Will. IV. &
1 V. c. 69 ; 1 & 2 V. c. 64 ; 2 & 3 V.
c. 62 ; 3 & 4 V. c. 15 ; 5 V. c. 7 ;
5 & 6 V. c. 54 ; 9 & 10 V. c. 73 ;
10 & 11 V. c. 104 ; 14 & 15 V. c. 53 ;
23 & 24 V. c. 81 ; 25 & 26 V. c. 73 ;
and see the important additional pro-
visions contained in23&24V. c.93;
and see 31 & 32 V. c. 89 ; 41 & 42 V.
c. 42 ; and 48 & 49 V. c. 32. The
tithe, or commutation rent-charge,
may, under the 6 & 7 Will. IV.
c. 71, s. 71, be merged by the tenant
in fee or in tail thereof; or, under
1 & 2 V. c. 64, by any person or
persons seised of, or having power
to acquire, the fee therein, sect. 1 ;
or by tenant for life in possession of
both land and tithe, &c., sect. 3 ;
and the merger may be effected in

copyholds, sect. 4 ; or, under 2 & 3
V. c. 62, s. 6, by persons holding
glebe or other lands, and the tithes,
&c. , by virtue of any benefice, or ex
officw. By sect. 1 of the same Act,
incumbrances upon merged tithes,
&c. are made primary charges on the
lands themselves : and by the 9 & 1 0
V. c. 73, s. 19, the powers of merger
given by former Acts are extended,
retrospectively and prospectively, so
as to give equitable owners a power
of legal merger, but so as to make
charges on the tithe, &c. primary
charges on the land. The 7th section

01 2 & 3 V. c. 62, provides that the
merger of tithes or rent -charge is-
suing out of copyhold lands shall
not be deemed to increase the value
of the lands for the purpose of
assessing the fines.

(in) And which, if purporting to
be sealed with the seal of the Com-
missioners, is made evidence by sect.

2 of 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71.

400

THE ABSTRACT.

Decision of
Commis-
sioners con-
clusive, if no
appeal.

Chap. VIII. between tithe owner and land owner (n). but not as between
Sect. 6. . . / - '

- rival claimants of tithe (0), all questions as to the existence

Commutation p -. ' . , . n ...

of, under late 01 any modus, or composition real or prescriptive, or cus-
Acts< ternary payment, or any claim of exemption from or non-

liability to payment of tithes (p) ; and their decision, unless
reversed on an appeal brought within three calendar months
after its being notified in writing to the parties interested,
or their agents (q) , is binding and conclusive : and no further
time will be allowed by reason of the benefice becoming
vacant, after the commencement but before the expiration
of the three months (r). There are exceptions of tithes of
fish and fishing, and of mineral tithes (s) , of payments instead
of tithes in the City of London, and of permanent rent-
charges payable in any city or town by custom or any local
Act of Parliament (t) ; but, with these exceptions, all
questions as to the existence or amount of liabilities of this
description will eventually depend, and do already as respects
a great part of the country depend, upon the Commissioners'
award (u) for the particular district.

It must be borne in mind that under the 58th section of the
6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, the commutation rent-charge may be
specially apportioned ; so as to throw the amount attributable to
the tithes of an entire estate upon some particular portion of it
in exoneration of the residue ; but the sum payable under the
Act in lieu of tithes, is not a charge on the inheritance such as to
entitle the owner of the rent-charge to sell the land out of which
it issues for satisfaction of arrears (#). Of course when there
has been an apportionment, the contract or conditions should

As to liability
under special
apportion-
ments.

(n) See Walker v. Bentley, 9 Ha.
629, 635.

(0) Reg. v. Tithe Commissioners, 15
Q. B. 620.

(p) 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, s. 45 ;
see Wetherell v. Weighill, 3 Y. & C.
243 ; and see 5 & 6 V. c. 54, s. 10 ;
Reg. v. Tithe Commissioners, 14 Q. B.
459; 18 Q. B. 156; Shepherd v.
Lord Londonderry, 18 Q. B. 145.

(q) Sect. 46.

(r) Homfray v. Scroope, 13 Q. B.
509.

(s) As to what minerals are tithe -
able, see Cruise, tit. 22, s. 47.

(0 Sect. 90.

(*) 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, ss. 52
and 67 ; and see 2 & 3 V. c. 62, s. 8.

(x) Bailey v. Badham, 30 Ch. D.
84.

THE ABSTRACT.

401

to extra-

state either the fact or the amount actually payable. It must Chap. VIII.

also be remembered in cases where any lands in a parish have

been cultivated as hop grounds, orchards, or market gardens,

that the Commissioners may (under sect. 40) have assigned a charges on

j ..... . hop grounds,

district within which all lands so cultivated are to be subject orchards, and
to an extraordinary acreage charge in addition to the ordinary *
charge which affects them as comprised in the titheable parts
of the parish : and that lands within such a district, although
waste and unproductive at the date of award, or even if re-
lieved from the ordinary charge by an apportionment under
the 58th section, become under the 42nd section subject
to this extraordinary charge upon their being subsequently
brought under any of the above special modes of cultiva-
tion (y) : and although it was held prior to the passing of a
recent Act (z) , that as facts arose which warranted such a
proceeding, a supplemental award assigning such a district
might at any time be made by the Commissioners («), this
power has been taken away by the last-mentioned Act (z) .

As respects those localities in which the tithe has not yet Composition,
been commuted, it may be sufficient to state shortly, that a exemption,
composition real can be established only by direct or pre- lowProv •
sumptive proof of its creation by deed before the 13 Eliz. (c) ;
and that before the passing of the 2 & 3 "Will. IV. c. 100, a
modus could be established only by similar proof of its con-
stant payment from the time of legal memory (d) ; and that Proof of,
to prove an exemption from tithe, it was necessary to show facilitated by
that the land had belonged to one of the greater monasteries, ^ &x ^UL IV-
and was held by such monastery discharged from tithe at the
time of its dissolution (e). By the 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 100,
a modus (/) or exemption may be absolutely established as

(y\ Walsh v. Trimmer, L. E. 2 H. (d] See SalkeU v. Johnston, 1 M. &

W / ' » '

L. 208. G-. 261.

(z) 36 & 37 Viet. c. 42 ; see sect. 1. (e) Salkeld v. Johnston, 1 Ha. 203 ;

(a) Russell v. Tithe Comm., L. R. 8. C. 1 M. & G-. 261 ; and Barnes T.

6 C. P. 596. Stuart, 1 Y. & C. 119.

(c) See Estcourt v. Kingscote, 4 (/) A custom for the lord of a

Mad. 140 ; Dent v. Sob, 1 Y. & C. 1. manor to receive a tenth of all tithe-

D. VOL. I. D I>

402 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. against the Crown or Duchy of Cornwall, or any lay person,

(not being a corporation sole,) or any corporation aggregate,

whether spiritual or temporal, by proof of payment of the
modus, or enjoyment of the land free from tithe, during sixty
years next before the time of the demand; and as against
any corporation sole, by proof of such payment or enjoyment
during two successive incumbencies, (or sixty years, which-
ever shall be the longer period,) and three years after the
appointment and institution or induction of a third incum-
bent (h) : but the Act does not extend to cases where the
modus or enjoyment can be referred to an agreement in
writing, or where the enjoyment has not been as of right (i) :
and in cases where, at the date of the Act, the tithes were
in lease by deed, or subject to a temporary composition in
writing, a period of three years is allowed to the tithe owner
after the determination of the term of demise or composi-
tion (k) ; and the time during which the lands are held by
the tithe owner is excluded from the period of computa-
tion (/). It was, after opposite judicial decisions (m), decided
by Lord Cottenham, C., in conformity with the opinions of
eight of the twelve judges, that, in order to bring land within
the operation of the above Act for the purpose of claiming an
exemption from tithe, it is not necessary to prove its original
capacity for exemption by showing that it belonged to one of
the greater monasteries (n). The Act, it may be observed,
does not prevent a party from pleading a modus from time
immemorial, and proving it by the same evidence as he might

able matters in the manor, and to pay an absolute claim, does not appear to

a yearly sum to tbe rector in lieu of be material as between vendor and

tithe, is not within the statute ; see purchaser ; see sect. 6 of Act.

Marquis of Waterford v. Knight, 11 (i) Salkeld v. Johnston, 2 Ex. 256,

C. & F. 653 ; Thorpe v. Plowden, 14 286.

M. & W. 520 ; Young v. Clare Hall, (k) Sect. 4.

17 Q. B. 529. (I) Sect. 5.

(A) Sect. 1 ; see as to evidence (m] See Salkeld v. Johnston, 1 Ha.

under this section, Stamford (Earl of) 196 ; S. C., 2 C. B. 749 ; 2 Ex. 256 ;

v. Dunlar, 13 M. & W. 822 ; Pearson Felkives v. Clay, 4 Q. B. 313.

v.Beck, 21 L. T. 0. S. 21 ; the shorter («) SalMd v. Johnston, 1 M. & G.

period of thirty years during which 242 ; see Dean of Ely v. Bliss, 2 D.

there is only a primd facie and not M. & G-. 469.

THE ABSTRACT. 403

have done before the statute ; nor does it apply to claims for Chap. VIII.

Sect. 6.

statutory tithes in the City of London (o).

The 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, s. 2, which enacts that no person Tithes, ho-w
shall bring an action to recover any land (which by section 1 statute o/
includes tithes, unless belonging to a spiritual or eleemosynary 1*™^°***-
corporation sole) but within twenty years next after the
right accrued, was held, by the Court of Exchequer, not to
prevent the tithe owner from recovering tithes as chattels
from the occupier, although none have been set out for twenty
years ; but to be confined to cases where there are two parties
claiming adverse estates in the tithes (p) . A recent decision (q)
of the House of Lords has set at rest a doubt which had long
been entertained as to whether a tithe rent charge is " rent"
within section 1 of the Statute of Limitations (r), or a compo-
sition within the exception in the section.

Defects in the early title, or in the evidence thereof, are Defects in.
occasionally rendered immaterial by the 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 71, supplied by

and 3 & 4 Will. IV. C. 27. Prescription

Act, and
Statute of

With general reference to the former (commonly known as Llmltatlons-
the Prescription Act), we may observe that, except in the case under Pre-
of the right to light, there is nothing in the Act which 8criPtionAct-
interferes with a claim to an easement by express grant ; or
which prevents a claimant from proceeding according to the
Common Law, if he elects to do so. The enjoyment of the
right must be for the whole statutory period in the character
of an easement, as distinct from the land on which it is sought
to be imposed (s) ; and, except in the case of an easement of
necessity, the right, if acquired, is extinguished by an union
of the ownership of the dominant and servient tenements,
for estates of an equally high and perdurable nature (t) ;

(o) Esdaile v. Payne, 33 W. R. 864. (r) 3 & 4 W. IV. c. 27.

( p) Salkeld v. Johnston, 2 Ex. 256. (*) Harbridge v. Warwick, 3 Ex.

Compare the Real Property Limi- 552 ; and see and consider Ladyman

tation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 V. c. 57), v. Grave, 6 Ch. 763.

s. 9. (t) See Co. Litt. 313 a ; Thomas v.

( q) Irish Land Commission v. Grant, Thomas, 2 C. M. & R. 41 ; Simper v.

10 Ap. Ca. 14. Foley, 2 J. & H. 555.

DD2

404

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. though it is only suspended where the estates are not of the

same duration, and will revive on their severance (it) . The

Act is retrospective in its operation, so as to include in the
computation of the times necessary to confer the statutory
title a period of enjoyment prior to the passing of the Act (v) :
but each of the respective periods must be deemed and taken
to be the period next before some suit or action, wherein the
claim or matter to which such period may relate shall have
been or shall be brought in question (ac) . It may be observed
that a user which is neither capable of interruption nor
actionable cannot be the foundation of an easement (y) .

As to claims
of light.

A claim to light becomes absolute and indefeasible after
twenty years' uninterrupted enjoyment ; unless such enjoy-
ment be shown to have been by virtue of some consent or
agreement, expressly made or given for that purpose by
deed or writing (z) ; and local customs to the contrary are
expressly rendered inoperative (a). Where reliance is placed
on the statute, the title to light, acquired thereunder, now
depends entirely on positive enactment, and is no longer to be
rested on the fiction of a presumed grant or licence from the

(«) Simper v. Foley, 2 J. & H. 555 ;
and cases there cited ; and cf . Lady-
man v. Grave, 6 Ch. 763.

(v) Simper v. Foley, snprd.

(x) Sect. 4.

(y} Sturges v. Bridgman, 11 Ch. D.
852 ; and cf. Webb Y. JBird, 13 C. B.
N. S. 841 ; Chasemore v. Richards,
7 H. L. C. 349 ; Bryant v. Lefever,
4 C. P. D. 172 ; Dalton v. Angus, 6
Ap. Ca. 740.

(z) Sect. 3. As to the form and
requisites of such an agreement, see
Bewley v. Atkinson, 13 Ch. D. 283,
and Judge v. Lowe, 7 I. R. C. L. 291.
As to the onus of proof and forms of
rebutting evidence, see Seddon v.
Bank ofBolton, 19 Ch. D. 462.

(a] Salterf Co. v. Jay, 3 Q. B.
109 ; Truscott v. Merchant Taylors1
Co., 11 Ex. 855; and see fates v.
Jack, 1 Ch. 295 ; Curriers' Co. v. Cor-
bett, 2 Dr. & S. 355 ; Heath v. Buck-

nail, 8 Eq. 1. The right to light
may, however, be taken away by
Act of Parliament, empowering
another to erect buildings which
will destroy or affect the light. In
such a case the only remedy open to
the party injured is under sect. 68 of
the L. C. C. Act ; Clark v. London
School Board, 9 Ch. 120; Duke of
Bedford v. Dawson, 20 Eq. 353 ; Bad-
ham v: Marris, 45 L. T. 579, a case
under sect. 20 of Artizans' Dwelling
Act ; Wigram v. Fryer, 36 Ch. D. 87.
But rights to light and other ease-
ments are not extinguished by the
mere purchase by a railway com-
pany under compulsory powers of
the servient tenement, but still exist
unless compensated for, and revive
on a re- sale to an individual ; Ellis v.
Rogers, 29 Ch. D. 651 ; and see Bird
v. Eggleton, ib. 1012.

THE ABSTRACT.

adjoining proprietor (b). Where, however, the provisions of
the statute are inapplicable, e. g. where there has been recent
unity of possession, as distinguished from title, and it can be
proved that before such unity commenced the access of light
has been enjoyed as far back as living memory goes, a title
will be deemed to be established independently of the statute,
for the statute has not taken away any mode of claiming the
easement which existed before its passing in cases which do
not come within its provisions (c). It is, however, conceived
that in cases to which those provisions apply the statute has
altogether superseded the Common Law, and that the decision
in Lanfranchi v. Mackenzie (d) cannot be upheld. The enjoy-
ment of this easement need not be as of right ; nor is there
any reservation of the rights of reversioners (e) ; and, so as
there be no adverse interruption, an unbroken continuity of
enjoyment is not necessary to establish the right; thus, if
after the statutory period has commenced to run, but before
the twenty years have elapsed, there is an interval during
which the owner of the dominant tenement, or his occupying
tenant, is also in the occupation of the servient tenement, the
operation of the statute is for the time suspended, but revives
on the severance of the unity of occupation ; and the statutory
period may be made up partly of the period immediately prior
to the unity of occupation and partly out of the period im-
mediately succeeding it(/). Where it is acquired against
the owner of a leasehold interest in the servient tenement, it
is acquired also against the owner of the reversion (g) .

In order to establish the right there must, it is conceived, Whether
be some building in respect of which it can be claimed (h) ;

405

but when once acquired, it will not be lost by an enlarge- °J alteratlon

ancient
windows.

(b) Truscott v. Merchant Taylors' Ladyman v. Grave, supra.

Co., 11 Ex. 855, per Coleridge, J. ; (h) See Roberts v. Macord, 1 Mo. &

Taplingv. Jones, 11 H. L. C. 290, E,. 230; where, however, it was not

Lord Westbury's speech. necessary to decide the point. In

(c) Aynsley v. Glover, 10 Ch. 283. Harris v. De Pinna, 33 Ch. D. 238,

(d) 4 Eq. 421. Chitty, J., held that a timber stage

(e) Sect. 8. was not a building within the Act ;
(/) Ladyman v. Grave, 6 Ch. 763. but the C. A. left the point unde-
(y) Simper v. Foley, 2 J. & H. 555 ; cidcd.

406 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. ment or alteration of the ancient windows (i) ; nor by the

LJ destruction of the dominant tenement, whether by some

casualty, or by the voluntary act of its owner, unless there
is evidence of an intention to abandon the right ; as, e.g.,
by not rebuilding the house within a reasonable period (A*) :
nor, on rebuilding, is it absolutely necessary that the new
windows should be identical in situation or dimensions with
those which previously existed, if there is no material change
in the nature or in the quantum of the servitude imposed (/),
and if the area of the new window is substantially coincident
with the area of the old (m) ; nor does the fact that the owner
of the dominant tenement has within the statutory period ac-
quired by the removal of buildings a larger quantity of light
than he previously had, entitle the owner of the servient tene-
ment to obstruct the excess of light (n) . It has been held
that where the owner of ancient lights has replaced them by
larger windows, the Court will not restrain the owner of
the servient tenement from obstructing them, but will leave
the plaintiff to his remedy at Law (o) ; but, in later cases,
this decision has been disapproved ; and it appears to be
now well settled that the mere fact that an owner of ancient
lights has enlarged them, does not disentitle him to an in-
junction to restrain the servient owner from obstructing
them ( p). According to this doctrine, which is the logical
consequence of holding that an alteration is not per se an
abandonment of the easement, if the owner of a small
ancient light convert it into a large window, which cannot be

(i) Tapling v. Jones, 11 H. L. C. Staight v. Sum, 5 Ch. 163; and see

320, overruling Rcnshaiv v. Bean, 18 Scott v. Pape, 31 Ch. D. 554, 575.

Q. B. 112; Hutchinson v. Copestalce, (T) The Curriers' Co. v. Corbett, 2

8 C. B. N. S. 102'; and Newson Dr. & S. 358 ; but see Cherrington v.

v. Tender, 27 Ch. D. 43 ; see also Abney, 2 Vern. 646 ; and Aynsley v.

Fowlers v. Walker, 51 L. J. Ch. 443. Glover, 18 Eq. 544 ; 10 Ch. 283.

(k) Moorev.Raivson, 3 B. &C. 337, (m) Newson v. Pender, 27 Ch. D.

341. The owner of the site of a de- 43.

molished building, which formerly (») Dyers' Company v. King, 9 Eq.

enjoyed the right, can restrain a 438 ; National Provincial Ins. Co. v.

neighbouring owner from so build- Prudential Ins. Co., 6 Ch. D. 757.

ing as to interfere with such light as (o) Heath v. Bucknall, 8 Eq. 1.

lie would be entitled to on building (p} Aynsley v. Glover, 18 Eq. 544 ;

on the vacant site; Ecclesiastical 10 Ch. 283 ; and see Staight v. Burn,

Commrs. v. Kino, 14 Ch. D. 213 ; 5 Ch. 163, 167.

THE ABSTRACT. 407

obstructed without blocking the access of light, previously Chap. VIII.

enjoyed, through the space or aperture of the old window, he

will after the lapse of the statutory period acquire, in respect
of the enlarged window, the prescriptive right which he origi-
nally had only in respect of the smaller one ; and will in the
meantime be able to prevent any obstruction, on the part of
the owner of the servient tenement, which may interfere with
the acquisition of the right. The most recent case on this
subject (q) has extended the doctrine of the older authorities,
and has laid down that "the access and use of light" to
which, under the 3rd section, a person acquires an indefeasible
title by enjoyment for twenty years is the access and use of
the particular cone, or pencils of light, which has during that
period passed over the servient to the dominant tenement.
It follows that the right is not lost by an alteration either in
the structure or position of the building for which the right
is claimed, provided only that the new or altered building is
so constructed as to enjoy some part at any rate of the cone
of light enjoyed by the former building. Within this limit
neither setting back (r), nor advancing («), the site of the old
building will destroy the right. The result of this doctrine
seems to be, that abandonment of the right can only arise by
substituting for the old building a structure which has no
windows (£), or rather, it is conceived, no aperture (u) which
intercepts any portion whatever of the light which formerly
fell upon the old windows or any of them. But it may be
that where there has been no abandonment, the person who
claims the right to light may yet be unable to enforce it, from
want of evidence as to the character of the right which he
claims (#).

In the present conflict of the authorities it is very difficult AS to the
to lay down any definite rule as to the extent to which the ^^ the

right may be

(q) Scott v,. Pape, 31 Ch. D. 554. v. Prudential Assurance Co., 6 Ch. D. claimed.

(r] BulUrs v. Dickinson, 29 Ch. D. 757, 759.
155. (u) Harris v. De Pinna, 33 Ch. D.

(s) Scott v. Pape, supra. 238, 258.

(t] Ib.; see per Bowen, L. J., at (x) Scott v. Pape, see per Cotton,

p. 574 ; but this doctrine is at vari- L. J., at p. 570 ; and see Fowlers v.

ance with the opinion of Jessel, Walker, 51 L. J. Ch. 413.
M. R., in Nat. Prov. Insurance Co.

408 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. enjoyment of this easement can be claimed ; but it seems to

' be the better opinion that the extent of the right is the same

whether the dominant tenement in respect of which it is
claimed be situate in a town or in the country (x) ; and that
the right extends not only to light sufficient for the use to
which the tenement is for the time being applied, but also to
light sufficient for any purposes for which it may reasonably
be used (y).

As to the It seems to be now well settled that the Act, although it

light. ^ has altered the mode in which the right may be acquired,
has not altered or extended the right itself; and that, as
before the Act, the owner of the dominant tenement was
only entitled to such a quantity of light as was sufficient,
according to ordinary usage, for the comfortable and bene-
ficial enjoyment of his house or shop; so, since the Act, he
can only acquire by prescription a right to a sufficient
quantity of light, not necessarily a right to all the light
which he has enjoyed during the statutory period (z).

On sale of one With regard to the difficult question of implied grants and
ing tenements reservations of the right to light on the sale of two adjoining
tenements by the common owner, it is conceived that the
cases which at first sight seem to be conflicting may be
reconciled under the three following propositions : — 1. If the
owner of a house and adjoining land sell, or contract to sell (zz)

(x) Tates v. Jack, 1 Ch. 299 ; Dent must be treated as overruled by Tates

v. Auction Mart Co., 2 Eq. 248 ; Lyon v. Jack, supra; see Aynsleyv. Glover,

v. Dillimore, 14 W. R. 511 ; Martin 18 Eq. 544, per Jessel, M. R. ; and

v. Headon, 2 Eq. 430; Mackey v. Moore v. Hall, 3 Q. B. D. 178.
Scottish Widows' Society, 111. R. Eq. (z) See and consider Kelk v. Pear-

541, 560; and see contra, Clarke v. son, 6 Ch. 809. The rule, that, if

Clark, 1 Ch. 16 ; Durell v. Pritchard, access of light is not interfered with

ibid. 251 ; Eobson v. Whittingham, 35 to an extent which will diminish

L. J. Ch. 228 ; and see observations the angle of light below 45°, there is

of L. J. James on Clarice v. Clark in no material interference, is not an

Eelk v. Pearson, 6 Ch. 809, seep. 812. absolute rule of law or evidence;

(y} Yates v. Jack, Dent v. Auction City of London Brewery Co. v. Tennant,

Mart Co., supra; Younger. Shaper, 9 Ch. 212; Theed v. Debenham, 2 Ch.

27 L. T. 643; Mackey v. Scottish D. 165; Parker v •. First Avenue Hotel

Widows' Society, supra. Jackson v. Co., 24 Ch. D. 282.
Duke of Newcastle, 3 D. J. & S. 275 ; (zz) J3cddington v. Atlce, 35 Ch. D.

and Martin v. Goble, 1 Camp. 320, 317.

THE ABSTRACT.

409

the house first, he impliedly grants with it the right to Chap. VIII.
light over the adjoining land, and can neither himself ^
obstruct the lights of the house, nor give to anyone
claiming under him the right to do so (a). 2. If the
common owner sell, or contract to sell (aa), the land first,
keeping the house meanwhile, there is no implied reser-
vation of the right to light for the house ; and the pur-
chaser of the land may obstruct the light previously en-
joyed by the house, whether the house remains in the
possession of the original vendor, or has been subsequently
sold by him (/;). And the only exception to this rule — that
if a vendor wishes to reserve any rights for the property
which he retains, he must do so by express words — is the
case of apparent and continuous easements (c). 3. If the
common owner sell the land and house either simultaneously,
or, though not simultaneously, yet in such a way that both
conveyances are really part and parcel of one sale, and are
in fact founded upon transactions which in Equity are equiva-
lent to conveyances between the parties at the time when the
transactions were entered into, in such a case there is an
implied reservation of the right to light for the house (d).
And it has been held, in a recent case, where the simultaneous
alienation was effected by the will of the common owner,

(d) Palmer v. Fletcher, 1 Lev. 122 ;
Cox v. Matthews, 1 Vent. 237; Tenant
v. Goldwin, 2 Ld. Raym. 1089, 1093 ;
Rosewellv. Pryor, 6 Mod. 116; Robin-
son v. Grave, 21 W. R. 569.

(aa) Beddington v. Atlee, 35 Ch. D.
317.

(b) Tenant v. Goldwin, supra ; White
v. JBass, 7 H. & N. 722 ; Suffield v.
Brown, 4 D. J. & S. 185 ; Carriers'
Co. v. Corbett, 2 Dr. & S. 355 ; Ellis
v. Manchester Carriage Co., 2 C. P. D.
13 ; Whceldon v. Burrows, 12 Ch. D.
31 ; Russell v. Watts, 25 Ch. D. 565 ;
reversed 10 Ap. Ca. 590, but on the
ground that in the particular circum-
stances there was an implied contract
not to interfere with the lights of
the reserved property which displaced
the general rule above stated, and

practically brought it within the
principle of the 3rd class of division ;
and the rule applies to the case where
a man, while a lessee of adjoining
land, lets the house, and afterwards
acquires the fee in the land occupied
by him under the lease ; in that case
it has been held that he is in the same
position as a stranger would have
been, and is entitled to obstruct the
lights of his own tenant: Booth v.
Alcock, 8 Ch. 663 ; and see Bedding-
ton v. Atlee, supra.

(c) Wheeldon v. Burroics, supra, p.
49.

(d) Swansborough v. Coventry, 9
Bing. 305; Compton v. Richards, 1
Pri. 27 ; Allen v. Taylor, 16 Ch. D.
355 ; and see and distinguish Watson
v. Troughton, 48 L. T. 508.

410 THE ABSTKACT.

Chap. VIII. that the fact that the dominant tenement was not at the date

' of the will in the actual possession of the testator, but was

let on lease, did not alter the rule ; and that the devisee of
the servient tenement, and those claiming under him, were
not entitled to obstruct the lights of the houses (<?).

Vendor should In every such case a prudent vendor will, by express reser-

aKve.rig vation or re-grant, keep on foot for his own benefit, in respect

of the tenement retained, any easement or quasi-easement

which he may have acquired 'or enjoyed, or which he may

desire to exercise, over the tenement sold.

As to right to There is no natural right of uninterrupted access of air to
the chimneys of a building (/), or to a windmill (#), nor can
such a right be acquired by prescription (h)9 but must be the
subject of an express grant.

As to ease- Claims of right of way, water, watercourse, or any other
than light. easement (except light) become primd facie valid after twenty
years' uninterrupted enjoyment ; and cannot be defeated by
mere proof of such enjoyment having commenced at any
prior period ; but, until forty years' uninterrupted enjoyment,
they remain liable to be defeated in any other way in which
they might have been defeated before the passing of the
Act; e.g., " by proof of a grant, or of a licence, written or
parol, for a limited period, comprising the whole or part of
the twenty years, or of the absence or ignorance of the parties
interested in opposing the claim, and their agents, during the
whole time that it was exercised " (i) : after forty years' un-
interrupted enjoyment, they become absolute and inde-
feasible, unless proof be given of such enjoyment having
been under some consent or agreement expressly given or
made for that purpose by deed or writing (k) : after the end

(e) Barnes v. Loach, 4 Q. B. D. (g] Webb v.Bird, 13 C. B. N. S. 841.

494 ; but whether the result would (K) Potts v. Smith t 38 L. J. Ch. 58 ;

have been the same if the servient, and see Hall v. Lichficld Brc wcry Co.,

and not the dominant, tenement had 49 L. J. Ch. Goo ; Harris v. De

been in lease, is at least doubtful : Pinna, 33 Ch. D. 238.

see Goddard, 251. (i) Per Parke, B., in Bright v.

(/) Bryant v. Lefcver, 4 C. P. D. Walker, 1 C. M. & R. 219.

172. (/,-) Sect. 2.

THE ABSTRACT.

411

of the twenty years, and before the end of the forty, a grant Chap. VIII.
may still be presumed by a jury (/), notwithstanding that .
the enjoyment is shown to have originated in an agreement
by parol or writing not under seal (m) ; but no such pre-
sumption is admissible if the owner of the servient tenement
was incapable of rightfully granting the easement: e.g., if
such grant would have been a breach of trust (n).

Some of the main points in the law as to rights of way As to rights
may be here conveniently referred to. A road may be a
common highway, even though it is only occasionally used
by the public, or is circuitous, or does not terminate in a
town, or in some other public road (o) ; and a very short con- public way :
tinuous user of it by the public, openly and as of right, is
sufficient to raise a presumption of its dedication to their
use (p) : but the presumption may be rebutted by evidence
of the owner's intention that the public should only have a
permissive user, as, e. g., by his arbitrarily closing the way
for one day in each year (<?), or by showing that the state of
the title was such that a binding dedication was impos-
sible (r) ; but mere non-user for any number of years will
not destroy (s), or prevent the public from resuming (t), the
right to a public way ; though it may be evidence that no
such right ever existed. The soil of a road, whether public
or private, usque ad medium filum vice, is presumed to belong
to the adjoining owners (u) ; and passes by the conveyance,

(1} See 1 C. M. & R. 222. deny the inference from the public

(m) Dewhirst v. Wriglcy, 1 C. P. user ; Powers v. Bathurst, supra.
Coop. 329. (*) Dawes v. Hawkins, 8 C. B. N.

(») Rochdale C. Co. v. Radcli/e, 18 S. 848.
Q. B. 287. (t) Rex v. Montague, 4 B. & C.

(0) Rex v. Inhabitants of Wands- 598.
worth, 1 B. & Aid. 63. («) Berridge v. Ward, 10 C. B. N.

(p) Rugby Charity v. Merry weather, S. 400. The presumption does not

11 Ea. 375n. ; where a period of six extend to a road not actually exist-

years was held sufficient. See, too, ing, but only intended to be made ;

Powers v. Bathurtt, 49 L. J. Ch. 294. Leigh v. Jack, 5 Ex. D. 264 ; Holmes

(q) Trustees of British Museum v. v. Bellingham, 7 C. B. N. S. 329. But

Finnis, 5 C. & P. 460. see as to highways under an urban

(r) Reg. v. Petrie, 4 E. & B. 737. sanitary authority, Public Health

The onus of displacing the presump- Act, 1875, ss. 4, 149 ; Coverdale v.

tion lies on the person seeking to Charlton, 4 Q. B. D. 104.

412

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. even where the land is set forth by admeasurement, and is

' described by reference to a plan which contains no portion of

the highway (x).

private way

way of neces-
sity.

A right of private way is generally claimed by express
grant or reservation ; but such a grant has been presumed
from an uninterrupted enjoyment of twenty years not shown
to be merely permissive (y) ; and the presumption may be
raised, even where the land is in the occupation of a tenant,
if the user has been of long duration, or there are other
circumstances which prove that such user was with the know-
ledge of the owner of the inheritance (s).

A right of way, by necessity, may be claimed, as arising
from an implied grant, on the principle that a convenient
way is impliedly granted as a necessary incident to the land
conveyed (a) . Such a right is an exception to the general
rule that a grantor, if he intends to reserve any right over
the tenement granted, must reserve it expressly in the grant :
the ground of the exception being, apparently, the public policy
of preventing any tenement from becoming absolutely use-
less (b). Hence, such a right of way is impliedly granted,
or reserved, where a land-locked tenement is granted, or re-
tained, while the adjoining land is granted (c). But nothing

(x) Berridgev. Ward, 10 C. B. N. S.
400 ; Mickletlnvait v. Newlay Bridge
Co., 33 Ch. D. 133. The soil of
the road is not boundary, but part
of the property sold, and stands on
the same footing as to payment ; Re
Popple and Barratt, 25 "W. E. 248.

(y) Campbell v. Wilson, 3 Ea. 294.

(z) Davies v. Stephens, 7 C. & P.
570; Daniel v. North, 11 Ea. 372.
The owner of a wharf or of property
skirting a road has, jure naturce, a
private right of access to the river
or road; A.-G. v. Thames Conserva-
tors, 1 H. & M. 1. Interference
with such a private right is ground
for an action for damages ; Rose v.
Groves, 5 Man. & G. 613 ; Lyon v.
Fishmongers' Co., 1 Ap. Ca. 662 ;

Fritz v. Hobson, 14 Ch. D. 542.

(a) Proctor v. Hodgson, 10 Ex. 824,
828 ; Pinnington \. Gotland, 9 Ex. 1.

(b) Dutton v. Tayler, 2 Lutw.
1487 ; Pinnington v. Galland, supra ;
Wheeldon v. Burrows t 12 Ch. D. 31,
57.

(c} Clark v. Cogge, Cro. Jac. 170 ;
Howton v. Frearson, 8 T. R. 50 ;
Pinnington v. Galland, supra; Gay ford
v. Moffatt, 4 Ch. 133 ; Cannon v.
Villars, 8 Ch. D. 415. It should be
observed that the term "reserved"
is not an accurate expression, be-
cause where the land-locked close is
retained, while the adjoining land is
granted, the implied right of way to
the close — strictly speaking — ope-
rates by way of regrant from the

THE ABSTRACT. 413

short of absolute necessity for the user of the way at the date Chap. VIII.

. . Sect. 6.
of the grant is sufficient to raise the implication (d) ; and the

right is limited by, and ceases with, the necessity which
created it (e), and is confined to a user for such purposes as
were necessary for the enjoyment of the land-locked tene-
ment at the date of its separation from the adjoining land,
and does not extend to a user for any other purposes (/).

It is for the grantor to determine what is a convenient way By whom to

nft (Tf^tor™

to the land-locked land (g] ; but when once the way has mined.
been created, it seems the better opinion that the owner of
the servient tenement cannot divert it at his pleasure, even
though the substituted way may be as convenient (h) . Where
on a devise a farm was severed, and there was no access to
one of the severed portions, except over the other, and the
will was silent as to any right of way, it was held that there
was an implied grant of a right of way which actually
existed at the death of the testator, who had himself occupied
the farm (&').

A private right of way is not necessarily lost by twenty How right of
years' non-user, the party entitled having had a more con- ma^be Lost!
venient mode of access ; in order that non-user may have the
effect of destroying the right, it must be the consequence of
something which is adverse to the user (k) : and a parol
agreement for the substitution of a new way has been held
no evidence of the abandonment of an old prescriptive way (/) .
A right of way by prescription must be restricted to the kind
of user to which the prescription extends ; the true principle
being " that you cannot from evidence of user of a privilege,

grantee of the adjoining land ; Cor- (ff) ClarJce v. Rugge, 2 Roll. Abr.

poration of London v. Riggs, 13 Ch. 60, pi. 17 ; Packer v. Wellstead,2Sid.

D. 798. Ill ; Bolton v. Bolton, 11 Ch. D. 968.

(d) Doddv. Burchell, 1 H. & C. 113 ; (A) See dicta of Blackburn, J., in

Proctor v. Hodgson, 10 Ex. 824. Pearson v. Spencer, 1 B. & S. 584.

(<?) Holmes v. Goring, 2 Bing. 76. (i) Pearson v. Spencer, supra.

(/) Corporation of London v. Eiggs, (k) Wardv. Ward, 1 Ex. 838.

supra; see and consider Serffv. Acton (t) Lovell v. Smith, 3 C. B. N. S.

Local Bd., 31 Ch. D. 679. ' 120, 126, 127.

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. connected with the enjoyment of property in its original

— state, infer a right to use it, into whatsoever form, or for

whatever purpose, that property may be changed " (m) ; where
it depends upon grant it may be lost by the user of it for
purposes not authorized by the terms of the grant (n) ; but
unless specially restricted, it will, as a general rule, be con-
strued as a right of way for all purposes (0). Thus, where a
right of way was granted to A. through a gateway belonging
to the vendor " to a wicket gate to be erected by A.," leading
into part of the property conveyed to him, and A., instead
of building a wicket gate, erected a cart shed, and claimed a
right of carriage way to it, it was held that no restriction
could be implied from the terms of the grant, and that the
purchaser was entitled to a right of way for all purposes (p).

As to water The law as to water and watercourses seems in its prin-

courses. cipal points to be as follows (q) : — Every riparian proprietor

has a prima facie right to fish the stream in front of his own

land (r) ; and to use it for his own purposes in any manner

(in] Wimbledon Commons Conser-
vators v. Dixon, 1 Ch. D. 362, 368,
per James, L. J. ; see also Bradburn
v. Morris, 3 Ch. D. 812.

(n) Allan v. Gomme, 11 A. & E.
759 ; and see Henning v. Burnet, 8
Ex. 192; Williams v. James, L. R.
2 C. P. 577 ; Wood v. Sounders, 10
Ch. 582.

(o) United Land Co. v. G. E. E.,
10 Ch. 586 ; Newcomen v. Coulson,
5 Ch.D. 133 ; Finch v. G. W.R. Co.,
5 Ex. D. 254. Thus, a right of way
may include the right of space for
turning ; Knox v. Sanson, 25 W. R.
864.

(p) Watts v. Kelson, 6 Ch. 166 ;
see note, p. 169. See, too, Somerset
v. G. W. R. Co., 46 L. T. 883, where
the meaning of a " right of ingress,
egress, and regress," in connection
with a right of way, was explained
by Fry, J.

(q) As to the rights of a riparian
owner against a public body taking
or diverting the stream under statu-

tory powers, see Stone v. Mayor of
Yeovil, 2 C. P. D. 99 ; and see and
distinguish Bush v. Troiobridge Water
Co., 10 Ch. 459, which was decided
upon the construction of a special
Act. The effect of the diversion of
an old road and the substitution of a
new one, under sect. 16 of the R. C.
C. Act, seems to be to vest the old
road in the original owner freed
from the public right of way ; Mar-
quis of Salisbury v. G. N. R. Co., 5
C. B. N. S. 174. As to the rights
of a riparian owner to the user of a
navigable river, see Original Hartle-
pool Colliery Co. v. Gibb, 5 Ch. D.
713 ; Orr-Ewing v. Colquhoun, 2 Ap.
Ca. 839. As to the rights of riparian
owners in lakes, see Bristow v.
Cormican, 3 Ap. Ca. 641 ; Mackenzie
v. Banhes, ibid. 1324. There is no
rule that the solum of a lake ad
medium filum aqua is vested in the
riparian owners ; Bloomjield v. John-
ston, 8 I. R. C. L. 68.

(r) Lamb v. Newbiggin, 1 C. & K.

THE ABSTRACT. 415

not inconsistent with the exercise of a similar right by the Chap. VIII.

. Sect. 6.

proprietors of land above or below ; but he can neither as

against those below injure the quality of the water, nor
sensibly diminish its quantity, nor as against those above
can he dam up the water to their inconvenience (*). A
riparian owner cannot, except as against himself, confer on
anyone who is not a riparian owner any. right to use the
water of the stream ; and an action will lie by riparian
owners lower down against a non-riparian owner who has,
under a grant from a riparian owner, done any injury to the
stream (t). But in order to obtain either damages or an
injunction, some injury must be shown to have been done
to the lower riparian owners ; and no relief will be given
against such a non-riparian owner if, after using the water,
he return it undiminished and unpolluted (u) . The right
to divert and use the stream for the purpose of irrigation is
a question of degree, which cannot be precisely denned, but
depends upon the application of the above general principles
to the particular case (x) . "Where the right to a certain flow
of water has been acquired, it will not, it seems, be lost by
the application of the water to a new and more beneficial
use(y).

But the right to flowing water ex jure natures only pre- No right to
vails where it has a defined course ; and does not extend exce
to water flowing over, or soaking through, permeable land, l* *|a? a

channel.

549. As to who is a riparian owner, (t) Stockport Waterworks Co. v.

and as to the power of a riparian Potter, 3 H. & C. 300 ; Ormerod v.

owner to grant to a non-riparian Todmorden Mill Co., 11 Q. B. D. 155.
owner the use of the watercourse, see (u) Kensit v. 0. E. R. Co., 27 Ch.

Nnttallv. firacewell,!,. R. 2 Ex. 1. D. 122. As to the form of relief,

(*) See Wright v. Howard, 1 S. & see Pennington v. Prinsep Hall Coal

S. 190 ; Mason v. Hill, 2 B. & Ad. 1 Co., 5 Ch. D. 769.
(commented on in Orr-Ewing v. Col- (x) See Wood v. Waud; Embrey v.

quhoun, 2 Ap. Ca. at p. 854) ; Acton v. Owen, supra; A.-G. v. Corp. of Ply -

Blundell, 2 M. & W. 349 ; Wood v. mouth, 9 B. 67 ; Elmhirst v. Spencer,

Waud, 3 Ex. 748 ; Embrey v. Owen, 2 M. & Gr. 45 ; Sampson v. Hoddinott,

6 Ex. '353 ; Rawstron v. Taylor, 11 1 C. B. N. S. 590 ; Earl of Sandwich

Ex. 369 ; Miner v. Gilmour, 12 Mo. v. G. N. R. Co., 10 Ch. D. 707.
P. C. 186 ; and see Swindon Water- (y) See Holker v. Porritt,'L. R. 10

works Co. Y. Wilts and Berks Canal Ex. 59 ; and see Watts v. Kelson, 6

Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 697. Ch. 166. As to who is a riparian

owner, see Holker v. Porritt.

416

THE ABSTRACT.

ChsL-V«in' Before & has found its way into a definite channel (z). If
— the existence of a subterranean watercourse be a matter of
notoriety, the landowner's rights are the same as if it were
superficial (a) ; thus, where there was a natural drainage by
means of " swallets," (i. e., funnel-shaped fissures in the rock
forming the Mendip Hills,) and the waters running through
them found an outlet at the base of the hills, a mine-owner
was restrained from fouling the surface water, to the injury
of the owner of an ancient mill who had long enjoyed the
water in an unpolluted state ( b) . But the principles which
regulate the rights of owners of land in respect of water
flowing in a certain defined course, whether in an open
stream, or by a known subterranean channel, are wholly in-
applicable to water percolating through underground strata
without any definite course (c) ; thus, it has been held that
the owner of an ancient mill could not maintain an action
against a landowner, who, by sinking a deep well on his own
ground, had intercepted the water which would have other-
wise percolated through the soil into a river which supplied
the motive power to the mill (d) ; and the mere fact of such
landowner obtaining control over the water so intercepted
will not impose on him the obligation to prevent it from
flowing into the adjoining land as it did before it was inter-
cepted (e) ; but where water from a spring flows in a natural
, channel, the landowner cannot cut off the spring at its
source, to the injury of a riparian proprietor lower down the
stream (/) ; and he may not use his right to water percolat-

(z) Broadbcnt v. Ramslotham, 11 9 L. R. Ir. 172. As to the meaning

Ex. 602 ; and see Rawstron v. Taylor, of a "known and defined" channel

ibid. 369, 382. in this connection, see Slack v. Bally-

(a) Dickinson v. Grand Junction mena Commissioners, 17 1*. R. Ir. 459.
Canal Co., 7 Ex. 300, 301 ; but see (c) Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L.
Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L. C. C. 349 ; and see Acton v. Blundcll,
349 ; Grand Junction Canal Co. v. 12 M. & "W. 324.

Shugar, 6 Ch. 483. (d) Chasemore v. Richards, suprd,

(b) Hodgkinson v. Ennor, 4 B. & S. questioning Dickinson v. Grand Junc-
229. Underground water, not flow- tion Canal Co., 7 Ex. 300.

ing in defined channels, may be ex- (e) West Cumberland Co. v. Kenyan,

pr ess] y granted : Whitehcadv. Parks, 11 Ch. D. 782.

2 H. & N. 870; but see and dis- (/) Dudden v. Guardians of Glutton

tinguish JEwart v. Belfast Guardians, Union, 1 H. & N. 627.

THE ABSTRACT. 417

ing through underground strata, so as to draw off the water Chap. VIII.
flowing in a defined channel on his neighbour's land (g) ; but -
although the owner of land has no right to restrain the inter-
ception of water wlu'ch percolates into liis land, he is entitled
upon general principle to restrain the adjoining owner from
polluting it (h).

A right to use a natural stream for the purpose of washing Prescriptive
ore, and carrying off the sand, stone, and rubble dislodged in "ftream.0
the necessary working of a mine, may be acquired by custom
or prescription (i) ; but where a prescriptive right to foul a
stream has been acquired, the fouling must not be increased
to the prejudice of the other riparian proprietors (k) ; nor so
as to increase the pollution by a novel mode of user (/) . The
mere suspension of the exercise of the prescriptive right is
not sufficient to destroy it, unless there is some evidence of
an intention to abandon it ; but where dye-works had been
disused for more than twenty years, the right of fouling the
stream which attached thereto was held to be lost (m).

The same rules, which regulate the rights of user of a Distinction

bet WGGH

natural stream, apply also, in general, to an artificial water- natural and

t*r* • I

course, but with this modification, viz., that in determining Watercourses
what rights can be acquired in respect of an artificial water- Jjj respects
course, the special or temporary purpose for which it was which may be
originally constructed, and has since been used, must not be
overlooked («) . Thus, a user for twenty years of the flow of

(g] Grand Junction Canal Co. v. ruption from natural causes, see Hall

Shugar, 6 Ch. 483. v. Swift, 4 Bing. N. C. 381 ; and as to

(h) Ballard v. Tomlimon, 29 Ch. D. the right to pollute streams or rivers,

115. see Goldsmidv. Tunbridge Wells Com-

(i) Carlyon v. Levering, 1 H. & N. moners, 1 Ch. 349 ; A.-G. v. Corpora-

784. tion of Leeds, 6 Ch. 583.

(k) Crossley v. Lightowler, 2 Ch. (») Mayer v. ChadwicJc, 11 A. & E.

478. 571 ; Sutcli/e v. Booth, 9 Jur. N. S.

(1) Baxendale v. McMurray, 2 Ch. 1037 ; Nuttall v. Bracewell, L. R. 2

790. Ex. 1 ; Beeston v. Weate, 5 E. & B.

(m) Crossley v. Lightowler, supra, 986 ; Roberts v. Richards, 50 L. J. Ch.

and see also as to suspension of the 297, and see Rameshur Singh v. Koonj

easement, Ladyman v. Grave, 6 Ch. Pattuk, 4 Ap. Ca. 121, where it was

763 ; and as to long -continued inter- held that under the circumstances a

B. VOL. I. E E

418 THE ABSTKACT.

Chap. VIII. water from the agricultural drainage of adjoining land gives

no right to its continuance (o) ; so, no prescriptive right by

user can be acquired to the overflow of water from a lock,
so as to prevent a canal company from improving the con-
struction of the lock (p) ; so, a person receiving water dis-
charged from a mine cannot insist on a continuance of such
discharge (q) ; so, the flow of water for twenty years from
the eaves of a house into a neighbour's yard, does not pre-
vent the owner of the house from pulling it down, or altering
it so as to discontinue or lessen the supply of water from the
roof (r).

As to canals. The waters of a canal, having been devoted by the Legis-
lature to that special purpose, are, as respects the power of
adjoining owners to acquire a right over them, on a different
footing from waters flowing in their natural stream, or in an
ordinary artificial watercourse ; and the general rule that the
purpose for which artificial waters have been collected must
be regarded in determining whether any prescriptive rights
have been acquired over them, applies with especial force to
the waters of canals («) .

As to right to A right to pump water from a mine, and to use it, and

from a mine then let it off over adjoining land, has been held to be a right

and use it. Q£ « watercourse" within the Act (t) ; so, a right to discharge

rain-water from the roof of a house upon adjoining land may

be acquired by twenty years' user (w). "We may here remark

that a reservation of " water and soil" has been held to mean

only water in its natural condition, and such matters as are

legal right was to be presumed to the (r) Wood v. Waud, 3 Ex. 748;

overflow of water flowing through an Arkwright v. Gell, supra.

artificial channel from a reservoir. (s) Staffordshire Canal Co. v. Bir-

(o) Greatrex v. JIat/ward, 8 Ex. mingham Canal Co., L. R. 1 H. L.

291 ; Wood v. Waud, 3 Ex. 748. 254 ; and see and consider Mason v.

(p) Staffordshire Canal Co.v.Bir- Shrewsbury and Hereford R. Co., L.R.

mingham Canal Co., L. R. 1 H. L. 6 Q. B. 578.

254. (t) Wright v. Williams, 1 M. & W.

(q) ArJcwright v. Gell, 5 M. & W. 77.

203. (u) Thomas v. Thomas, 2 C. M. &

R. 34.

THE ABSTRACT. 419

the result of the ordinary use of land for purposes of habita- Chap. VIII.

oGCL. u*

tion, and not to include refuse from a manufactory (x).

The bed of all tidal navigable rivers, and of all arms of the As to owner-
sea, presumably belongs to the Crown ; but primarily for watercourse.
the benefit of the subjects : and the public right of naviga-
tion is paramount to the private right even of an express
grantee of the soil (y] . As between the Crown, or the Crown's
grantee and a seaside landowner, the right of the former is
presumably limited by the line of medium high-tide, between the
springs and the neaps (z) . Where a river is not navigable, i. e.,
not tidal (<?), the presumption is that each riparian proprietor
is entitled, subject, of course, so far as the river is navigable
to the public right of navigation (6), to the soil usque ad
medium aquce (c) ; being similar to the presumption which
exists in regard to roads (d). And it seems to be now settled
that a riparian owner on a navigable river may exercise all
rights of ownership on the bed of the river (e. g., by building
thereon), so long as he does not interfere with the right of
navigation in the public, or the rights of other riparian
owners (e) ; and the rule is the same in the case of a tidal
as of a non-tidal stream (/).

Every landowner, independently of prescription, and as As to the

an original right incident to property, is entitled to so much lateral sup-
port.

(x} Chadtcick v. Marsden, L. E. 2 328.

Ex. 285. (a) Murphy v. Ryan, 2 I. R. C. L.

(y] Gann v. Free Fishers of Whit- 143, 152.

stable, 11 H. L. C. 192; see, too, (b) A.-G.v. Terry, 9 Ch. D. 423.

Malcolmson v. O'Dea, 10 H. L. C. (c) Wishart v. Wyttie, 1 Macq. 389.

593. There is no such presumption in

(z) A.-G. v. Chambers, 4 D. M. & respect of large inland lakes : Bristow

G. 206. As to the title to lands v. Cormican, 3 Ap. Ca. 641 ; Bloom-

gained from the sea, either by alluvion Jieldv. Johnson, 8 I. R. C. L. 68.

or dereliction, and either by natural (d) Reg. v. Pratt, 3 C. L. R. G86 ;

or artificial causes, see A.-G. \. see ante, p. 411.

Chambers, 4 D. & J. 55. As to the (e} Orr-Ewing v. Oolqukoun, 2 Ap.

right of the owner of the foreshore Ca. 839 ; and see Bickett v. Morris,

to remove shingle, see A.-G. v. L. R. 1 Sc. & D. 47, as to the rights

Tomline, 14 Ch. D. 58. As to the of the opposite riparian owner,

title to foreshore in Cornwall, see (/) A.-G. v. Earl of Lonsdale, 7

Mayor of Penryn v. Holm, 2 Ex. D. Eq. 377.

E E 2

420 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. lateral support from his neighbour's land as is necessary to

— - keep his soil in its natural state (g) ; but he has no primd

facie right to overburden his own land by buildings, and
then to require an extraordinary amount of support by his
neighbour's land (/*). If, however, his buildings, although of
recent erection, do not contribute to the subsidence — that is
to say, if the facts show that the subsidence would have
occurred even if the buildings had not been erected, — he is
entitled to full damages in case of their being destroyed or
injured by subsidence caused by subterranean workings
How the under the adjoining land(^). Whether or not the right to
acquired.7 extraordinary support is an easement coming within the
provisions of the Act, is a question which was left open by
the recent decision of the House of Lords in Angus v.
Dalton (/). Such a right may, according to that case, be
acquired by twenty years' uninterrupted enjoyment for a
building proved to have been newly built, or altered so as
to increase the pressure at the beginning of that time, pro-
vided that the enjoyment is peaceable, and without deception
or concealment, and so open tKat it must be known that some
support is being enjoyed by the building. But the grant of
such an easement may be implied ; for a vendor on selling
part of his land is presumed to grant such a measure of
support from his adjacent land as is necessary for the land
sold in its then condition, or when applied to the purpose for
which the grant was expressly made ; but the precise measure
of such support depends upon the special circumstances of
each case (&). So, where houses are built on land belonging

(g] Hunt v. PcaJce, John. 705 ; (i) JBroivn v. Robins, 4 H. & N.

Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 E. & B. 123. 186 ; Slroyan v. Knowks, 6 H. & N.

This right is confined to such an 454.

extent of adjacent land as in its (j] 6 Ap. Ca. 740. The recent

natural and undisturbed state is case of Lemaitre v. Davis, 19 Ch. D.

sufficient to afford the requisite sup- 291, is an authority for answering

port : Corp. of Birmingham v. Allen, the question in the affirmative.

6 Ch. D. 284. (k) Gal. R. Co. v. Sprot, 2 Macq.

(h] Harris v. Ryding, 5 1VL & W. 449 ; Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L.

60 ; Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B. C. 348 ; Roberts v. Haines, 6 E. & B.

739 ; Jeffries v. Williams, 5 Ex. 792 ; 643 ; Haines v. Roberts, 7 E. & B.

Smart v. Morton, 5 E. & B. 30. 625 ; Cal. R. Co. v. Ld. Belhaven, 3

THE ABSTRACT. 421

to the same owner, and are then sold to different purchasers. Chap. VIII.

Sect. 6.

or some are sold and others retained by the landowner, the -
right to mutual support will be presumed, by way of reserva-
tion or grant in the several conveyances (k) ; but where two
adjoining plots or houses belonging to the same owner are
sold at different times, the measure of support to which the
second purchaser is entitled depends on the terms of the
contract entered into with the first (/).

When the right of support is interfered with by the with- When right
drawal from the adjoining land of the necessary supporting accrues for
strata, no right of action accrues until some actual damage ^p^tWal C
has resulted from the withdrawal of the support (m) ; and
the damage must be appreciable (n) : but if the party with-
drawing the support insists that he has a right to do so,
without being liable for any damage resulting therefrom, he
may, it seems, be restrained by injunction, although no actual
mischief has occurred (o) . It follows from the doctrine laid
down in Bonomi v. Backhouse that each fresh subsidence is
itself a new cause of action. Thus, where there was a subsi-
dence in 1868 for which compensation was made, and no
further working took place, but in 1882 a fresh subsidence
occurred owing to workings by an adjacent mineowner, it
was held that the Statute of Limitations was no bar to an
action for the injury done by the fresh subsidence, although
it occurred so many years after the workings had ceased (p) .

A reservation or grant of minerals, with power to work Right of sur-

,-, i , . ,-! -i « , . i ,. , face owner to

them, does not, in the absence of express stipulation, deprive support where

Macq. 56 ; Backhouse v. Bonomi, 9 Ex. 259 ; see, too, Elliott v. N. E.

H. L. C. 503 ; Smith v. Darby, L. R. Co., 10 H. L. C. 333.

R. 7 Q. B. 716 ; Siddons v. Short, 2 (n) Smith v. Thackcrah, L. R. 1

C. P. D. 572 ; Rigby v. Bennett, 21 C. P. 564.

Ch. D. 559. (o) N. E. R. Co. v. Elliott; Siddons

(k) Richards v. Rose, 9 Ex. 218 ; v. Short, and Riff by v. Bennett, ubi

Nicholls v. Gay ford, ib. 702. supra.

(I) Murchie v. Black, 19 C. B. N. S. (p) Darlcy Main Colliery Co. v.

190. Mitchell, 11 Ap. Ca. 127 ; overruling

(m) Backhouse v. Bonomi, supra, Lamb v. Walker, 3 Q. B. D. 389.
overruling NicJdin v. Williams, 10

422

THE ABSTRACT.

minerals and
the right to
work them
are reserved.

Chap. VIII. the surface owner of his natural right to the support of the

Sect. 6.

subjacent strata ; the presumption being that he retains the

right to enjoy the surface modo et forma as it was before(^),
even though it may be impossible to work the mines with-
out causing a subsidence or an absolute destruction of the
surface (r) : and the right of support which a surface owner
is presumed to retain for himself on a sale of minerals, be-
longs equally to an allottee under an inclosure, where the
minerals and the right to work them are reserved to the lord
of the manor (s) : and it is now well settled that the ordinary
presumption is not rebutted by the mere fact that the Inclo-
sure Act or deed of grant contains " wrords, however large,
applicable to the right of working, and privileges connected
with it, and compensation to be paid for working, and for the
use of those privileges, which may receive full effect con-
sistently with the right of support" (t). And where A., by
draining his land, causes a subsidence of the land of B., an
adjoining owner, he is not liable for the injury thus occa-
sioned ; the Common Law doctrine as to the right to support
not extending to subterranean water (u).

Minerals are We may here remark that the Land Tax Redemption
implication Acts, in authorizing sales of lands belonging to ecclesiastical

on sales by corporations, for the purpose of redeeming the Land Tax
ecclesiastical

corporations charged on their other lands, provide for an implied reserva-
land tax. ' tion of the minerals. It is believed that the point is not un-

frequently overlooked in practice.

(<7) Dugdale v. Robertson, 3 K. & J.
695; Rogers v. Taylor, 2H. &N. 828 ;
Harris v. Ryding, 5 M. & W. 60, and
Smart v. Morton, 5 E. & B. 30 ; and
see Roivbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L. C.
348, where there was an express
stipulation ; Smith v. Darby, L. R.
7 Q. B. 716; Davis v. Treharne, 6
Ap. Ca. 460 ; Dixon v. White, 8 Ap.
Ca. 833 ; Sett v. Love, 9 Ap. Ca. 286.

(r) Wake field v. Duke of Buccleuch,
4 Eq. 613 ; and cases there cited ;
8. C., L. R. 4 H. L. 377 ; Hext v.
Gill, 7 Ch. 699 ; case of china clay

which could not be worked without
destroying the surface.

(*) Roberts v. Haines, 6 E. & B.
643 ; Wakefeld v. Duke of Buccleuch,
ubi supra.

(t) Love v. Sell, 9 Ap. Ca. 286, 289 ;
Gill v. Dickinson, 5 Q. B. D. 159 ;
and cf . Bcnfieldside Local Bd. v. Con-
sett Iron Co., 3 Ex. D. 54 ; see, too,
Davis v. Treharne, 6 Ap. Ca. 469 ;
and Dixon v. While, 8 Ap. Ca. 833.

(>{) Popplewell v. Hodkinson, L. R.
4 Ex. 248 ; and see Wilson v. Wad-
dell, 2 Ap. Ca. 95.

THE ABSTRACT. 423

The absolute owner of a mineral stratum, whether under Chap. VIII.

Sect. 6.

a grant or a reservation, is entitled to use it for any purpose

_

he thinks fit, not inconsistent with the rights of the owner stratum may

purposes.

of the surface, e.g., as a means of access to adjoining mineral au

property (x). The effect of a reservation of mines is that the
space of sub-soil containing the minerals, as well as the
minerals therein, remains the property of the grantor, whether
the minerals have been worked out or not (y) . But this is
not so in the case of copyholds, where, although the minerals
are the lord's, yet the space, formerly occupied by them, after
they have been worked out, belongs to the copyholder, who
can maintain trespass against anyone using the vacant
space (s) ; unless the mine, as well as the minerals, is by Act
of Parliament expressly reserved to the lord (a) .

By the 77th section of the Railways Clauses Consolida- A railway

tion Act, a railway company is not to be entitled to any 10

mines of coal, ironstone, slate, or other minerals, under any mmerals

J except by

lands purchased by it, except only such parts thereof as express pur-
shall be necessary to be dug or carried away, or used in the
construction of the works, unless the same shall have been
expressly purchased : but it may always secure sufficient
support by the purchase of the subjacent minerals (b) ; and
may delay such purchase until the necessity for it arises (c).
If, however, the company decline to purchase, the mine-

(x) Proud v. Hates, 34 L. J. Ch. 406 ; (a) BallacorJcish Silver Mining Co. \.

Duke of Hamilton v. Graham, L. R. Harrison, L. R. 5 P. C. 49.

2 Sc. & D. 166; more fully reported (1} Sect. 78; and as to the com-

in 7 Ct. Sess. Ca. 3rd ser. 976 ; and pensation payable, see Smith v. G.

see also Duke of Hamilton v. Dunlop, W. R. Co., 3 Ap. Ca. 165. As to

10 Ap. Ca. 813. -what is included under the term

(y) Ramsay v. Blair, 1 Ap. Ca. " minerals," see an te, p. 130.

701 ; and as to the distinction between (c) Sect. 6 of the L. C. C. Act em-

a right to the coal under a close, as a powers the railway company to pur-

right to land, and a right to take chase the minerals under the lands

coal in another's land (which is a compulsorily, even though they have

profit a prcndre], see Wilkinson v. already got the lands, and this power

Proud, 11 M. & W. 33. is not abridged by the 77th section of

(z) Eardlcy v. Granville, 3 Ch. D. the R. C. C. Act ; Errington v. Met.

826 ; and see Boivser v. Maclean, 2 D Dist. R. Co., 19 Ch. D. 599 ; and see

F. & J. 420. Dixon v. Gal. JR. Co., 5 Ap. Ca. 820.

424 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. owner may work the minerals in a proper manner according

— — to the custom of the district (d) ; and the company cannot,

under its statutory purchase, claim the benefit which an
ordinary purchaser would have had to the subjacent and
adjacent support (e). So, a statutory power to construct a
sewer does not imply the ordinary right to the necessary
lateral support ; in such a case, the easement must be acquired
by purchase (/). But the Public Health Act, 1875, imposes
on landowners, through whose land a sewer is made under
that Act, an obligation to preserve to such sewer subjacent
support, and gives them a right to immediate compensation
for being deprived of free power to work subjacent mines,
but not for the risk of percolation of sewage into the sub-
jacent mines (g).

Claims of Claims of rights of common and other profits d prendre,

common and become primd facie valid after thirty years' uninterrupted
* enjoyment (h) ; and cannot be defeated by mere proof of such
enjoyment having commenced at any prior period ; but until
sixty years' uninterrupted enjoyment, they remain liable to
be defeated in any other way in which they might have been
defeated before the passing of the Act. After sixty years'
uninterrupted enjoyment, they become absolute and inde-
feasible, unless proof be given of such enjoyment having been
under some consent or agreement expressly made or given

(d) See sect. 79. Ch. D. 634.

(e) G. W. E. v. Bennett, L. R. 2 (/) Metr. Hoard of Works v. Metr.
H. L. 27; G. W. E, Co. v. Fletcher, E. Co., L. E. 4 C. P. 192; and see
5 H. & N. 689 ; and see Gal R. Co. 18 & 19 V. c. 120, ss. 135, 150, 151 ;
v. Sprot, 2 Macq. 449, a case before and 11 & 12 V. c. 112, ss. 38, 66.
the Railways C. C. Act ; Dudley (g} Ee Corporation of Dudley, 8 Q.
Canal Co. v. Grazelrook, 1 B. & Ad. B. D. 86 ; and under the Gasworks
59; and see Pountney r. Clayton, 11 Clauses Act, 1847, Normanton Gas Co.
Q. B. D. 820, a case of purchase v. Pope, 52 L. J. Q. B. 629, 636, per
of superfluous lands where the com- Fry, L. J.

pany had not bought the minerals (A) See Bailey v. Appleyard, 8 A.

under them. As to communications & E. 161. The title acquired by

between mines lying- on either side user can be merely co-extensive with

of the line and compensation to the the user, Davits v. Williams, 16 Q.

owner of such mines, see sects. 80 B. 546.
and 81, and M. E. Co. v. Miles, 30

THE ABSTRACT.

425

for that purpose by deed or writing (i). But a claim to a
right of common, &c., may be defeated after thirty years'
enjoyment by showing that it could not have had a legal
origin (k) ; and it would seem that the Act does not apply
to any case where the establishment of a right by means of
it would be a violation of the express terms of statutes pro-
hibiting the granting of such a right (/) : nor where the claim
is one which cannot be lawfully made by custom, prescrip-
tion, or presumed grant (m).

A right to hawk or fish, implies a right to carry away the Claim of right
game or fish ; and is therefore a right of profit d prcndre (n) ;
and even a right to angle for amusement, leaving the fish on
the shore for the landowner, has been held to be of the same
nature (0) ; so, also a right to shoot (p). But the mere right
to hunt, that is, to follow in the pursuit of game over land,
does not of itself import the right to the animal when taken ;
and, if confined to the individual claimant, would seem to be
attributable to a mere personal licence of pleasure : but where
the right is exercisable by the claimant or his assigns " along
with servants," it is considered to involve a right to carry off
the game (<?), and is an interest in land within the meaning
of the Statute of Frauds (r) .

(i) Sect. 1. Welcome v. Upton, 5
M. & W. 398. The Prescription Act
(see s. 1) relates only to claims which
may be lawfully made at common
law; Morley v. Clifford, 20 Ch. D.
753 ; and see Earl de la Warr v.
Miles, 17 Ch. D. 535.

(k) Mill v. New Forest Commis-
sioner, 18 C. B. 60 ; or that there
has been a release of part of the land
over which it extends; Johnson v.
Barnes, L. R. 8 C. P. 527.

(T) Mill v. New Forest Commr.,
supra.

(m) Clayton v. Corby, 5 Q. B. 415 ;
A.-G. v. Mathias, 4 K. & J. 579.

(n) Wickham v. Hawker, 7 M. &
W. 63 ; Ewart v. Graham, 1 H. L.
C. 331 ; and therefore a custom to
enjoy such a right must be reason-

ably limited ; Allgood v. Gibson, 34
L. T. 883. As to the limitations of
a claim to a profit d prendrc, see
Commrs. of Sewers v. Glasse, 1 Ch.
456, 465; Edgar v. Special Commrs.,
23 L. T. 732. So, too, the right of
fishing cannot be the subject of
reservation : Doe d. Douglas v. Lock,
2 A. & E. 705; and see Corcor v.
Payne, 4 I. R. C. L. 380; but see
Hamilton v. M^isgrove, 6 I. R. C. L.
129, a case in the Landed Estates
Court.

(6) Bland v. Lipscombe, 3 C. L. R.
261.

(p) Webber v. Scott, 9 Q. B. D.
315.

(q) See Wickham v. Hawker, and
Eivart v. Graham, supra.

(r} Webber v. Scott, supra.

426

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII.
Sect. 6.

Fisheries in
tidal waters.

The right of fishing in tidal waters is primd fade vested in
all the subjects of the Crown (s), and seems to be so vested in
them, not as of common right, but by virtue of the ownership
by the Crown of the bed of all tidal waters (t} . Prior to
Magna Charta (u) , however, the Crown had power to grant a
several and exclusive right of fishing in such waters to indi-
viduals, and thereby to destroy the public right of fishing
therein.

Fishery in
non- tidal
waters.

Several
fishery.

This power was abolished by Magna Charta (w), and a
claim to such a several fishery by an individual can now only
be made on the strength of a grant from the Crown prior
to the reign of Henry II., or by prescription (x). This pub-
lic right of fishing extends only so far as the tide flows and
reflows (y) : nor does the fact of a river being navigable give
the public any right of fishing above the flow of the tide (2) ;
nor can the right be acquired by the public by immemorial
usage (a) : the reason being that above that point the bed no
longer belongs to the Crown, but is vested in the riparian
owners.

The right of fishing in non-tidal waters may exist in any
of the following forms : —

(1) A several fishery is a right to fish in a particular place
to the exclusion of others (£), and is, primd facie vested
in the owner of the alveus (c). But it may be

(s) Hale, De jure maris, c. 4 ; Mal-
colmson v. 0' Lea, 10 H. L. C. 593 ;
Bristow v. Cormican, 3 Ap. Ca. 641.

(t} Mayor of Carlisle v. Graham, L.
K. 4 Ex. 361.

(«) 9 Hen. III. c. 16.

(x) Hale, c. 5; Co. 2 Inst. 30;
Malcolmson v. 0' Lea, 10 H. L. C.
618 ; Holford v. George, L. R. 3 Q. B.
639 ; Edgar v. Commrs. of Fisheries,
23 L. T. 732 ; Neillv. Duke of Devon-
shire, 8 Ap. Ca. 135. If a several
right of fishery which existed before
Magna Charta revert to the Crown,
it may even now be granted by the

Crown ; ibid, at p. 180 ; Luke of
Northumberland v. Houghton, L. R.
5 Ex. 127.

(y) Hudson v. McCrea, 4 B. & S.
585.

(z) Hargreaves v. Liddams, L. R.
10 Q. B. 585; Mussettv. £urch, 35
L. T. 486 ; Pearce v. Scotcher, 9 Q.
B. D. 162.

(a) Murphy v. Ryan, 2 I. R. C. L.
143.

(b} Co. Litt. 122 a, Harg. note 181 ;
Malcolmson v. G1 Lea, 10 H. L. C. at
p. 619.

(c} Wishart v. Wyllie, 1 Macq. 389.

THE ABSTRACT. 427

acquired by a stranger either by grant, or prescrip- Chap
tion, to the exclusion of the owner of the soil (d).

(2) A free fishery is a right to fish in a particular place, Free fishery.

but not to the exclusion of others (e), and may be
claimed either in gross, or as appurtenant to land(/).

(3) Common of fishery differs little, if at all, from a free Common of

fishery (g) . It consists of a right to fish in the
water of another, in common with the owner of
the soil and it may be with others (h). Like other
common rights, it may be either appurtenant or in
gross (i), and is in each case subject to the incidents
of the class to which it belongs. Thus a common of
fishery appurtenant may be claimed by grant or pre-
scription as appurtenant to a tenement (k) . But it may
be separated from the tenement to which it was origi-
nally appurtenant (/), and then becomes a common
of fishery in gross. Such a right of fishery has no
relation to land, and must be claimed by grant or
prescription (m).

"Whether a grant of a several fishery by the owner of the Grants of

JlSrif^TMf^ *

soil will have the effect of passing the soil also, is still un- their ope'ra-
settled ; but on the whole, the better opinion would seem to 3n*

(d) Co. Litt. 122 a, Harg. note 181. (g] Co. Litt. 122 a, Harg. note
Shep. T. 97; Holford v. Bailey, 13 181; Woolrych on Waters, 123.

Q. B. 426. Where a several fishery (h) Benett v. Cottar, 8 Taun. 187.
is claimed by a stranger, it must, it (i) It has been sometimes said to

seems, be claimed either in gross or be appendant also. But in strict-

as appurtenant to a manor, and not ness it is very doubtful whether any

as appurtenant to land merely ; Rogers common can be appendant, except

v. Allen, 1 Camp. 312 ; Edgar v. that of pasture, which is created by

Commrs. of Fisheries, 23 L. T. 737, legal implication and is of com-

per Willes, J. If claimed in gross, mon right for the benefit of agricul-

it is not within the Prescription Act ; ture ; Bennett v. Reeve, Willes, 231 ;

Shuttleworth v. Le Fleming, 19 C. B. Elton on Commons, 14.
N. S. 687. (*) Sacheverett v. Porter, Sir W.

(e) Co. Litt. supra ; Malcolmson v. Jones, 396 ; Cro. Car. 482 ; Cowlam
O'Dea, 10 H. L. C. 593, 619. v. Slack, 15 Ea. 108 ; Edgar v.

(/) Edgar v. Commrs. of Fisheries, Commrs. of Fisheries, 23 L. T. 737.
23 L. T. 732, 737 ; Rogers v. Allen, (1) Teniel v. Ilarslop, 3 Keb. 66 ;

1 Camp. 312 ; Hayes v. Bridges, R. Hayes v. Bridges, R. L. & S. 390.
L. & S. 390. (m) Co. Litt. 122 a.

428

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. be that there is no presumption to that effect (n} . At any
Sect. 6. .

- rate, such a grant will not be deemed to exclude the grantor

himself from the right to fish (o). By a grant of a free fisher?/
no right in the soil will pass to the grantee ; nor will the
grantor be excluded from the right to fish (p). The grant
of a " fishery," co nomine, will apparently pass the largest
right the grantor has to give (q). So, too, a reservation of
right and privilege of fishing, where the grantor is at the
date of the grant possessed of a sole fishery, will reserve to
the grantor an exclusive right of fishery (r) .

Fishery in In small inland lakes and pools of which the soil is vested

in one common owner, the right of fishery is also his exclu-
sively. But with regard to large inland lakes, which are
navigable, but not tidal, and which are not wholly situated in
any one manor, it seems very doubtful how far the rule of
ownership ad medium filum aquce applies (*) . But it is at any
rate settled that the Crown has no right to the soil of such
lakes ; and that there can therefore be no public right of
fishing therein (t).

Bight to dig A right to dig coal or other minerals on another man's

coal &c.

land is a right to a profit a prcndre, and, if reasonable and
certain, may be claimed by prescription (n) ; though not by
custom (x) : but a claim to dig and carry away the soil from

(n) Co. Litt. 4b, 122 a; Harg. (q) Aldermen of London v. Hasting,

note 181 ; Shep. T. 97, though 2 Sid. 8.

Preston is of an opposite opinion ; see (r) Lord Paget v. Milles, 3 Doug,

his note, ibid. ; Marshall v. lilies- 43.

water Co., 3 B. & S. 732, per Cock- (*) Bloonifield v. Johnston, 8 I. R.

burn, C. J. ; Blooinfield v. Johnston, C. L. 68 ; Bristow v. Cormican, 3 Ap.

8 I. R. C. L. 68. But see contra, Ca. 641 ; and see Reg. v. Burrow, 3i

Marshall v. Ulleswater Co., supra, per J. P. 53.

Wightman and Mellor, JJ. There (t} Bloomjield v. Johnston, supra ;

was undoubtedly such a presump- Bristow v. Cormican, supra.

tion in pleadings ; but whether it (u] Paddock v. Forrester, 3 .Man. &

ever amounted to more than a rule of G-. 903 ; Wilkinson v. Proud, 11 M.

pleading is at least very question- & "W. 33.

able. (x) A.-G. v. Mathias, 4 K. & J.

(o) Bloomfield v. Johnston, supra. 579, 591 ; but see Eogers v. Brcnton,

(p} Ibid. 10 Q. B. 26.

THE ABSTRACT.

429

another's land, without stint or limit, cannot be established Chg£tV6IIL
by prescription (//).

Whether the right to the sole and several herbage and Right of sole

pasturage.

pasturage of land is within the Act seems doubtful (z) ; but
the right to take, along with others, any of the produce of
land, e.g., grass, turves, or trees — or of the soil itself, e.g.,
sand, clay or stones — is a right of profit d prendre, which
within reasonable limits may be claimed by prescription.
The right to enter and draw water from a natural spring is,
however, an easement, and not a profit d prendre; running
water being no part of the soil, nor the produce of the
soil (a) . There is no common law right in the public to enter
on the seashore for the purpose of gathering sea- weed (b) ; and
it has been held that, although sea- weed lying ungathered on
the shore is not the subject of larceny (c), yet an action for
trover by the owner of the foreshore will lie for it (d).

From what has been previously said, it would appear that Period for

which posses-
the period for which a vendor, in order to show a title under sion must be

the Act, must prove uninterrupted enjoyment, is as follows :
viz., twenty years in the case of lights ; forty years in the case tltle*
of ways, waters, watercourses, and other easements (except
lights) ; and sixty years in the case of rights of common and
other profits d prendre; but, in the second class of cases,
where the land or water which is sought to be affected by
the easement has, during the period of enjoyment, been held
for life, or for any term exceeding three years, the rever-
sioner (e), notwithstanding the expiration of the forty years,

(y) Clayton v. Corby, 5 Q. B. 415 ; 536, 542.

A.-G. v. Mathias, 4 K. & J. 579. As (a) Race v. Ward, 4 E. & B. 702.
to stone being a "mineral," see Dar- (b) Howe v. Stawell, Ale. & Nap.

vill v. Roper, 3 Dr. 294 ; and Sell v. 348 ; JBaird v. Fortune, 4 Macq.

Wihon, 1 Ch. 303 ; 2 Dr. & S. 395 ; 127 ; Healey v. Thome, 4 I. R. C. L.

and cases cited in judgments. See, 495.

too, Hextv. Gill, 7 Ch. 699, as to what (c) Reg. v. Clinton, 4 I. R. C. L. 6.

is included in the term " minerals ; " (d) Brew v. Haren, 11 I. R. C. L.

and ante, p. 130. 198.

(z) See Welcome v. Upton, 5 M. & (e) I. e. any person entitled to any

W. 398, 403 ; but see 6 M. & "W. reversion expectant on the determi-

430

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. has a period of three years from the determination of the
- — particular estate in which to resist the claim (/) ; so that

unless (as can seldom be the case) the vendor can show the
title to the land or water, he cannot, by evidence of enjoy-
ment, make a good title to the easement (g) : and enjoyment
which gives no title as against the reversioner, gives no title
as against the owner of the particular estate (h) : and it must
be observed that, as regards the primd facie title which is
gained by a thirty or twenty years' possession under the first
and second sections of the Act, the time during which there
may have been any disability, or a subsisting life estate, is
altogether excluded by the seventh section. But as respects
the easement of light, the Statute contains no reservation of
the rights of the reversioner (i) .

Enjoyment In all the above cases (except that of a claim to light),

must have .

beenuninter- the eiij oyment must have been uninterrupted^), "as of
of right n ' right " (I) ; and must have been subsisting within, at most,
a year before the commencement of the action in which it is
relied on (m) : the claim therefore may be defeated by show-
ing that for the whole or a part of the period relied on the
enjoyment was by parol licence, or was exercised by stealth,
or without the knowledge of the parties interested in opposing
the claim (w), or was only exercised at long intervals for a

nation of a term for life or years ;
sect. 8. "Reversion" means reversion
strictly, and must not be confounded
with remainder; Symons v. Leaker,
15 Q. B. D. 629.

(/) Sect. 8. See Talk v. Skinner,
18 Q. B. 568 ; on the interpretation
of the section see Laird v. Briggs, 19
Ch. D. 22, 33, per Jessel, M. R.

(ff) Bright v. Walker, 1 C. M. & R.
219.

(h) S. £221.

(i) Vide ante, p. 405.

(&) Onley v. Gardiner, 4 M. £ "W.
500.

(I) See Beeston v. Weate, 5 E. & B.
986.

(m) Sec Parker v. Mitchell, 11 A.

& E. 788 ; Flight v. Thomas, 8 C. &
F. 231 ; Lowev. Carpenter, 6 Ex. 825.
(n) See Bright v. Walker, 1 C. M.
& R. 219; Tickle v. Brown, 4 A. &
E. 369 ; Partridge v. Scott, 3 M. &
W. 220 ; Winship v. Hudspeth, 10
Ex. 5. As to the rights of rever-
sioners, see Beggan v. McDonald, 2 L.
R. Ir. 560; Laird v. Briggs, 19 Ch.
D. 22. And it has been held in Ire-
land that one lessee can by forty
years' enjoyment acquire a right of
way against another lessee from the
same lessor, notwithstanding the
unity of seisin ; Beggan v. McDonald ;
Fahcy v. Dwycr, 4 L. R. Ir. 271 ;
Harris v. De Pinna, 33 Ch. D. 238,
251 ct seq.

THE ABSTRACT. 431

particular purpose (o), or on sufferance (/?), or that the party
exercising it was himself, during all or any part of such
period, entitled to the possession of the property sought to
be affected (17). In cases falling under sections 1, 4 and 7, of
the Act, an enjoyment, as of right, may be proved by showing
enjoyment for several periods, amounting together to the
statutory time ; and that, during the entire intervals between
such periods, and between the last of them and the action (if
such interval intervened), the estate sought to be affected was
in the hands of a tenant for life or for years exceeding three
years (r).

But, as respects the easement of light, the mere fact of Except in

cases of light,
uninterrupted enjoyment for twenty years, otherwise than

by consent given by deed or writing, confers an absolute
title. The enjoyment need not be "as of right ; " so that
proof of a parol licence is immaterial («) ; and so as there be
no submission to or acquiescence in (t) an adverse interruption,
absolute continuity of enjoyment is not essential (u) ; nor
does the existence of disabilities or particular estates make
any difference ; but the enjoyment of the access of light must
have been in the character of an easement, distinct from the
enjoyment of the land sought to be affected ; so that sixty
years' enjoyment of lights looking out upon a garden which
the owners of the house had held during that period as
tenants from year to year, was held insufficient to confer a
title (x) .

(o) Hollins v. Verney, 13 Q. B. D. pare on this point Ladyman v. Grave,

304. 6 Ch. 763 ; and Outram v. Maude, 17

( p) Tone v. Preston, 24 Ch. D. 739 ; Ch. D. 391.

Harry v. Lowry, 11 I. R. C. L. 483. (r) Clayton v. Corby, 2 Q. B. 813.

(q) Onley v. Gardiner, 4 M. & W. (s) Mayor of London v. Pew-

500 ; Clayton v. Corby, 2 Q. B. 813 ; terers' Company, 2 Mo. & R. 409 ;

Clay v. Thackrah, 9 C. & P. 47 ; Flight v. Thomas, 11 A. & E. 688,

Battishillv. Reed, 18 C. B. 696 ; Har- 695 ; and see Plasterers1 Co.v. Parish

bidge v. Warwick, 3 Ex. 552 ; James Clerks' Co., 6 Ex. 630.

v. Plantt 4 A. & E. 761 ; Simper v. (<) Glover v. Coleman, L. R. 10

Foky, 2 J. & H. 555. As to the non- C. P. 108.

extinguishment of a necessary ease- (u) Ladyman T. Grave, 6 Ch. 763.

ment by unity of seisin, see Pheysey (x) Harbidge v. Wanvick, 3 Ex.

v. Vicary, 16 M. & W. 484. Com- 552.

Chap. VIII.
Sect. 6.

Interruption
— what it is.

432 THE ABSTRACT.

By interruption, it may be observed, is meant an adverse
obstruction, and not a mere discontinuance of user (y] ; but
the question, whether a discontinuance was voluntary or
otherwise, is one for a jury (z) ; and although interruptions
for less than a year will not in themselves prevent the
operation of the Statute, yet they have a material bearing
upon the question whether the enjoyment has, in fact, been
"as of right " (a) ; and an interruption by a stranger is
within the Act (b). So that, as between vendor and pur-
chaser, it would seem to be necessary to give evidence of
(so near as may be) continuous user (c) . It has been held,
in the case of light, that payment of rent for the easement
is not an "interruption;" but the Court left untouched the
question whether such payment showed the enjoyment to be
different from that contemplated by the Act (d) . It has been
decided by the House of Lords (e) , affirming the decisions
of the Court of Queen's Bench and Exchequer Chamber, that,
under the 4th section of the Statute, which provides that no
act shall be deemed an interruption, unless submitted to or
acquiesced in for one year, a party who has uninterruptedly
enjoyed or used the easement or right for any period exceed-
ing one year short of the term which would be sufficient to
confer a statutory title, can, upon being disturbed in his
enjoyment or user at any time within the last year of the
statutory term, at once claim the benefit of the Statute.

Title under By the 3 & 4 "Will. IV. c. 27, the time within which pro-
Limitations? ceedings could be commenced either at Law or in Equity for
the recovery of any land(f), or of any rent, was restricted to
a period of twenty years (#), or, in case of continuous (h)

(y) Carr v. Foster, 3 Q. B. 581 ;
and see Reg. v. Chorley, 12 Q. B.
515 ; Ladyman v. Grave, 6 Ch. 763.

(z) Carr v. Foster, supra.

(a) Eaton v. Swansea Water Works
Co., 17 Q. B. 267, 274.

(V) Davies v. Williams, 16 Q. B.
546.

(c} See Lowe v. Carpentef, 6 Ex.

825 ; Hollins v. Verney, 13 Q. B. D.
304.

(d) Plasterers' Co. v. Parish Clerks'
Co., 20 L. J. Ex. 362, 364 ; 6 Ex. 630.

(e) Flight v. Thomas, 8 C. & F.
231.

(/) Or title deeds.

(g] See sects. 2 and 24.

(h) Goodall v. Sforratt, 3 Dr. 216.

THE ABSTRACT. 433

disabilities (/), forty years from the time at which the right Chap. Vin.
to proceed for the recovery of such land or rent first accrued —
to the plaintiff, or to the party through whom he claimed (k) .
These limits of time have been still further reduced to twelve
and thirty years respectively by the Heal Property Limitation
Act, 1874 (/), which came into operation on the 1st January,
1879, and with which the earlier Act, except so far as its
provisions are expressly repealed, is to be read and con-
strued (m). The old doctrine of non-adverse possession was
done away with by the earlier Act, except in cases falling
within the loth section (»), which has now ceased to be
operative.

The word " land " by force of the first section of the earlier " Land "—its
Act includes all corporeal hereditaments, and also tithes (ex-
cept tithes belonging to a spiritual or eleemosynary corpora-
tion sole), and any share or interest therein (0). The opera-
tion of the Statute is confined to cases where there are two
parties, each claiming an interest in the land or tithes : and
does not apply as between tithe-owner and terre-tenant (p) ;
but by 53 Greo. III. c. 127, s. 5, the period of account in
equity for tithes as between the terre-tenant and tithe-owner
is limited to six years before filing the bill (q).

The word "rent" by the same section includes heriots, and "Rent"— its
all services and suits for which a distress may be made ; and
all annuities (qq) , and periodical sums of money charged upon •A-ct-
or payable out of any land (except moduses or compositions
belonging to a spiritual or eleemosynary corporation sole).
The term has been held to include quit-rents (r), and even a

(t) See sects. 16, 17, 18 and 19. the word "land" in future Acts of

(k) See sect. 1 ; and Doe v. Ed- Parliament, see 13 & 14 V. c. 21, s. 4.

monds, 6 M. & W. 295 ; Magdalen (p) See Dean and Chapter of Ely

Hospital v. Knotts, 4 Ap. Ca. 324 ; v. Cash, 15 M. & W. 617.

Mayor of Brighton v. Guardians of (q) Goode v. Waters, 20 L. J. Ch. 72.

Brighton, 5 C. P. D. 368. (qq) Re Nugent1 » Tr., 19 L. R. Ir.

(1) 37 & 38 V. c. 57. 140.

(m) Sect. 9. . (r) De Beauvoir v. Owen, 5 Ex.

(») Nepean v. Doe, 2 M. & W. 894. 166, 176 ; Lord Chichester v. Hall, 17

(o) As to the statutory meaning of L. T. O. S. 121.

D. VOL. T. F F

434

THE ABSTRACT.

Chip. VIII. tithe rent-charge (s) ; but not rent reserved on a demise as

Sect. 6.
between tenant and reversioner (t) . So, heriots payable at

uncertain intervals, and rent payable at greater intervals than
twenty years (a case not likely to happen), do not fall within
the statutory definition («) .

What is the
commence-
ment of the
suit.

Saving in
case of dis-
ability, &c.

Issue of the writ, and not service, is the commencement of
the action for the purposes of the Acts (x) ; and as an amended
bill wras held to date from the filing of the original bill (y) ,
so, it is conceived, an amended writ dates for this purpose
from the issue of the original writ : but unnecessary delay in
instituting or prosecuting the proceedings may disentitle the
plaintiff to the assistance of the Court (z). The appointment
of a receiver prevents time from running in favour of (<?), but
not as against (/>), a stranger to the suit.

The Act of 1874 contains a saving clause in case of dis-
ability arising from infancy, coverture, idiotcy, lunacy, or
unsoundness of mind (c) ; in any of which cases an action
may be brought at any time within six (under the earlier Act,
ten) years next after the time at which the person, to whom
the right to bring the action shall have first accrued, shall have
ceased to be under such disability, or shall have died. This
saving clause applies where there is a succession of disabili-
ties without break ; thus (d), where A., being an infant when

(s) Irish Land Commission v. Grant,
10 Ap. Ca. 14.

(t) Grant v. Ellis, 9 M. & W. 113.

(M) Lord Zouche v. Dalbiac, L. R.
10 Ex. 172.

(x) Coppin v. Gray, 1 Y. & C. C. C.
205; Morris v. Ellis, 7 Jur. 413;
Purcell v. Blennerhassctt, 3 J. & L.
24 ; Harrisson v. Duignan, 2 D. &
War. 295 ; Forster v. Thompson, 4
D. & War. 303 ; but see A.-G. v.
Hall, 11 Pr. 760.

(y) Blair v. Ormond, 1 De G-. & S.
428; Syron v. Cooper, 11 C. & F.
556.

(z) Forster v. Thompson, Coppin v.

Gray, ubi supra.

(a) Wrixon v. Vize, 3 D. & War.
104, 123 ; Bertie v. Lord Abingdon,
3 Mer. 567 ; Penney v. Todd, 26 W.
R. 502. See and consider Ee Greene's
Est., 13 L. R. Ir. 461.

(b) Harrisson v. Duignan, 2 D. &
War. 295.

(c} Sect. 3. This section does not
apply as between mortgagor and
mortgagee ; Kinsman v. Eoiise, 17
Ch. D. 104 ; Forster v. Patterson,
ibid. 132.

(d) Borrows v. Ellison, L. R. 6 Ex.
128 ; and cf. Lambert v. Browne, 5
I. R. C. L. 218.

THE ABSTRACT. 435

her title accrued in 1833, married during minority and con- Chap. VIII.
tinued under coverture until she and her husband brought -
their action in 1870, it was held that the action was main-
tainable. No action is to be brought where a person has
been subject to any of these disabilities, except within thirty
(under the earlier Act, forty) years after the right of action
first accrued (e) ; and no time beyond this maximum limit is
allowed for a succession of disabilities (/).

The 3rd section of the earlier Act fixes the time at which, Right when
in certain specified cases, the right shall be deemed to have have accrued
accrued : these cases, however, are put merely by way of m certam
illustration, and not with the view of limiting the operation
of the 2nd section (g). The general principle is, that when a General rule,
person has been in possession or receipt of the profits of the
land, or in receipt of rent, the right accrued at the time when
he ceased to hold such possession or receive such profits or
rent (h) ; while in the case of a person who has never had such
possession or receipt, the right accrued at the time when he
first became entitled (whether by descent, alienation, falling
in of a remainder or reversion, forfeiture, devise (i) or other-
wise) to enter into such possession or receipt. The possession
of an agent is the possession of his principal ; so that a prin-
cipal was held to have acquired a possessory title to an estate,
by receiving the rents of it for twenty years through his agent,
even as against the agent who was in fact himself the right-
ful owner (k) ; and on the same principle where an agent is in
receipt of the rents as an agent, time will not run against his
principal, although in fact he never received anything from

(e) Sect. 5. D. 485, a Divisional Court held that

(/) Sect. 18 of the earlier Act. the provisionsof thestatuteonly apply

(ff) See James v. Salter, 2 Bing. where there has been an omission by

N. C. 505 ; 4 Sc. 168. the party entitled to a rent to enforce

(A) Cf. Owen v. De Beauvoir, 16 M. his remedies with knowledge that the

& "W. 547. As to dispossession and rent has not been paid ; ted queere.

discontinuance of possession under (i) See James v. Salter, 4 Sc. 168,

sect. 3, see Leigh v. Jack, 5 Ex. D. 264. 1 80.

In Adnam v. Earl of Sandwich, 2 Q. B. (A) Williams v. Pott, 12 Eq. 149.

FF2

436 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. the agent (7) . A mortgagee may, however, recover the mort-
gaged land at any time within twelve years after the last

As against payment of principal or interest, notwithstanding twelve years
mortgagee. *• J J

or upwards may have elapsed since his right to enter accrued
under the mortgage deed (m) : and this, although a valid title
to the land, may, under the Statute, have been acquired by a
stranger as against the mortgagor (/?) : and a purchaser from
a mortgagee under a power of sale in the mortgage deed, or
from the mortgagee and mortgagor, is also, it appears, within
the saving (o) . Where the mortgage deed contains no pro-
vision for quiet enjoyment by the mortgagor until default,
the mortgagee upon the execution of the deed has an imme-
diate right of entry, and ejectment must be brought within
twelve years after its date, in default of any payment by the
mortgagor (p) . It seems the better opinion that a mortga-
gee's primd facie absolute title by twelve years' possession is
not defeated by his having kept accounts of the rents which
he has received, or by his having otherwise acted as if he
were only mortgagee (q). Time does not run against the
grantee of an annuity charged on land, so long as the annuity
is paid (>•).

As against As against an administrator, time runs from the death of

administrator. ^e person whose chattels he claims to administer (s) . If
a will contains no appointment of an executor or if the exe-
cutor renounces, a legatee under it whose legacy is charged
on land must, it is conceived, obtain the appointment of an
administrator within twelve years from the death of the tes-
tator, or else be barred of his right to recover the legacy (t).

(1} Smith v. Bennett, 30 L. T. 100. (p) Doe d. Rylance v. Lightfoot,

(m) 7 Will. IV. & 1 V. c. 28. 8 M. & W. 553.

Under a foreclosure decree, the right (q) Baker \.Wetton, 14 Si. 426;

to bring an action for possession ac- Sug. R. P. 117.

crues as from the date of the decree ; (r) Searle v. Colt, 1 Y. & C. C. C.

Pugh v. Heath, 7 Ap. Ca. 235. 36.

(«) Doe v. Eyre, 17 Q. B. 366; (s) Sect. 6. See Holland v. Clark,

Ford v. Ager, 2 N. R. 366. 1 Y. & C. C. C. 151, 170 ; Davies v.

(o) Doe v. Masscy, 17 Q. B. 373 ; Williams, 34 Ch. D. 558.

Mv. Williams, 5 A. & E. 291, 297. (t) 37 & 38 V. c. 57, s. 8.

THE ABSTRACT.

437

Time does not begrin to run against a remainderman, until Chap. VIII.

Sect. 6.
his right to possession accrues (w) ; but as against his right

As against

to recover damages from a tenant for life who has committed remainder-
a tortious act, e.g., who has wrongfully cut timber, the
Statute runs as from the date of such act (x). Where a
reversioner in fee grants to his lessee a concurrent lease, the
reversioner does not acquire an estate in possession, although
the former lease became surrendered by operation of law on
the granting of the new lease ; and therefore time does not
run against him, the surrender being merely by estoppel (//).

In the case of an express trust, i.e., a trust expressly de- In case of
clared by a deed, will, or other written instrument, the right
does not accrue under the 25th section of the Act until a
conveyance has been made to a purchaser for valuable con-
sideration ; and then only as against such purchaser and
persons claiming under him (z) : but, in order to bring a
case within this section, the relation of trustee and ccstui
que trust must be clearly constituted (a) ; though, of course,
it is not necessary that the word " trust" should be employed
in order to constitute the relation (b). The trust contemplated
by the section has been denned to be a trust expressed in
writing or by word of mouth, as distinguished from a trust
arising out of the acts of the parties, i.e., by implication of
law (c). Thus, a solicitor is not a trustee for his client so as
to come within the section (d) : nor is a mortgagee for the

(u) Thompson v. Simpson, 1 D. & (a) Law v. Bagwell, 4 D. & War.

War. 459, 489. 398 ; Young v. Lord Waterpark, 13

(x) Seagram v. Knight, 3 Eq. 398 ; Si. 204 ; 10 Jur. 1 ; Burnc v. Robin-

2 Ch. 628 ; Higginbolham v. Hawkins, son, ubi supra; and see Yardley v.

7 Ch. 676. Holland, 20 Eq. 428.

(y) C. C. C. Oxford v. Rogers, 49 (b) Commrs. of Charitable Donations

L. J. C. L. 4 ; and cf. Lyon v. Reed, v. Wybrants, 2 J. & L. 182, 197 ;

13 M. & W. 285. Hunt v. Bateman, 10 Ir. Eq. R. 3GO.

(z) Sect. 25. A.-G. v. Flint, 4 (c) Sands to Thompson, 22 Ch. D.

Ha. 147 ; Tetre v. Petre, 1 Dr. 397 ; 614, per Fry, J. And by virtue of

and see as to express trusts, Salter v. the Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25 (3),

Cavanagh, 1 D. & Wai. 668 ; Burne the section applies equally to per-

v. Robinson, ib. 668 ; Knight v. Bow- sonalty and realty : Banner v. Ber-

yerr 2 D. & J. 421 ; Bullock v. ridge, 18 Ch. D. 251, 262.

Downes, 9 H. L. C. 1 ; Nugent v. (d) Watson v. Woodman, 20 Eq.

Nugent, 15 L. R. Ir. 321. 721.

438

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. mortgagor, except in respect of the surplus moneys upon a
sale (e). But the Courts have in a few cases extended this
definition to cases which do not strictly fall within it, e.g., to
that of an agent who holds money for his principal (/) ; and
a receiver, appointed in an action, has been held to be an
express trustee within the section of moneys received by him
for the persons entitled (g) . The chief difficulty which arises
on the definition is whether an intention to constitute a trust
has been expressed. This is a question on which it is impos-
sible to deduce any general rule from the cases, since the
answer to it, in each of them, depends entirely on the construc-
tion of the language relied on as creating the trust (h) .

Under Judi- We may here remark that by the Judicature Act, 1873,

1873. "the claim of a cestui que trust against his trustee for any

property held on an express trust, or in respect of any breach

of such trust, is not to be barred by any Statute of Limita-

tions ('/).

Keal Property Under section 10 of the Real Property Limitation Act,
1874 (A'), an express trust no longer prevents time from
running against proceedings to recover any sum of money or
legacy charged upon or payable out of any land or rent at
law or in equity and secured by such trust. And it would
seem that the personal remedy against the trustee is also
barred on the principle of the recent cases of Stttton v. Sut-
ton (I) and Fearnside v. Flint (m) .

Limitation
Act, 1874.

Cases of
express trust
within the
section.

A trust by deed or will for the payment of debts, annuities,
portions or the like, is within the 25th section of the old

(e) Banner v. Berridge, 18 Ch. D.
254 ; and after six years no evidence
is admissible to prove that there was
a surplus : ibid.

(/) Burdick v. Garrard, 5 Ch. 233 ;
Gray v. Bateman, 21 W. B. 137 ;
Lake v. Bell, 34 Ch. D. 462.

(g) Seagram v. Tuck, 18 Ch. D. 296.

(h) Edwards v. Warden, 1 Ap. Ca.
281 ; Thomson v. Eastwood, 2 ib. 215 ;
Cunningham v. Foot, 3 ib. 974 ; Daiv-
klns v. Lord Penrhyn, 4 ib. 51.

(i) See 36 & 37 V. c. 66, s. 25,
sub-s. 2.

(£) 37 & 38 V. c. 57.

(I) 22 Ch. D. 511.

(m) Ib. 679.

THE ABSTRACT. 439

Act (/?) ; so, also, is a direction to trustees to pay the testator's Chap. VIII.

OGCTf* O.

debts, followed by a devise to them, subject to the payment -
thereof, upon trust for successive beneficiaries (o) ; but a Cases not
charge of debts, even though coupled with a direction to pay section,
them, is not an express trust, where there is no devise to the
executors ( p) ; so, a beneficial devisee of realty, charged with
the payment of debts or legacies, is not a trustee within the
section (q) : but where an express trust is created with regard
to charges upon land, it falls as much within the saving of
the Statute, as if the trust had applied to the land itself (r) ;
so, also, probably, where the land is devised upon trust for
sale with a direction that the proceeds are to be considered as
personal estate, and the land remains unsold, unless the
parties interested have elected to take the property as real
estate (s). Where the assignee of a bankrupt took for his
own benefit a conveyance from the trustee of a will of the
legal estate in property to which the bankrupt was equitably
entitled, it was held that he took it upon an express trust ;
t?/s., that declared by the will : and that the Statute afforded
no defence to a suit for the recovery of the estate, and the
mesne profits (t). A purchaser's liability for unpaid pur-
chase-money, under the ordinary vendor's lien, is not an
express trust (u) ; nor is a mortgage under the form of a
trust for sale (x).

But the rule that a trust is not barred by length of time, The section
applies only as between cestui que trust and trustee; and not as between8

trustee and
cestui que

(«) Dillon v. Cruise, 3 IT. Eq. R. see Tyson v. Jackson, 30 B. 381. trust'

70 ; Young v. Lord Waterpark, 13 Si. (r) Burrowcs v. Gore, 6 H. L. C.

20i ; 10 Jur. 1 ; Hunt v. Bateman, 907, 961.

10 Ir. Eq. R. 360 ; frauds v. Grover, (*) Mutlow v. Bigg, 18 Eq. 246 ;

5 Ha. 39. 1 Ch. D. 385.

(o) Hunt v. Bateman, supra. (t) Sturgis v. Morse, 3D. & J. 1 ;

(p) Dickinson v. Teasdak, 1 D. J. 2 I). F. & J. 223.

6 S. 52 ; and cases there cited ; 31 (u) Toft v. Stephenson, 1 D. M. &
Beav. 511. G. 28.

(q) Proud v. Proud, 32 B. 231; (x) Licking v. Parker, 8 Ch. 30;

and see Jacquet v.Jacquet, 27 B. 332. £e Alison, 11 Ch. D. 284 ; Chapman

As to an executor constituting him- v. Corpe, 27 "YV. R. 781.
self a trustee for a pecuniary legatee,

440

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. as between trustee and cestui que trust on the one side, and

— strangers on the other (y) : and the case of one cestui que

trust ousting his co-cestui que trust is not within the section (z) .

Fraud.

Rules of

&c., pre-

Charities
within the
Acts.

In cases of concealed (that is, of designed and hidden (a))
fraud, time does not begin to run until the fraud was, or, with
reasonable diligence, might have been, discovered (b) : but
this is not to affect a bond fide purchaser for valuable con-
sideration without notice or suspicion of the fraud. In the
case of a firm, it has been held that the fraud of one member
prevents time from running in favour of his copartners,
although innocent of, and deriving no benefit from, the
fraud (c) .

The earlier Act expressly provides against any interference
with the rules which guide a Court of Equity in refusing
relief, on the ground of acquiescence or otherwise, to any
person whose right to bring a suit may not be barred by
virtue of the Act (d).

The Acts contain no special saving in favour of charities ;
and it was for a long time doubted, and the earlier authori-

(y] See Llewellyn v. Mackworth,
Barn. C. 445.

(2) Burroughs v. H'Creight, 1 J. &
L. 290 ; Lister v. Pickford, 34 B.
576 ; Soiling v. Hobday, 31 W. R. 9 ;
Knight v. Bowyer, 2 D. & J. 43.
See as to agents, A.-G. v. Corp. of
London, 2 M. & GL 259. The insti-
tution of a suit to carry out the trusts
of a will, of course does not preserve
the right of the disinherited heir :
Simmons v. Rudall, 1 Si. N. S. 115.

(a) Petre v. Petre, 1 Dr. 397 ; Dean
v. Thwaite, 21 B. 621 ; Cheat ham v.
Hoare, 9 Eq. 571 ; Vane v. Vane, 8
Ch. 383; Willis v. Earl Howe, 50
L. J. Ch. 4. Actual possession for
sixty years, even without the know-
ledge of the owner, who during that
period has discontinued possession,
gives a title in the absence of de-

signed fraud ; Eains v. Buxton, 14
Ch. D. 537 ; and see Metropolitan
Bank v. Heiron, 5 Ex. D. 537.

(b) Sect. 26 ; and Lewis v. Thomas,
3 Ha. 26 ; Dean v. Thivaite, supra ;
Smith v. Acton, 26 B. 210. The
recent case of Gibbs v. Guild, 9 Q. B.
D. 59, of course refers only to the
statute 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, which con-
tains no such express exception.

(c) Blair v. Bromley, 2 Ph. 354 ; as
to fraud consisting in secretly pur-
chasing from a person non compos, see
Lewis v. Thomas, 3 Ha. 26 ; Green-
slade v. Dare, 20 B. 284 ; and com-
pare Manley v. Beivicke, 3 K. & J.
346.

(d} Sect. 27. See Life Assoc. of
Scotland v. Siddal, 2 D. F. & J. 72,
73 ; Thompson v. Eastwood, 2 Ap. Ca.
215 ; Blake v. Gale, 31 Ch. D. 196.

THE ABSTRACT. 441

ties seem to leave it an open question (e). whether the Chap. VIII.

Sect. 6.

Statute was intended to apply to them. The ground for —
this doubt was, that prior to the Statute, no lapse of time
was a bar to the claims of a charity ; and the question was,
whether this ancient equitable rule was still to prevail ; or
whether, in the absence of express exemption, the ordinary
statutory limitation was applicable in the case of a purchaser
of a charity estate. It is now, however, well settled that
charities fall within the general prohibition contained in the
24th section ; and the ordinary statutory bar extends, not
merely to an absolute alienation, but also to an improvident
lease of the charity estate (/). But in order that the
charity may be bound, there must be some person com-
petent to make a claim on its behalf ; thus, where there is
no trustee, or none properly appointed, or where there are
no ascertained objects of the charity, the Statute will not
run (g] : and where, as is generally the case, the charity
estates are held upon express trusts, they fall within the
saving of the 25th section.

No person is to be deemed to have been in possession of Entry,
any land, within the meaning of the Acts, by reason merely
of his having made an entry thereon (h} : but this refers to
a merely formal entry. If A., the owner, actually turn B.,
the occupier, out of possession, this saves the statutory bar,
although A. retain possession for only one hour, and B.
immediately resume it(/). So, where a writ of ejectment
was served by the owner on a tenant at will, and it was
then verbally arranged that the latter should remain in the

(e) See Incorporated Society v. Rich- (/) A.-G. v. Payne, and A.-G. v.

ards, 1 D. & War. 288; A.-G. v. Davey, supra ; and see Magdalen Coll.

Persse, 2 D. & War. 69; and see v. A.-G., 6 H. L. C. 189; Magdalen

A.-G. v. Mayor of Coventry, 2 Vern. Hospital v. Knotts, 4 Ap. Ca. 324.

399 ; but see Commrs. of Charitable (g] Incorporated Society v. Richards,

Donations v. Wybrants, 2 J. & L. 1 D. & "War. 258; A.-G.y. Persse,

182, 195; Magd. Coll. v. A.-G., 6 2 D. & War. 67.

H. L. Ca. 189, 206 ; A.-G. v. Wil- (h) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, s. 10.

kins, 17 B. 285; A.-G. v. Davey, 4 (t) Randall v. Stevens, 2 E. & B.

D. & J. 136 ; A.-G. v. Payne, 27 B. 641.
168.

442

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. occupation of part of the property during his life, it was

Sect. 6*

- — held that this amounted to an actual entry ; and that as a
new tenancy was created, the Statute began to run from
this time, and not from the date of the original tenancy (k) .

Tenancy at
will.

Mortgagor
tnut. !* ^

The 7th section of 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27 enacts, that the
right of a person entitled subject to a tenancy at will is to be
deemed to have first accrued, either at the determination of
such tenancy, or at the expiration of one year next after the
commencement of such tenancy, at which time such tenancy
shall be deemed to have determined (/) ; but it provides that
no mortgagor or cestui que trust shall be deemed to be a tenant
at will within the meaning of this clause to his mortgagee or
trustee. This proviso is applicable only to cases of express
trusts; and not to cases of a quasi-fiduciary character (w).
Where a purchaser is let into possession before completion,
he is primd facie a tenant at will within the section («).
In cases of express trust, a cestui que trust, whose possession
is consistent with the trust, is, for general purposes, tenant
at will to his trustee (o) ; and the object of the above pro-
vision seems to have been, to preserve the legal estate of
the trustee, which, under the old law, was secured by the
necessity that possession should be adverse in order to take
away the right of entry. However, in the case of Doe d.
Jacobs v. Phillips (p), the Court of Queen's Bench seem to
have considered the trustee of a term was barred by the
possession of his cestui que trust : the opinions expressed
upon this point were, however, extra judicial ; for, admitting
the cestui que trust to have been tenant at will, the trustee
before bringing the action should have determined the
tenancy by notice, which he had not done (q) ; but these

(k) Locke v. Matthews, 13 C. B. N.
S. 753 ; Randall v. Stevens, 2 E. & B.
641.

(1) Day v. Day, L. K. 3 P. C. 751 ;
Mayor of Brighton v. Guardians of
Brighton, 5 C. P. D. 368.

(m) Drummond v. Sant, L. R. 6
Q. B. 763 ; Sands to Thompson, 22
Ch. D. 614.

(«) Doe v. Rock, 4 Man. & G-. 30 ;
and see Doe v. Carter, 9 Q. B. 863 ;
Westbrook v. Kcrrick, 3 F. & F. 59.

(o) See 1 Jarm. Conv. 28 ; Sug. 480.

(p) 10 Q. B. 130.

(q} As to what conduct amounts
to an admission of a subsisting te-
nancy at will, see Doe v. Groves, 10
Q. B. 486.

TilE ABSTRACT. 443

dicta in Doe v. Phillips have not been followed (r). In a Chap. VIII.
modern case, where in 1771 parties under a building agree- -
ment and a private Act of Parliament became entitled to
peppercorn-leases for 99 years of a piece of reclaimed
land adjoining the land comprised in the original agreement,
and they entered and retained possession without acknow-
ledgment of the freeholder's title or any payment of rent
(the full rent mentioned in the agreement having been
reserved upon leases of the lands therein comprised), it was
held that their possession had been merely that of ccstnis que
trust : and that they were bound, on the expiration of the
term, to give up the reclaimed land as well as the other
land («) ; so, too, the encroachment of a tenant, either with
or without the consent of his landlord, does not create a
tenancy within the section, and time will not run under the
Statute until the determination of the lease (t). It has,
however, been held, that where land is vested in trustees in
fee, in trust for A. for life, with remainders over, and A.
having never been in the actual personal occupancy of the
land, allows B. to occupy for the statutory period, without
payment of rent, or acknowledgment of title, B. thereby
acquires a valid title to the fee simple (u) : — a doctrine, the
practical importance of which can scarcely be over-estimated.
A Court of Equity, however, will presume that a father
entering on the estates of his infant children, so entered as
their natural guardian, and not tortiously, unless the con-
trary be clearly shown ; and will treat the case as that of a
trustee (a?). So, the entry by an uncle (the nearest male
relative) upon lands of his infant niece, was not considered to

(r) Garrard v. Tuck, 8 C. B. 231 : E. 534, 553.

and see Young v. Lord Waterpark, (s) Drummond v. Sant, L. R. 6 Q.

10 Jur. 1 ; Cox v. Dolman, 2 D. M. B. 763, 766.

& G-. 599 ; Lord St. Leonards' judg- (t) Whitmore v. Humphries, L. R.

ment in Scott v. Scott, 4 H. L. C. 7 C. P. 1. See, as to copyholds,

1085 ; Lord Manrfeld v. Ogle, 7 D. A.-G. v. Tomllne, 5 Ch. D. 750.

M. & G. 181 ; Drummond v. Sant, (u) Melling v. Leak, 16 C. B. 652.

L. R. 6 Q. B. 763. Executory trust (#) Thomas v. Thomas, 2 K. & J.

held not within the section : Stewart 79 ; and see Wall v. Stanwick, 34 Ch.

v. Marquis of Conyngham, 1 Ir. Ch. D. 763.

444

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. be an entry by a stranger (y). Where the tenancy deter-
- mined before the passing of the Act, the right of entry is to
be considered as having accrued at the time of such deter-
mination (2) ; but, where the tenancy was subsisting when
the Act came into operation, the right is barred by the lapse
of twenty years from the end of one year after the com-
mencement of the tenancy (a) . Where the money due upon
a mortgage has been paid off, but the legal estate has not
been reconveyed to the mortgagor, a tenancy at will is created
between mortgagee and mortgagor, and time begins to run
accordingly (b) .

Tenancy from
year to year.

Right of
action saved
by acknow-
ledgment of
title ;

The right of a person entitled subject to a tenancy from
year to year or other period, without any lease in writing (c),
is to be deemed to have accrued at the end of the first year
or other period, or last receipt of rent, which shall last
happen (d). It has been held, that the performance of a
service for which distress might have been made, e. #., sweep-
ing the church and tolling the bell, amounts to payment of
rent within the meaning of this section (e).

The acknowledgment in writing of title, given to the
person entitled or his agent by the person in the actual pos-
session or receipt of the profits of the land or receipt of the
rent, is equivalent to such possession or receipt by the person
so entitled (/) , and time is constantly running from the last

(y) Felly v. Bascomb, 4 Giff. 390 ;
aff. 11 Jur. N. S. 52, but Turner,
L. J., declined to express any
opinion.

(z) Doe v. Thompson, 6 A. & E.
721 ; Doe v. Page, 5 Q. B. 767 ; Doc
v. Bold, 11 Q. B. 127; as to what
amounts to a determination of a
tenancy at will, see Turner v. Doe,
9 M. & W. 643 ; Doe v. Carter, 9 Q.
B. 863 ; Randall v. Stevens, 2 E. &
B. 641.

(a) Doe v. Moore, 9 Q. B. 555 ;
Doe v. Carter, 9 Q. B. 863 ; Doe v.
Eyre, 17 Q. B. 366; see Randall v.
Stevens, 2 E. & B. 641.

(b) Sands to Thompson, 22 Ch. D.
614.

(c} "Which must be an instrument
passing an interest. Doe v. Gower,
17 Q. B. 589.

(d) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, s. 8 ; on
the construction of which see Lyell v.
Kennedy, 18 Q. B. D. 796.

(e) Doe v. Benham, 7 Q. B. 976 ;
as to the 8th sect, being retrospec-
tive, see Doe v. Sumner, 14 M. & "W.
39. As to the provisions of sect. 9,
where the lease is in writing, see
post, p. 447.

(/) Sect. 14.

THE ABSTRACT. 445

acknowledgment (g). In the recent case of Bitnling v. Chap. VIII.
Sargent (/*), Sir George Jessel held that where rent had not
been paid for twenty years, and some arrears were paid sub-
sequently as such, within five years of action brought, the
plaintiff's right was not barred. This decision is somewhat
difficult to reconcile with the decisions of the same learned
judge in Re Alison (i) and Sanders v. Sanders (k).

Whether a particular writing amounts to a sufficient What is a
acknowledgment of title within the 14th section, is a ques- ackuowledg-

tion for the Court, and not for a jury to decide (/) : an
acknowledgment may of course be made out from letters (m). tion-
If contained in a deed, it speaks not from its date, but from
the time of execution («). An answer in a Chancery suit,
though made under compulsion, is a sufficient acknowledg-
ment (o). In one case (p), a question seems to have been
raised whether an inscription on a stone let into a wall, stating
by whom it was built and to whom it belonged, was or was
not an acknowledgment within the Act ; but the Court of
Appeal held that while the inscription remained on the wall
no question of the Statute, or of adverse possession, could
properly arise.

Under this section (q), the acknowledgment must be signed By whom the
by the party in possession ; and the signature of an agent is ment°mustgbe

(y) Burroughs v. M'Crcight, 1 J. & as to what is a sufficient acknow-

L. 290, 304. ledgment cases cited above, and

(h) 13 Ch. D. 330. Trulock v. Robcy, 12 Si. 402 ; Hoi-

(i) 11 Ch. D. 284. land v. Clark, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 151 ;

(£) 19 Ch. D. 373 ; post, p 452. Cawley v. Fnrnell, 12 C. B. 291;

(/) Doe v. Edmonds, 6 M. & W. Smith v. Thome, 18 Q. B. 134;

295 ; Morrell v. Frith, 3 M. & W. Chascmore v. Turner, L. K. 10 Q. B.
402; Sid well \. Mason, 3 Jur. N. S. ' 500; Quincey v. Sharpe, 1 Ex. D.

649. 72 ; Sheet v. Lindsay, 2 Ex. D. 314 ;

(/>*) Incorporated Soc. v. Richards, Green v. Humphreys, 26 Ch. D. 474 ;

1 D. & War. 290 ; Fitrsdon v. Clogg, Ingram v. Little, 1 C. & E. 186.
10 M. & W. 572; Lord St. John v. (p) Phillipson v. Gibbon, 6 Ch.

Boughton, 9 Si. 219. 428.

(n) Jaynes v. Hughes, 10 Ex. 430 ; (q) Compare sect. 28, where the

Lewis v. Thomas, 3 Ha. 34. acknowledgment must be signed by

(o) Goode v. Job, 5 Jur. N. S. 145 ; the mortgagee himself, or the person

Moodie v. Bannister, ib. 402 ; and see claiming through him.

446

Chap. VIII.
Sect. 6.

signed under
this section.

Possession cf
one joint
owner does
not save the
right of
another.

THE ABSTRACT.

not sufficient, as in the cases provided for by the 40th and
42nd sections. As between landlord and tenant, the receipt
of rent is equivalent to the receipt of the profits of the
land (r) ; but the performance of a service for which no
distress can be made, e.g., keeping up a grindstone on the
land for the use of the parties beneficially interested (s) , does
not prevent the Statute from running in favour of the
occupiers.

The possession, &c., of one coparcener, joint tenant, or
tenant in common, is not to be considered as the possession,
&c., of any other (t) ; nor is the possession, &c., of the
younger brother, or other relation of an heir, to be considered
the possession, &c., of such heir(?f). It should be observed
that, where two persons enter wrongfully, they, being dis-
seisors, enter as joint tenants (x) ; and, therefore, where two
persons by adverse possession for the statutory period acquire
a title under the Statute, they do so as joint tenants (y).

Estates in The right of a remainderman, reversioner, or executory

remainder,

«&c.— when devisee (s), accrues when his estate falls into possession (a) :
run against. an(l this, although he may have waived a previous for-
feiture (/;), or granted a concurrent lease whereby there has
been a surrender of the old lease by estoppel (c) , and
although, in the case of a reversioner, he, or the person
through whom he claims, may have been in possession
previously to the creation of the particular estate (d) : but

(>•) Sect. 35.

(s) Doe v. Hinde, 2 Mo. & R. 441 ;
Doe v. Benham, 7 Q. B. 976, 978.

(t} Sect. 12; Burroughs*?. M'Crcight,
1 J. & L. 290 ; this clause is retro-
spective : see Galley v. Doe, 1 1 A. &
E. 1008 ; Doe v. Horroclcs, 1 C. & K.
566 ; Doe v. Woodroffe, 2 H. L. C.
811, 833.

(u) Sect. 13.

(x} Co. Litt. 181 a.

fy) Ward v. Ward, 6 Ch. 789;
Boiling v. Hobday, 31 W. R. 9.

(z) See James v. Salter, 3 Bing.
K. C, 544, 554.

(a] Sect. 3 ; see Doe v. Edmonds,
6 M. & W. 295 ; Duke of Leeds v.
Earl Amherst, 2 Ph. 125.

(b] Sect. 4 ; this section includes
a breach of condition, and is to be
construed liberally ; Astley v. Earl
of Essex, 18 Eq. 390.

(c) C. C. C. Oxford v. Rogers, 49
L. J. C. L. 4.

(d) Sect 5 ; and see Doe v. Ed-
monds, 6 M. & W. 295 ; Re Bertning-
ham's Estate, 5 I. K. Eq. 147. This
section has been repealed and re-
enacted by sect. 2 of the Act of 1874,
the main difference being as to time.

THE ABSTRACT. 447

where the same person who is entitled to the particular estate Chap. VIII.

Sect. G.

is also entitled to the immediate beneficial reversion, time -
will run against both estates even although there may be no
merger (^). Where rent amounting to 20s. per annum or
upwards, reserved by a lease in writing, is received by a Lease in
wrongful claimant, no fresh right accrues to the reversioner
upon the determination of the lease (/) ; and the title to the
reversion is in effect transferred to the wrongful recipient of
the rent : but, in order to bar the rightful reversioner, there
must be actual receipt of the rent by a wrongful claimant ;
its mere retention by the tenant is immaterial (#). The
existence of a lease containing general words sufficient to
comprise the property in question, but which was not
intended to comprise it, and has not been acted on as
respects such property, would not, it appears, prevent the
Statute from running (#) : and where the right of a person
to an estate in possession is barred, the right of such person,
and of all parties claiming under him, to any future estate,
is also barred, unless the land or rent is in the meantime
recovered by some person claiming in right of some inter-
vening estate (/). Where there was a limitation to husband
and wife for their joint lives, with remainder to the heirs of
the husband, who became bankrupt, the last limitation was
held to be a future estate within the meaning of this section :

The right of the remainderman must ibid. p. 355, as to the construction
now be asserted either -within twelve of the word "rent" throughout the
years from the date at which the right 9th section; and see Grant v. Ellis,
accrued to the person whose prior 9 M. & W. 113. As to what is
interest has determined, or within "rent wrongfully received" within
six years from the date at which the the meaning of this section, see
estate of the remainderman became Shaw v. Keighron, 3 I. R. Eq. 574 ;
vested in possession, whichever pe- Williams v. Pott, 12 Eq. 149.
riod is the shorter. Where the owner (a) Doe v. Oxenham, 1 M. & "W.
of the particular estate dies after con- 131; Chadicick v. Broadwood, 3 B.
veyance thereof, the alienee, and not 308 ; see, however, Ex parte Jones, 4
his vendor, is " the person last en- Y. & C. 466 ; as to rents of mines
titled " under the section ; Pedder v. reserved in specie, see Denys v. Shuck-
Hunt, 18 Q. B. D. 565. burgh, 4 Y. & C. 42.

(e] Doev. Moulsdale, 16 M. & W. 689. (h) See Dean and Chapter of Ely v.

(/) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, s. 9 ; Bliss, 5 B. 574.

this provision is retrospective ; see (i) Sect. 20 ; and see Doe v. Mouls-

Doe v. Angell, 9 Q. B. 328 ; see dak, 16 M. & W. 689—698.

443

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. and the possession of the land by the surviving wife, although
- taken without legal proceedings, saved the right of the
assignee of the husband (/»•).

JVIarried
woman, when
barred.

When a married woman and her husband join in a con-
veyance of her estate by an assurance which, for want of a
fine or statutory acknowledgment, is not binding on her,
time will begin to run against her and her heirs only from
the death of the husband (if tenant by the curtesy) ; or
from her death in his lifetime (if they have no inheritable
issue (/) ) : but where there is no conveyance binding on the
husband, but a mere abandonment of possession by husband
and wife, it has been held that time will run against her
from the date of such abandonment (m).

Remainders By the 2 1st section it is enacted, " That when the right of

expectant on

an estate tail a tenant in tail of any land or rent to make an entry or
when estate distress, or to bring an action to recover the same, shall
tail is barred. nave been barred by reason of the same not having been
made or brought within the period hereinbefore limited,
which shall be applicable in such case, no such entry, dis-
tress, or action shall be made or brought by any person

(£) Doev. Liver sedge, 11 M. & "W.
517.

(I) Jumpson v. Pitchers, 13 Si. 327 ;
see Sug. 483 ; Ncesom v. Clarkson, 2
Ha. 163.

(m) Doe v. Bramston, 3 A. & E. G3.
It has been held in Ireland that the
mere omission to work unopened
mines or quarries reserved to the
grantor of the surface, is not an
abandonment of possession ; and that,
in order that the statute may operate,
there must be both dereliction by the
person who has the right and actual
possession, whether adverse or not, to
be protected ; M'Donnell v. M'Kinty,
10 Ir. L. R. 5H, 526; cf. Smith v.
Lloyd, 9 Ex. 572; Earl of Dartmouth
v. Spittle, 19 W. E. 444. But the case
is different where a quarry has ceased
to be used, and has been allowed to

be filled up, and has thus been under
cultivation for over twenty years ;
Smith v. Stocks, 38 L. J. Q. B. 306 ;
and see Keyse v. Powell, 2 E. & B.
132 ; Tottenham v. Byrne, 12 Ir.
C. L. R. 376 ; Sug. R. P. 33 ; and
see Seddon v. Smith, 36 L. T. 168,
where a person was held by twenty
years' user of the surface to have
acquired a title, as against the lord,
to the minerals also ; and see, too,
Low Moor Co. v. Stanley Coal Co., 34
L. T. 186, where there was a demise
of several seams of coal, and a
working of two seams, and it was
held that the working was so carried
on as to have given possession of
the whole under the statute. But
compare Ashton v. Stock, 6 Ch. D.
719.

TtiE ABSTRACT. 449

claiming any estate, interest, or right which such tenant in Chap. VIII.

beet. 6.

tail might lawfully have barred " (w) : and the 22nd section,

in effect, provides that time which has commenced running against the
against a deceased tenant in tail, shall be counted as against estate tail
persons claiming in respect of any estate, &c., which he remainders.
" might lawfully have barred." These sections are retro-
spective : and when time has begun to run against the
tenant in tail, the remainderman has no extended time
allowed by reason of his being under disability, when his
estate falls into possession (o). But when the tenant in tail,
instead of being dispossessed, or allowing another person to
usurp possession, purports to convey the estate by an
assurance, which, although voidable by the issue in tail, is
binding on himself personally during his life, the issue has
the full statutory period from his death in which to claim
the estate (p).

The expression in each of these two sections " might law- But tenant
fully have barred," seems to require personal legal capacity have been sui
on the part of the tenant in tail to bar the remainders : Jurt8> 8t
from which this singular result would seem to follow ; t*?s.,
suppose the right of a tenant in tail to accrue in possession
when he is one year old, and that he attains twenty-one,
and dies the next day under no personal incapacity, the
Statute would run against remaindermen as from the time
when his right first accrued : but suppose him to die just
before attaining twenty-one, or to attain twenty-one an idiot
or lunatic, and so to continue until his death, in such a case it
would seem that remaindermen would be in no way affected
by the above sections of the Act. This construction, if it be
a correct one, must, in many cases where land has been

(n] See Austin v. Llewellyn, 9 Ex. the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27 ; Earl of

276. Where the right of entry by a Alergavenny v. flrace, L. R. 7 Ex.

tenant in tail was by a special Act 145.

unable to be barred, it was held that (o) Goodall v. Skerratt, 3 Dr. 216.

his right to eject a person, who had (p) Cannon v. Rimington, 12 C. B.

held over for forty years after the 1 ; but see report of Goodall v. Sker-

expiration of the lease, was not ratt, in 1 Jur. N. S. 57.
barred either by sect. 2 or sect. 21 of

D. VOL. I. G G

450 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. brought into settlement, materially interfere with the bene-
- — ficial operation of the Statute upon titles.

Base fee— The 23rd section, which has been repealed (#), and re-

become a fee enacted by the Act of 1874, with the substitution of twelve
for twenty years (r), has been a good deal discussed in the
profession. According to Lord St. Leonards its effect is,
" that where a tenant in tail executes a deed enrolled under
the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, which, for want of the consent of
the protector, operates only to create a base fee, under which
possession is obtained, the title will become good against
those in remainder at the end of twenty years from the
period when the tenant in tail, or his issue, could, without
the consent of any third person, have barred the remainders
over under the 3 & 4 Will. IY. c. 74 ; but this operation will
not be effected, if the assurance already executed would
not, if then executed without consent, have operated to bar
the estates in remainder " (s). It would seem that the
section, which applies only to assurances which are effectual
to bar the entail (£), has not a retrospective operation (u).

Here it may be observed, the same question arises as to
the necessity for personal legal capacity on the part of the
tenant in tail or his issue to execute a disentailing convey-
ance, as well as the non-existence of a protector, at the time
when the Statute is to begin to run.

And in the opinion of Lord St. Leonards base fees which
were created before the passing of the 3 & 4 Will. IY. c. 27,
are, as a general rule, at any rate where the remainder had
been discontinued and turned into a right, rendered unassail-
able by the 36th section of the Act (v).

(q) 37 & 38 V. c. 57, s. 9. (v) Sug. 484. The effect of this

(r) Ibid. s. 6. section, which abolishes real actions,

(s] Sug. 483, 484. is to bring into exercise the lower

(t) Morgan v. Morgan, 10 Eq. 99 ; remedy in the shape of an action for

Mills v. Capel, 20 Eq. 692. debt for a rent -charge in fee, created

(n) See Penny v. Allen, 7 D. M. & by deed, or for a tithe rent-charge

G-. 409 ; and 1 Jarm. Conv. 32. created by statute, where formerly

THE ABSTRACT. 451

The right of a mortgagor to redeem (r), is to be barred at ^jJ^jTJ11'
the end of twelve years from the mortgagee taking possession, - - —
or last giving a written acknowledgment of title. The redemption,
acknowledgment must be given to the mortgagor or some barred,
person claiming his estate, or to the agent of such mortgagor Acknowledg-
or person (y) ; and the 28th section of the earlier Act was
held to be retrospective ; so that where, before that Act, a
mortgage had been twice transferred, as such, by deeds to
which the mortgagor was no party, and no acknowledgment
of the equity of redemption had been given to him for
seventeen years before the passing of the Act, these years
were counted against him upon his subsequently filing a bill
to redeem (s). An acknowledgment given to one of several
mortgagors, or representatives of a mortgagor, operates in
favour of all : but an acknowledgment by one of several
mortgagees, or representatives of a mortgagee, does not affect
the proportionate interests of the others (a). If a mortgagee If mortgagee

•i »i . v • -in ,.,-j j , -t • is entitled to

while in possession is himseli entitled to such possession in possession, as
respect of a life or other limited interest in, or as a tenant in being, ™ie~

rested in

common of, the equity of redemption, the period for which equity of re-
he is so entitled will not be counted against the parties time does' not
entitled in remainder, or together with him, to the equity of T
redemption (b). Possession of any of the land comprised in
the mortgage is sufficient to make time run against the
mortgagor : and the old law that possession of any part by
the mortgagor would prevent time running is abolished by
tliis section (c). Where the mortgagor's right to redeem is
extinguished, the trust of surplus proceeds of a sale to be
made under the power of sale is also extinguished : and the

a writ of assize of novel disseisin (z) Batchclor v. Middkton, 6 Ha.

would have been good ; Thomas 75. Cf. Forsyth v. Bristcice, 8 Ex.

v. Silvester, L. R. 8 Q. B. 368; 716, a case under the 40th section.

Christie v. Barker, 53 L. J. Q. B. 537 ; (a) Sect. 28 ; and see Richardson v.

and see VarJey v. Leigh, 2 Ex. 446. Younge, 10 Eq. 275.

(x] 37 & 38 V. c. 57, s. 7, which (b) Rafferty v. King, 1 Ke. 601 ;

was substituted for sect. 28 of 3 & 4 Tull v. Owen, 4 Y. & C. 201 ; Hyde

Will. IV. c. 27, repealed by sect. 9 v. Dallaway, 2 Ha. 528 ; Wynne v.

of the later Act. Browne v. Bishop Styaii, 2 Ph. 303 ; Browne v. Bishop

of Cork, 1 D. & Wai. 700. of Cork, 1 D. & Wai. 714.

(y) Markwick v. Hardinghatn, 15 (c) Kinsman v. Rouse, 17 Ch. D.

Ch. D. 339, 352. 104.

G G 2

452

THE ABSTKACT.

Extinguished
right to re-
deem cannot

ment.

Chap. VIII. -trust does not attach upon a sale, made subsequently to the
- bar of the equity of redemption (d).

In former editions of this work doubts were expressed as
to the correctness of the decisions which laid down that the
mortgagor's title to redeem, though bound, and under the
34th section of the earlier Act, " extinguished," by twenty
years' adverse possession by the mortgagee, might be revived
by a subsequent acknowledgment (e). The decisions in
question have been overruled : and it is now settled that a
title, once barred, cannot be revived by a subsequent acknow-
ledgment (/) . Nor, after the statutory period has expired,
can the owner who is barred adopt the acts of a stranger as
the acts of his agent ( ff) .

No spiritual or eleemosynary corporation sole is to recover
any land or rents but within two successive incumbencies
and six years, or sixty years, (whichever be the longer
period,) from the time when the right accrued (g). It has
been held by the House of Lords that this section applies to a
case where the lands of such a corporation have become vested
in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (h) ; but this depended on
the wording of the special Act ; and the section does not
apply to an ordinary lay successor of such a corporation («').

No advowson is to be recovered, or right of presentation
enforced, but within three successive adverse incumbencies
or sixty years (whichever be the longer period), reckoning
therein incumbencies by lapse but not incumbencies after
promotions to bishoprics (,;') ; and a patron claiming in respect

Time allowed
for action,
&c., by
spiritual or
eleemosynary
corporation
sole.

For recovery
of advowson
or right of
presentation.

(d] Chapman v. Corpe, 27 W. R. 781.

(e) Stansfield v. Hobson, 3 D. M. &
G. 620 ; see Thompson v. Bou-yer, 9
Jur. N. S. 863.

(/) Re Alison, 11 Ch. D. 284;
Sanders v. Sanders, 19 Ch. D. 373.
And the fact that a mortgagee,
whose security is in the form of a
trust to sell, sells after twenty years'
possession under his power, instead
of as owner in fee under the statute,
will not alter his rights, or make
him trustee of the surplus for the

mortgagor. Re Alison, supra.

(//) Lyell v. Kennedy, 18 Q. B.
D. 796.

(ff) Sect. 29; Archbishop of Dublin
v. Cootc, 12 Ir. Eq. R. 251.

(A) Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. Roive,
5 Ap. Ca. 736.

(i) Irish Land Commission v. Grant,
10 Ap. Ca. 14.

(J) Sects. 30 & 31 ; see Robinson v.
Marquis of Bristol, 20 L. J. C. P.
208 ; see as to Ireland, 6 & 7 V.
c. 51, and 7 & 8V. c. 27.

THE ABSTRACT. 453

of an estate in remainder on an estate tail, is. for the purposes Chap. VIII.

Sect. 6.

of the statutory bar, to be considered as claiming through the -
person entitled to such estate tail (A-). Successive adverse
incumbencies extending over one hundred years form an
absolute bar, unless the benefice has been since enjoyed
under a rightful presentation ; and in calculating this period,
a presentation adverse to the owner of a particular estate is
considered adverse to remaindermen (/).

No money secured by any mortgage, judgment (//), or For recovery
lien, or otherwise charged upon or payable out of any land or charged on
rent, nor any legacy, is to be recovered but within twelve
(under the earlier Act twenty) years next after a present
right to receive the same shall have accrued to some person,
capable of giving a discharge for or release of the same ;
unless there has been some intermediate payment by the
person liable to pay (m) in respect of principal or interest, or
acknowledgment of right given in writing : in which case
the statutory period is to run from the date of such payment
or acknowledgment (ri).

From the above period must be excluded the time (if any) Time to be
during which the person entitled to the charge has been also
entitled to the possession of the land or rent ; or during which
the rents of the estate charged have been exhausted by prior
incumbrancers (o) : and where a term was vested in trustees,
in trust to raise portions for younger children, and, subject
thereto, the estate was limited in strict settlement, it was
held by Lord Lyndhurst that the possession of the estate
by the parties in reversion was consistent with the trust,
and that the statutory bar did not apply (p). So, also, in

(k) Sect. 32. («) 37 & 38 V. c. 57, s. 8. A

(1} Sect. 33. foreclosure action is an action for

(11} Execution cannot be issued the recovery of land, and is therefore

upon a judgment upon which no pay- not within this section. Wrixonv.

raent has been made for twelve years Vize, 3 D. & "War. 104; Pugh v.

in respect of principal or interest ; Heath, 7 Ap. Ca. 236.

Evans v. O'Donncll, 18 L. E. Ir. 170. (o) Knight v. Bowyer, 23 B. 635.

(m) Harlockv.Ashbcrry,19Ch.J). (p) Young v. Lord Waterpark, 13

539 ; Newbauld v. Smith, 29 Ch. D. Si. 204 ; 10 Jur. 1.

882 ; 33 Ch. D. 127.

454 THE ABSTRACT,

Chap. VIII. the case of a term in trust to raise annuities (a) : so, where an

Sect. 6. . .

- outstanding term is assigned in trust for a mortgagee (r) :

so, legatees, whose legacies are charged on land, are not to
be affected by lapse of time, while any prior charge is sub-
sisting (s) : so, where a legacy given upon certain trusts has
been severed from the general estate, time does not run
against the legatee under this section, although the fund
may remain in the hands of the executor (t) : so, where a
trust fund was inadvertently paid by the trustee to a person
not entitled to it, the Statute was held to be no bar to the
rightful claimant (M) : so, where a mortgagee is also tenant
for life of the mortgaged estate, time does not run against
the mortgage title until his death (#) : and the same rule
applies where he is tenant in common with others of the
mortgaged estate (y).

Tiie 40tl1 section> which. has been repealed by section 9, but
the 40th sec- re-enacted, with the substitution of twelve years for twenty,
by section 8 of the Heal Property Limitation Act (s), has
reference not to the land itself, but to actions for the recovery
of money, as, e.g., a mortgage debt secured by covenant, or
collateral bond (a) ; and a judgment debt is " money payable
out of land " within the meaning of the section (b) : so, also,
a vendor's lien for unpaid purchase-money (c) ; but whether
the produce of real estate directed to be sold is " money
payable out of land," has been doubted (d). It is now, how-

(q) Coxv. Dolman, 2 D. 51. & G. (x) Spickerncll v. Hot ham, Kay,

592 ; and see Pctre v. Petre, 1 Dr. 669.

396 ; Scott v. Scott, 18 Jur. 755 ; Low (y} Wynne v. Styan, 2 Ph. 303 ; and

v. Nash, 20 L. T. O. S. 123 ; Snow v. vide ante, p. 451.

Booth, 8 D. M. & G. 69 ; Lewis v. (z) 37 & 38 V. c. 57.

Duncombe, 7 Jur. N. S. 695 ; Re Ber- (a) Doe v. Williams, 5 A. & E.

minghani's Estate, 5 I. B,. Eq. 147. 296 ; Sheppard v. Duke, 9 Si. 567.

(r) Shaiv v. Johnson, 1 Jur. N. S. (#) Henry v. Smith, 2 D. & War.

IOC 5; and see #' Harass Tontine, 6 381; B er ring ton v. Evans, 1 Y. & C.

W. R. 45; and supra as to express 434; Watson v. Birch, 15 Si. 523.

trusts. (c) Toft v. Stcphenson, 7 Ha. 1 ; 1

(*) Faulkner v. Daniel, 3 Ha. 212. D. M. & G. 28 ; 5 D. M. & G. 735.

(t) Phillipo v. Munnings, 2 M. & (d) Pawsey v. Barnes, 20 L. J. Ch.

C. 309 ; Roch v, Callen, 6 Ha. 536 ; 393 ; but see Bowyer v. Woodman, 3

Dillon v. Cruise, 3 Ir. Eq. E. 70 ; Eq. 313, where the produce of real

Bullock v. Downcs, 9 H. L. C. 1. estate directed to be sold was held to

(u) Harris v. Harris, 29 B. 110. be money payable out of land within

THE ABST1UCT.

455

ever, settled that section 8 of the new Act has reference to Chap. VIII.

the personal covenant in a mortgage deed as well as to the '— —

remedy against the land (0). Money due on a bond executed
by an ancestor (/), and turnpike tolls (#), do not fall under
the Act ; but the section applies to any legacy, whether pay-
able out of real or personal estate (h) ; and a share of residue
is a "legacy" within the section (i). By the 23 & 21 Yict.
c. 38 (/»•), the operation of this section is extended to claims
upon the personal estates of intestates.

A foreclosure action for the recovery of " money charged What suits
upon land," is not within the 40th section, but is within the to be such
24th section (/) : a vendor's suit for the recovery of his T1?111 the
unpaid purchase-money has been held to be within the 40th
section (m) ; but a suit for the recovery of a legacy held on
certain trusts, which has been severed from the general
estate, although retained by the executor, is a suit for the
administration of the trust fund, and this section affords no
statutory bar (a). And it seems probable that the statutory
bar does not apply, where the bill was filed before, though
no decree was made until after, the passing of the Act (0).

Payment by any person authorized to make it, but not by What is

sufficient pay-
ment.

the 42nd section ; Pawscy v. Barnes
does not appear to have been cited.
And cf. Mittloiv v. Bigg, 18 Eq. 246 ;
1 Ch. D. 385 ; ante, p. 439.

(c} Button v. Sntlon, 22 Ch. D.
511; Fearnnide v. Flint, ibid. 579 ;
and see and distinguish Re Poivcrs, 39
Ch. D. 291. The word land, in the
section, means land within the juris-
diction only ; Sutton v. Sutton, W. N.
1883, p. 88.

(/) Roddam v. Morley, 1 D. & J. 1.

(g] Mettish v. Brooks, 3 B. 22 ;
aliter as to quarries, &c. ; McDonnell
v. M'Kinty, 10 Ir. L. R. 521, and
ante, p. 448.

(A) Sheppard v. Luke, 6 Si. 567.

(i) Christian v. Devereux, 12 Si.
264 ; Sheppard v. Duke, 6 Si. 567 ;
Prior v. Horniblow, 2 Y. & C. 200.

(£) Sect. 13. The section is retro-
spective ; Willis v. Earl Howe, 50 L.

J. Ch. 4 ; Re Johnson, 29 Ch. D. 964.

(1) Pugh v. Ilcath, 7 Ap. Ca. 235 ;
Harlock v. Ashberry, 19 Ch. D. 539 ;
and see Wrixon v. Vizc, 3 D. &
War. 104; Sug. E. P. 117. A
simple foreclosure action is not an
action for the recovery of possession
of land within 0. 42, R. 5 of R. S. C.
1S83; and it is prudent in such an
action to add a claim for possession ;
Wood v. Wheatcr, 22 Ch. D. 281.

(m) Toft v. Stephenson, 1 D. M. &
G. 28; 5D. M. & G. 735.

(n) Phillipo v. Mannings, 2 M. & C.
309 ; BuUockv. Downes, 9 H. L. C. 1 ;
Harcourt v. White, 28 B. 303 ; see
and consider Edmunds v. Waugh, 1
Eq. 418 ; and Tyson v. Jackson, 30 B.
384, where the executor constituted
himself an express trustee of the
legacy.

(0) Ravenscroft v. Fri*.b>r, 1 Coll. 16.

456

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. a mere stranger, is sufficient to bring the case within this
- section (p) : so is payment by the parties claiming the land,
or their trustees (q) : but there must be a proper hand to
receive, and give a discharge for the money paid (r) ; and
if, though the persons to pay and to receive are different, they
are yet trustees for one and the same person, the statute does
not run (rr) ; and where the person liable to pay is also the
person entitled to receive, no question of limitation under
the Statute can arise (*) . A payment to come within 1 Yict.
c. 28, must be a payment of principal or interest, and must be
made by the mortgagor or some person "who is entitled
under the terms of the contract to make a tender, and from
whom the mortgagee is bound to accept a tender, of money
for the defeazance or redemption of the mortgage " (ss) ;
and hence a payment of rent made by a tenant of the
mortgaged property is not such a payment (t) . Payment of
interest by a devisee for life on his testator's specialty debt is
sufficient as against the remainderman (««). But where there

( p] Homan v. Andrews, 1 Ir. Ch. R.
106. A payment of a part of a debt
due from a firm by one partner, after
the dissolution of the firm, is not
sufficient to bind the other partner,
so as to prevent time from running
under the statute ; Watson v. Wood-
man, 20 Eq. 721 ; and see generally
on the principle Harlock v. Ashberry,
19 Ch. D. at p. 545.

(g) Toft v. Stephenson, 1 D. M. &
G. 40 ; 5 D. M. & G. 735.

(r) McCarthy v. Daunt, 11 Ir. Eq.
R. 29 ; and see as to payment by a
person filling a double character,
Fordhamv. Wallis, 10 Ha. 217. As
to executors paying over assets to
beneficiaries, see Thome v. Kerr, 2
K. & J. 54 ; Re Gale, 22 Ch. D. 820 ;
Blake v. Gale, 32 Ch. D. 571 ; but
see Re Marsden, 26 Ch. D. 783.

(rr} Topham v. Booth, 35 Ch. D. 607.

(*) Binns v. Nicholls, 2 Eq. 256 ;
Seagram v. Knight, 2 Ch. 628 ; Bur-
rellv. Earl of Egrcmont, 7 B. 205.

(ss) Lcwin v. Wilson, 11 Ap. Ca.
639, G46 ; and it would seem that the

same should be the rule with regard
to payments under sect. 8 of the Act
of 1874, the legislature having used
stricter language as to the persons
who may give an effectual acknow-
ledgment than as to those who may
make payment ; ibid.

(t) Harlock v. Ashberry, 19 Ch. D.
539 ; and see Newbould v. Smith, 33
Ch. D. 127.

(M) Roddam v. Morley, 1 D. & J. 1 ;
see Coopc v. Cressicell, 2 Ch. 112, 126;
in which the ultimate decision in Rod-
dam v. Morley was questioned by Lord
Chelmsf ord ; but in Pears v. Laing, 1 2
Eq. 41, it was expressly approved and
followed, notwithstanding the adverse
comments upon it in Coope v. Cress-
well, and must now be regarded as
well settled law. In Dickinson v.
Teasdak, 1 D. J. & S. 52, acknow-
ledgment by one of several devisees
subject to a charge was held suffi-
cient to bind the others ; but in
Richardson v. Young e, 6 Ch. 478,
acknowledgment by one of two
mortgagees, who on the face of the

THE ABSTRACT. 457

was an actual charge, and the tenant for life, without the

Sect. 6
consent or knowledge of the tenant in tail in remainder, paid -

to the person, who but for the Statute would have been
entitled, the amount of the charge with six years' arrears of
interest, the tenant in tail was held not to be bound by the
transaction, and the charge was barred (#) : so, payment of
interest on an Irish mortgage made by a receiver of the
mortgaged estates, appointed under the Irish Mortgage Act,
11 & 12 Geo. III. c. 10, has been held to be payment by an
agent within this section (//) ; so, also, payment of interest by
a dowress in possession of the mortgaged estate, with the
consent of the heir of the mortgagor (s). Where A. and B.
gave a bond to C., and at the same time each mortgaged some
property to C. as a collateral security, although as between A.
and B. the latter was only a surety ; A. for nineteen years
duly paid interest on the debt ; two years later, on C. desiring
to foreclose A. and B., it was held that, although B. had
never paid any interest, yet A/s payments had prevented
time from running in favour of B. (zz). It would seem that,
in order to constitute a sufficient payment, it is not essential
that money should actually pass between the parties ; thus,
where a debtor put his hand into his pocket, as if for the
purpose of paying the interest due, and the creditor antici-
pated actual payment by handing him a written receipt for
it, this was held to be a sufficient payment (a) : but where A.
being indebted to B. on three several debts, two of which
were barred by the Statute, made a payment of interest at
B.'s request, without referring to any of the debts, the pay-
ment was treated as exclusively made in respect of the
unbarred debt ; and not as an acknowledgment of the debts
which were already barred (b).

deed appeared to be trustees of the (a) Maber v. Maber, L. R. 2 Ex.

mortgage debt was held insufficient 153, diss. Bramwell, B.

to keep alive the right of redemp- (b) Nash v. Hodgson, 6 D. M. & G.

tion ; and vide ante, p. 451. 474; but qucere if the interest paid

(x) Seeker v. Delacour, 11 L. R. Ir. had been more than was due on the

187. unbarred debt, would not the pay-

(y) Chinnery v. Evans, 11 H. L. C. ment have been an acknowledgment

115. of the other debts ? See also Spickcr-

(z) Ames v. Manner'mg, 26 B. 583. nell v. Hotham, Kay, 669.

(zz) Lcwin v. Wilson, 1 1 Ap. Ca. 639.

458 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. The acknowledgment referred to in the 40th and 42nd

Sect. 6.

— sections of the earlier Act and the 8th of the Act of 1874,

Acknowledg- , , . . , ,

ment— what nau8t be in writing ; but may be signed by the agent of the

person giving it (c) : and the Courts, in determining what
40 and 42. is a sufficient acknowledgment under these sections, have
adopted a liberal construction of the language of the Act (d) ;
thus, an affidavit, or answer, though made under compulsion
may be a sufficient acknowledgment of a debt or claim (c) :
but not the report of the Master under the former practice,
nor, it is conceived, the Chief Clerk's certificate under the
present practice in a suit (/). An admission in the will of
the debtor of the existence of a judgment debt has been held
a sufficient acknowledgment (g) ; so, any admission in writing
by the debtor, of the existence of an unsettled account,
either with or without a promise to pay the balance (if any)
due, will prevent the Statute running (h) : so, also, his written
promise to pay so soon as he is able (/) : so, a letter by the
solicitor of the purchaser's devisees to the solicitor of the
vendor's assignees that the purchase- money was lying idle,
was held to be a sufficient acknowledgment of the existence
of the vendor's lien (k) : but where there is no absolute
admission that anything is due, but simply an agreement to
refer a disputed account to arbitration, and no award is made,
there is no sufficient acknowledgment to take the case out of
the Statute (I). So, a letter admitting the existence of the
debt, but stating the debtor's inability to pay in full, and
proposing a composition, has been held insufficient (m) ; so,

(c] A liter under sects. 14 and 28, Re River Steamer Co., Mitchell's claim,
ante, p. 445. 6 Ch. 822 ; Chasemore v. Turner, L.

(d) See Blair v. Nugent, 3 J. & L. K. 10 Q. B. 500; Quinceyv. Sharpe,
673. 1 Ex. D. 72; Sheet v. Lindsay, 2

(e} Goode v. Job, 5 Jur. N. S. 145 ; Ex. D. 314 ; Green v. Humphreys,

Moodie v. Bannister, ib. 402 ; Tristram 26 Ch. D. 474; Ingram v. Little, 1

v. Harte, Long. & T. 186; and see C. & E. 186.

also Vincent v. Willing ton, ib. 456 ; (i) Hammond v. Smith, 33 B. 452.

Burrowes v. Gore, 6 H. L. C. 909. (k) Toff v. Stephenson, 1 D. M. &

(/) Hill v. Slawell, 2 Jebb & S. G. 28 ; S. C., 5 D. M. & GL 735.
389. (1) Hales \._Stevenson, 9 Jur. N. S.

(y) Mill-in ff ton v. Thompson, 3 Ir. 300 ; but see Chesty n v. Dalby, 4

Ch. R. 236. Y. & C. 238.

(h} Prance v. Sywpson, Kay, 678 ; (in) Everett v. Robinson, 4 Jur.

Banner v. Bcrridge, 18 Ch. D. 254 ; N. S. 1083 ; and oases cited.

THE ABSTRACT. 459

also, a letter by tlie debtor disclaiming an intention to avail Chap. VIII.

Sect. 6.

himself of the Statute, but professing his inability to pay, -
and soliciting further indulgence («). Where money was
lent to & trader to accumulate for the creditor's benefit at
compound interest, it was held that the Statute began to run
at the date of the advance ; and that periodical entries in the
debtor's books, carrying over interest to the creditor's account,
did not take the case out of the Statute (o).

No arrears of dower are to be recoverable for more than Arrears of
six years (p) ; and no exception is made of cases where an
acknowledgment of title has been given.

No arrears of rent (q) (which includes a fee-farm rent (>•),) Arrears of
and tithe rent-charge (s), or of interest in respect of any sum
of money charged upon or payable out (t) of any land or
rent, or in respect of any legacy, are to be recoverable for
more than six years (it) from the time when they became
due, or when a written acknowledgment (x) of the same
was last given, unless a prior incumbrancer has been in pos-
session within one year before the commencement of the
proceedings for the recovery of such arrears, in which case
they may be recovered for the whole period of such pos-
session (y] ; that is, if the prior incumbrance affect the estate
or interest upon which the subsequent incumbrance is a
charge (2). Where there are several incumbrancers on the

(ri) Rackham v. Marriott, 3 Jur. ceeds of sale of real estate directed

N. S. 495 ; and cf . Green v. Hum- to be sold lias been held to be money

phreys, supra. payable out of land within this sec-

(0) Jackson v. Ogg, John. 976. tion, Bowyerv. Woodman, 3 Eq. 313,

(p) Sect. 41 ; Bamfordv. Bamford, and vide ante, p. 455, and cases cited

5 Ha. 203. in note (el).

(q) Sect. 42 ; see Hickman v. Up- (u) Time is reckoned from the

sail, 4 Ch. D. 144. filing of the bill, Chappcll v. Rccs, 1

(r) Humfrcy v. Gery, 1 C. B. 567. D. M. & G. 393.

(s) Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. (x) Return in insolvent's schedule

Lord Sligo, 5 Ir. Ch. R. 46. held sufficient, Barrett v. Birming-

(t) Including judgments, Henry v. ham, Fl. & K. 556; but see Hobson

Smith, 2 D. & War. 381 ; and see v. Burns, 13 Ir. L. R. 286.

Burne v. Robinson, 1 D. & Wai. 688. (y) Sect. 42; Francis v. Grover, 5

A new right has been held in Ireland Ha. 39 ; Drought v. Jones, 2 Ir. Eq.

to accrue on a judgment being re- R. 303.

vived on a sci. fa., see Re Blake, 2 (z) Vincent v. Going, 1 J. & Ij.

Ir. Ch. R. 643. A share of the pro- 697.

4GO

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap VIII. game land, ranking in a series one after the other, payment
or acknowledgment by the mortgagor will not keep alive the
right of the first mortgagee to arrears of interest heyond the
period of six years as against the subsequent mortgagees (a) .
It was held by Sir J. Wigram, Y.-C., that if the interest on
a mortgage debt is secured by bond or covenant, arrears for
twenty years can be recovered as against the mortgaged
estate (b) ; but this decision, which was opposed to the
opinion of Lord St. Leonards (c), has been overruled (d) ;
even in a case where the mortgaged estate was a reversion (?).
It was formerly law, that as against the mortgaged estate
the mortgagee could only recover six years' arrears of in-
terest, and must look to the bond or covenant of the mort-
gagor for the recovery of any further arrears (/). But now,
no more than six years' arrears can be recovered either against
the land or on the covenant (g)t nor even upon a collateral bond
given by the mortgagor simultaneously with the mortgage (h) .
This section, however, does not bar the right to recover arrears
of any annuity, charged on a reversionary interest in land, so
long as the interest continues reversionary (i) ; nor does it, it
is conceived, affect the validity of a clause frequently inserted
in mortgages of reversions, and sometimes of other property,
and which provides for the capitalization of interest in the
event of its falling into arrear : and where the proceeds of a
mortgaged estate, sold under a power of sale, were paid into
Court in a suit for the administration of the mortgagee's
estate, a petition by his representatives for the payment out

(a) £ aiding v. Lane, 1 D. J. & S. (e) Sinclair v. Jackson, 17 B.

122. 405.

(b} Du Vigier v. Lee, 2 Ha. 326. (/) See Boivycrv. Woodman, 3 Eq.

(c) Hnrrissonv. Duignan, 2 D. & 313; Clarkson v. Henderson, 14 Ch. D.
War. 295 ; Hughes v. Kelly, 3 D. & 348.

War. 482 ; and see Hodges v. Croydon (g) 37 & 38 V. c. 57, s. 8 ; Sutton

Canal Co., 3 B. 86. v. Sutton, 22 Ch. D. 511.

(d) Hunter v. NocMds, 1 M. & GT. (h) Fearnside v. Flint, 22 Ch. D.
640, 653 ; Humfrey v. Gery, 7 C. B. 579. As to the liability of sureties
567 ; Round v. Sell, 30 B. 121 ; Shaw who give an independent bond, see
v. Johnson, 1 Dr. & S. 412 ; Mason v. Re Powers, 30 Ch. D. 291.
Broadbcnt, 33 B. 296 ; see the cases (i) Wheeler v. Howell, 3 K. &

as to mortgages of reversions dis- 193.
cussed in Smith v. Hill, 9 Ch. D. 143.

THE ABSTRACT. 461

of the fund was held not to be a suit for the recovery of Chap. VIII.

. Sect. 6.

arrears of interest within the 42nd section, so as to disentitle -

them to recover arrears for nearly twenty years (k) ; but this
is not so where money has been paid into Court under the
Lands Clauses Consolidation Act for the purchase of land,
subject to an equitable mortgage by deposit, with a covenant
to execute a legal mortgage : in which case only six years'
arrears of interest are recoverable (/). It has been held, under
the Act of 1833, that the heirs of a mortgagor, who for him-
self and his heirs has covenanted to pay the principal and
interest, could not redeem except upon payment of the arrears
for twenty years, the mortgagee being at liberty to tack the
personal liability under the covenant as against the heir ;
but it was said that it would be otherwise, if the suit
were by the mortgagor himself (m). So, rent, or a rent-
charge, although recoverable against a covenantor for twenty
years under 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 42 («), is recoverable as
against the land only for six years (o) : and a legal rent-
charge is wholly lost by non-payment for a period exceed-
ing the statutory limit (p). An annuity charged on land
comes within the meaning of the word " rent " in the 42nd
section, and therefore no more than six years' arrears are
recoverable (q) ; but the position of the grantee of such
an annuity which has been duly paid, where the grantor
has retained possession of the estate without acknowledg-

(*) Edmund* v. Waugh, I Eq. L. R. Ir. 309.

418 ; Re Marshficld, 31 Ch. D. 721 ; (o) Hunter v. NocMds, 1 M. & G.

but see and compare Mason v. Broad- 640 ; which see as to the combined

bent, 33 B. 29G. effect of the two Acts.

(/) Re Stead's Mortgaged Estates, (p) James v. Salter, 3 Bing. N. C.

2 Ch. D. 713. 541 ; Langton v. Langton, 18 Jur. 928.

(m) Elvey v. Norwood, 6DeG. £ S. (q) Ferguson v. Livingston, 9 Ir.

240 ; and see Sinclair v. Jackson, 17 Eq. R. 202 ; Francis v. Grover, 5

B. 413. Ha. 39. It has been held in a

(n] See Paget v. Foley, 2 Bing. N. C. recent case by Kay, J., that nothing

679 ; Sims v. Thomas, 12 A. & E. is recoverable at all, if no proceed -

536 ; Manning v. Phelps, 10 Ex. 59 ; ing has been taken to recover within

Barley v. Tennant, 53 L. T. 257. twelve years from the time when

And this right is not affected by the the right accrued ; Hughes v. Coles,

Real Property Limitation Act, 1874; 27 Ch. D. 231; and see Dower v.

ibid. ; and see Donegan v. Ncill, 16 Dcu-cr, 15 L. R. Ir. 264.

462

THE ABSTRACT.

men^ °^ ti^e> ^or a P^iod exceeding the statutory limit,
seems to be doubtful (r). It has been held that an annuity
given out of personalty is not within this section; for
though it is a legacy, yet the yearly payments made in
respect of it cannot be treated as " interest in respect of a
legacy ''* (•§). In the case of a legacy, and of a suit to ad-
minister the estate, the legatee has been held entitled to
arrears of interest for six years before the date of carrying in
his claim before the master (t).

Purchaser
accept title

Limitations.

It is now settled that a purchaser can be compelled to
accept a title depending on adverse possession, verified like
°U anJ other fact (")• The Beneficial application of this prin-
ciple as between vendors and purchasers, is, however, in the
case particularly of missing instruments, materially affected
by the difficulty which exists of determining the time when
the right of action may have accrued to the supposed adverse
claimants : for instance, where forty years have elapsed since
the death intestate of a former owner seised in fee simple in
possession, the Statute may, as a general rule, be safely relied
on as against the claim of any latent heir ; as his right of
action must ordinarily (a?) have accrued at the death : but if
the intestacy itself be in dispute, and there be reason to ap-
prehend the existence of a will whose contents are unknown,

(r) See Scarle v. Colt, 1 T. & C.
C. C. 3G. Payment by executors
and trustees in possession has been
held binding1 as against the cestui que
use ; Francis v. Grove)', 5 Ha. 39 ;
and see Toft v. Stephen-son, 1 D. M.
&<1. 37.

(s) In re AshwelVs Will, John.
112, where thirty- seven years' arrears
were recovered against the residuary
legatees. But qucere whether such
an annuity is not a series of separate
legacies, each subject to a distinct
contingency, and as such within
the 40th section ; and see Rock v.
Gallon, 6 Ha. 531.

(t) Handle)/ v. Wood, 9 Ha. 201.

(u] Games v. Sonnor, 33 W. R.
64 ; and see Scott v. Nixon, 3 D. &
War. 388, where the verification
was merely by affidavit ; but the
Court expressly stated that the pur-
chaser might, had he pleased, have
insisted on a regular examination of
witnesses ; see Kirk wood v. Lloyd,
12 Ir. Eq. R. 585, 598 ; Moulton v.
Edmonds, 1 D. E. & J. 246.

(x) There is a possible but very-
rare exception under the old law of
inheritance, in the case of an estate
descending to a person who is not
full heir, and whose title as tempo-
rary heir may be subsequently dis-
placed by the birth of a full heir.

THE ABSTRACT. 463

here the Statute is evidently a very slight protection ; as Chap. VIII.
limitations may have heen created under which a right of -
action may exist for an indefinite period.

It sometimes happens that lapse of time increases instead Lapse of time

...... . may some-

of diminishing a known risk attending a title : c. g., where times render

a settlement, by deed or will, duly executed and attested, g

has created limitations in remainder, some of which are still

subsisting, or capahle of taking effect, and the invalidity of

the settlement, on the ground of personal incapacity on the

part of the settlor, or of fraud practised upon him, &c., has

been established in proceedings against the party in posses-

sion, and, perhaps, other parties, but which are not binding

on all the remaindermen : in such a case, inasmuch as lapse

of time increases the difficulty of procuring evidence of the

facts necessary to invalidate a prima facie valid document,

the risk attending the title may for a very long period be

said to increase de die in diem.

Possession for a time exceeding the statutory limit, not Possession
only bars the remedy, but also extinguishes the right of the

original owner (?/). It has been said that the effect of the andnotthe

0 ' remedy only ;

Act is to make a Parliamentary conveyance of the land to
the person in possession, after the statutory period has

(y) See sect. 34 ; Scott v. Nixon, accompanied by the erection of

3 D. & War. 388 ; Burroughs v. fences ; Seddon v. Smith, 36 L. T.

M'Crcight, 1 J. & L. 290 ; Boiling v. 168 ; and see DCS Barrcs v. Shcy, 29

Hobday, 31 "W. R. 9. A subsequent L. T. 592. It may be observed that

entry by a person so barred will be the payment of money into Court

merely a trespass ; Bryan v. Coicdal, under sect. 76 of the L. C. C. Act

21 "W. R. 693 ; nor will a vesting1 does not interfere with the running

order, vesting the mortgagee's right of the Statute ; but, on the contrary,

in his representatives, revive the the person who was in possession,

title of the mortgagee, when it has when the company paid the money

once been barred ; Hemming v. in, is, though out of actual posses-

Blanton, 42 L. J. C. P. 158 ; and sion, still to be considered in pos-

see Dawkins v. Lord Penrhyn, 4 session for the purpose of contiuu-

Ap. Ca. 51. The possession of a ing to enjoy the income as it was

stranger to be so inconsistent with enjoyed previously to possession

that of the real owner as to cause being handed over to the company ;

time to run against the latter need Douglas v. L. $ N. W. li. Co., 2

not be such as necessarily to exclude K. & J. 173, 183 ; Ex parte Winder,

third parties : e. g. it need not be 6 Ch. D. 696, 703.

464

THE ABSTRACT.

Sect. 6.

but does not
operate as a
statutory
transfer.

Series of
trespassers.

elapsed (s) : but though it is true that the possessory owner
after the statutory limit has been passed, is placed by the
Act in a position analogous to that which he would have
occupied if the fee simple had been absolutely conveyed to
him, yet his title under the Act is acquired solely by the
extinction of the right of the prior rightful owner ; not by
any statutory transfer of the estate. If the Statute operated
as a sort of involuntary alienation of the estate of the right-
ful owner, the adverse possessor would take it subject to the
subsisting charges ; and wherever it was in settlement, his
interest therein would constantly be varying according to
the successive limitations of the settlement ; but this is
clearly not the operation of the Statute (a) . A person who is
in possession, but who has not acquired an indefeasible title
under the Sta,tute, has, as against everyone but the rightful
owner, an interest which may be inherited, devised, or con-
veyed (/>) ; and though his possession may have lasted only
for a year, he may, without further proof of title, maintain
ejectment against a person who comes and turns him out (c) ;
in other words, he may as against strangers, defend his right
of possession until, by force of the Statute, it has ripened
into a right of property. It has been held that in order
that possession may confer a valid title upon a particular
individual, it must have been either by the same person or
by several persons claiming one from another (d) .

But a series of trespassers who independently of, and in suc-
cession to, one another have occupied for the statutory period,
although none of them may have himself acquired a valid
title, will yet have the effect of barring the rightful owner (e).

(z] Per Parke, B., 14 M. & W. 42 ;
and see Lord St. Leonards' judgment
in Incorporated Society v. Richards,
1 D. & War. 289.

(a] See 1 Hayes, Conv. 268 ; and
an article 11 Jur. N. S. p. 151.

(b} Doe v. Jauncey, 8 C. & P. 99,
102 ; Asher v. Whit lock, L. R. 1 Q. B.
1,3.

(e) Doe v. Eyeball, M. & M. 346.

(d} See Hawlcsbee v. Hawksbee, 11
Ha. 230 ; and see Holmes v. New-
lands, 1 1 A. & E. 44 ; Neiclands v.
Holmes, 3 Q. B. 679 ; Doe v. Bar-
nard, 13 Q. B. 945.

(*) Sects. 2 and 34 of 3 & 4 Will.
IV. c. 27 ; and see Dixon v. Gay fere,
17 B. 421.

THE ABSTRACT. 465

But the most difficult question arises on the rights of such Chap. VIII.

Sect. 6.

trespassers inter se. Thus suppose a case where A. takes and -
holds possession as a trespasser for three years, then goes out
voluntarily and is immediately succeeded by B., who remains
in possession for seven years ; B. then goes out voluntarily
and is immediately succeeded by C., who is in possession at
the end of the period of twelve years which bars the rightful
owner, and extinguishes his title. Does any of the three
trespassers, and which of them, acquire a valid title ? The
authorities supply no certain answer to these questions. In Di*<m v.
one case (/), where the legal estate was outstanding, and the
Court was in possession of the equitable estate by a receiver,
on a bill filed by the trustee for a declaration of the rights of
the various claimants, Romilly, M. E., decreed possession to
the heir of the original rightful owner on the ground that,
although his right to bring an action was barred and his title
extinguished at law, yet, as none of the subsequent trespassers
had occupied for the statutory period, the Court being in
possession, could hand over that possession to the heir without
his having to bring an action. The ground of this decision
is, however, of doubtful validity. In another case (g) A. A*her v.

J . . . » Whitlock.

enclosed land in 1842, and other adjoining land in 1850,
remained in possession until 1860 and then died, having
devised the whole to his wife during her widowhood, with
remainder to his daughter in fee ; the widow in 1861 married
B. who went to reside on the property with the mother and
daughter; the daughter died in 1863 an infant, and her
mother shortly afterwards in the same year. The daughter's
heir-at-law brought ejectment against B. who continued to
occupy the property ; and it was held that he was entitled to
recover possession, on the ground that A.'s title, being that
of a disseisor, was good as against all the world except the
disseisee, and that his daughter taking by devise from him,
and her heir, were in a like position, and could bring eject-
ment against anyone who dispossessed them. The disseisor's Conclusion

. ' drawn from

title, then, being good as against all the world except the the cases.

(/) Dixon v. Gayfere, 17 B. 421. (/?) Asher v. WMtkck, L. E. 1 Q.

B. 1.
D. VOL. I. H H

466 THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. disseisee (h). it would seem to follow that he has a better title

Sect. 6.

- than anyone else, and that he can therefore recover possession
from anyone who dispossesses him or takes possession of the
land which he has acquired as disseisor, until his own right
of action is barred by the lapse of the statutory period from
his evacuation of the property ; and for this purpose it does
not seem to make any difference that he has been out of
physical possession, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, for
any time short of the statutory period. If this is so, the true
answer to the case above propounded is, that, in the case, at
all events, of a disseisor strictly so called, when the original
rightful owner loses the possession, the disseisor, i.e., the first
usurper of it becomes the rightful owner as against all the
world except the original owner ; and so on in the case of
subusurpations ; so that the actual occupier at the time of the
extinction of the original owner's right does not acquire an
indefeasible statutory title, until the rights of all former
usurpers (if any) of the possession have in like manner been
extinguished.

In a case at law (i) A. devised an estate of which he was
only tenant by the curtesy, to trustees upon trust for his
daughter B. for life, with remainder to W. ; B. entered
under the will and acquired a valid title as against the heir ;
but the Court of Queen's Bench held that, as against W.,
she was estopped from alleging that A. had no title, and
could not convert her limited interest under the will into a
fee.

Extinction of Bent payable out of land is extinguished by its non-pay-
ment during the statutory period ; and time runs from the
last actual receipt (/). But it must be borne in mind that
where the ownership of land, subject to a rent, becomes

(A) Doe v. Eyeball, M. & M. 346 ; (j) Otven v. De Beauvoir, 16 M. &

Doe v. Barnard, 13 Q. B. 945. W. 547 ; De Beauvoir v. Owen, 5 Ex.

(i) Board v. Board, L. R. 9 Q. B. 166 ; Lord Chichester v. Hall, 17 L.

48 ; but see Paine v. Jones, 18 Eq. T. O. S. 121.
320.

THE ABSTRACT.

467

severed, payment of such rent by the owner of any portion ° g|^t e. '

of the property will prevent the Statute from running in "

favour of the owners of the residue (k). So long as the

owner of the rent receives it out of any portion of the land

charged with its payment, there is no dispossession to create

a bar under the Statute ; and he may distrain on any portion

of the land, notwithstanding that the owner or occupier of

that portion has not paid the rent for more than twenty

years (/). But the same rule does not apply to the payment

of interest upon gross charges ; thus, if a testator charges his

estate with a sum of money, and devises it in several portions

to different devisees, payment of the interest by any one of

them will not prevent the Statute running in favour of the

others (m).

It has been held (n) that the Act applies as between the As to cases
lord of a manor and a person entitled to a copyhold tene- Of a man0r
ment, but who for twenty years has neglected to enforce his ^^erPy"
claim to be admitted, and has been out of possession ; but it
by no means follows that the Act would operate conversely,
in favour of the quasi- copy holder, so as to convert his tenure
to freehold, in the event of his refusing or neglecting to take
admittance, and retaining possession for the statutory period
without any acknowledgment of the lord's title.

The constitutional maxim (0) — " Nuttum tcmpus occurrit Adverse pos-
regi " — has been gradually broken in upon, (1) by the Statute against the
21 Jac. I. c. 2 (p), which disabled the Crown from claiming Crown-
any manors, lands, or hereditaments, except liberties and
franchises, under a title accrued sixty or more years before

(k) Archbishop of Dublin v. Coote, (n) Walters v. Webb, 5 Ch. 631.

12 Ir. Eq. R. 251, 264. (o) Co. Litt. 119 a. note (1), and

(1) Woodcock v. Titterton, 12 W. E. see generally Shelf. R. P. 140 et seq.

865. (p) See as to practice in Crown

(m) Dickinson v. Teasdale, 1 D. J. suits, 21 Jac. I. c. 14; Doev. Morris,

& S. 52 ; cf. Coope v. Cresswell, 2 Ch. 2 Biug. N. C. 189 ; A.-G. v. Parsons,

112, 126 ; and see Pears v. Laing, 12 2 M. & W. 23 ; and see 28 & 29 V.

Eq. 41, and ante, p. 456, n. (u}. c. 104, s. 52.

HH2

468

THE ABSTRACT.

Chap. VIII. the then session of parliament ; and (2) by the Statute 9 Greo.

. Sect> 6' III. c. 16 (?), amended by 24 & 25 Viet. c. 62 (r), which created
a limitation of a permanent kind, by enacting that the king
should not sue any persons for any manors, lands, or here-
ditaments (other than liberties or franchises) on any title
which had not accrued within sixty years before the com-
mencement of such suit. The 3 & 4 "Will. IY. c. 27, as it does
not expressly name the king, does not apply to the Crown (s),
and does not, therefore, alter the period of limitation as to
Crown rights : nor does the 37 & 38 Yict. c. 57. The Act,
2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 71, is, on the contrary, expressed to be
binding on the Crown (t).

As against
lands of the
Duchy of
Cornwall.

Remarks on
purchases of
foreclosed
property.

As to title by adverse possession in lands belonging to the
Duchy of Cornwall, we may refer to the Acts of 7 & 8 Yict.
c. 105 ; 23 & 24 Yict. c. 53 ; and 24 & 25 Yict. c. 62, s. 2,
which assimilates the limitation applicable to actions and
suits by the Crown to actions and suits by the Duke of
Cornwall : a title acquired by adverse possession against
the Duchy, may, it is conceived, be forced upon a pur-
chaser (u).

The liability to be re-opened which is incident to a fore-
closure, even when absolute (#), renders necessary the exercise
of considerable caution in purchasing property, the title to
which depends on such a decree. The relief is wholly dis-
cretionary ; and it is impossible to lay down any definite
rules as to what circumstances will induce the Court to exercise
its discretion ; each case must in fact be decided upon its own
merits (y). The Courts will, however, re-open a foreclosure
decree absolute, where there has been any fraud or collusion

(q) Extended to Ireland by 48
Geo. III. c. 47 ; see Tuthillv. Rogers,
U. & L. 36.

(r) Sects. 1 and 3. A title acquired
by such adverse possession may, it
seems, be forced on a purchaser ;
Tuthill v. Rogers, supra.

(*) Magdalen College Case, 11 Co.

68 b ; Re CuckfieU Burial Board, 19
B. 153, and cases there cited.

(t) Sects. 1 and 2.

(u) Tuthill v. Rogers, 1 J. & L. 36.

(x) Thornhill v. Manning, 1 Si.
N. S. 451.

(y} Ibid,, Campbell v. Holyland, 1
Ch. D. 166.

THE ABSTRACT. 469

in obtaining the decree (z) : and generally, where the mort- Chap. VIII.
gagor has been taken by surprise, or has been unavoidably -
absent, and so ignorant of the proceedings (a) ; or where the
debt was of very much smaller amount than the value of the
property (b) ; and indeed, it would seem, in any case of extreme
hardship (c). But in all these cases, except that of fraud, it is
essential to the obtaining of relief that the mortgagor should
take prompt action (d). A purchaser who buys foreclosed
property from the mortgagee with notice, actual or construc-
tive, of the existence in the foreclosure proceedings of any of
these elements, stands in no better position than the mort-
gagee (e) ; and the fact that he contracted to buy the property
either before, or immediately after, the foreclosure decree
became absolute, is sufficient to disentitle him to any sympathy
as against the mortgagor (/) . But it may be that a person
having notice, may himself obtain a good title by purchasing
from a bond fide purchaser from the mortgagee who had no
notice (#).

(z) Burgh v. Langton, 5 Br. P. C. bell v. Holt/land, 7 Ch. D. 166, 173.
213 ; Lloyd v. Marshall, 2 P. W. (d) Thornhill v. Manning, 1 Si.

73; Gore v. Stacpoole, 1 Dow, 18; N. S. 451.

Harvey v. Tebbutt, 1 J. & W. 197; (e) Gore v. Stacpoole, 1 Dow, 18;

Joachim v. M'Douall, 9 Si. 314, n. ; Campbell v. Holyland, supra.
Abney v. Wordsworth, ibid. 317, n. (/) Campbell v. Holyland, supra.

(a) Cocker v. Bevis, 1 Ch. Ca. 61. (g) On the principle of Peacock v.

(b) Lee v. Heath, 9 Si. 306, n. ; Burt, 4 L. J. Ch. 33, and Brandling
Cromptonv. Effingham, ibid. 311, n. v. Ord, 1 Atk. 571; but see West

(c) Jones v. Crestvicke, 9 Si. 304 ; Lotidon Bank v. Reliance Building
Nanfan v. Perkins, ibid. 308, n. ; Society, 29 Ch. D. 954, and the
Joachim v. MlJ)ouall} supra; Camp- remarks of Lindley, L.J., at p. 963.

470

Chap. IX.

Section 1.

As to the
place and time
for, and ex-
penses of, pro-
duction of the
deeds.

Vendor bound
to produce
deeds.

Where to be
produced.

CHAPTEE IX.

AS TO THE PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DEEDS.

1. As to the place and time for, and expenses of, production

of the deeds.

2. Production of — may be compelled , by whom.

3. Non-production of — how far important.

4. Examination of — matters to be observed in.

(1.) EVERY vendor is presumed to have his title deeds in his
own possession, or at any rate to have the power of pro-
ducing them ; and though he may only have a covenant for
their production, he is still bound to produce them for the
purpose of verifying the abstract (a) ; nor is the rule affected
by the Yendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, which merely pro-
vides (b) that his inability to furnish a legal covenant for
production is not to be a ground of objection to the title, or
by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, which, while throwing the
expense of production to some extent upon the purchaser,
does not relieve the vendor from his liability, in the absence
of stipulation, to produce the deeds for comparison with the
abstract (c).

The vendor may produce the deeds either at his own known
residence (d), or upon or in the immediate vicinity of the
estate (<?), or in London (/) ; and the purchaser in such
cases pays for the necessary journeys of his own solicitor.
If the deeds are in London, a country solicitor must employ
a town agent to examine them, and cannot charge for a

(a) Eippwgall v. Lloyd, 2 N. & M.
410.

(*) 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 2.

(c) See s. 3 (6) and Re Johnson and

T/tstin, 30 Ch. D. 42.

(d) Sug. 429.

(e) 1 Jarm. Conv. 99.
(/) Sug. 429.

PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DEEDS. 471

journey for that purpose ; unless his client, (knowing the Chap. IX.

practice of the profession to be the other way,) requests him —

to undertake it (g) ; but a London solicitor need not employ

an agent in a country town to examine deeds, but may send a

clerk (h) . Where all or any of the deeds cannot be produced

at one of the usual places for production, the additional

expenses of journeys thereby rendered necessary are borne

by the vendor (?). Whether, however, the purchaser, having

voluntarily incurred extraordinary expenses in obtaining an

inspection of the deeds, can recover them from the vendor,

may be doubted ; his proper course, in such a case, is to

refuse to go an unreasonable distance unless his extra costs

are paid, or guaranteed. In estimating what are such extra

costs, the vendor, it is conceived, may set off the travelling

expenses which the purchaser would have incurred, if the

deeds had been produced upon the estate, or at the vendor's

residence, or in London.

By the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (£), on a sale of any pro- At whose
perty, the expenses of the production and inspection of all
documents of title not in the vendor's possession, and the
expenses of all journeys incidental to such production or
inspection, and the expenses of searching for, procuring,
making, verifying, and producing all certificates, declarations,
evidences, and information not in the vendor's possession, and
all copies or abstracts of or extracts from documents of title
not in the .vendor's possession, for whatever purpose required,
are to be borne by the purchaser. It has been held that this
section does not relieve a vendor who has sold under an open
contract from the expense of procuring and making an
abstract of a deed forming part of the forty years' title,
although such deed be not in his possession (I).

Where the conditions of sale reserve to the vendor the Notice of

place of pro-
duction.

(g) Alsop v. Lord Oxford, 1 M. & (i) S. 0.; Sharp v. Page, Sug. 430.

K. 566; Horlock v. Smith, 2 M. & C. (*) See s. 3 (6).

523 ; In re Tryon, 7 B. 496. (I) Re Johnson and Tustin, 30 Ch.

(h) See Hughes v. Wynne, 8 Si. 85. . D. 42 ; Re Moody and Yates, ib. 344.

472

Chap. IX.
Sect. 1.

Deeds cove-
nanted to be
produced.

Grants from
Crown.

Instruments
on record.

PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DEEDS.

option of producing the deeds at any one of several specified
places, he must give to the purchaser reasonable notice of
the place selected for the purpose (m) : if he have only a
covenant for production, the purchaser may, it seems, require
him to produce them ; or at least to send his own professional
adviser for the purpose of enforcing production : as it might
be refused to the purchaser's agent (n) . In the case of a
grant from the Crown, it is sufficient if the vendor's solicitor
inform the purchaser where it may be seen (o) ; but the
vendor must produce office copies or extracts of proved wills
and records, and cannot require the purchaser to examine the
originals at the public offices (p).

Examination The purchaser may, as we have already seen, examine the

of deeds be~

fore investiga- deeds before laying the title before counsel ; and, if the title
prove bad, may, in the absence of any stipulation to the
contrary, recover the expenses from the vendor ; but, in order
to do this, he must prove the existence of a valid contract for
sale ( q) ; and he should not, before the deeds are produced,
prepare his conveyance (r) .

Whether an
acceptance of
the title.

In one case (s), the examination of the deeds by a pur-
chaser, who for five months had retained the abstract without
delivering any requisitions, was held to be evidence of his
having accepted the title. The case depended upon its
special circumstances, and cannot be considered as establish-
ing any general rule upon the subject ; but it may render it
occasionally prudent, in calling for the deeds, to do so with
an express reservation of all pending and future questions on
the title.

(m) Eippwgall v. Lloyd, 2 N. & M.
410.

(n) S. 0., 419.

(o) Sug. 431.

(p) Sug. 431 ; but as to furnishing
copies on completion, see Ch. XIII.,

8. 7.

(q] Gosbcll v. Archer, 2 A. & E.
500.

(r] Jarmain v. Egelstone, 5 C. & P.
172.

(s) Pegg v. Wisden, 16 B. 239.

PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DEEDS. 473

Chap. IX.
(2.) Production of deeds — may be compelled, by whom. Sect- 2.

Where an estate is held in undivided shares, the owner of reduction Of

deeds — may

any share may compel the owner of any other share who be compelled,
holds the deeds relating to the common title to produce them J *

Owner of un-

for the satisfaction of a purchaser (t). divided share.

So, where estates are held in severalty under separate titles Of estate
created by a single instrument — as in the case of a settlement, 8everaT titles

exchange, or partition (w), — the owner for the time being of S**!8!

single instru-

any one such estate, or, it is conceived, of any part of it, may ment.
enforce production of such instrument. As between owners
of several estates held under the same title, he who can get
possession of the deeds has a right to retain them (x) .

Where a portion of an estate has been sold by the owner, Purchaser of
who retains the deeds, the purchaser can, it appears (y), j^Jten°
enforce their production upon a resale (s), unless there was
an understanding to the contrary : which would probably be
implied from the circumstances of the title not being required
upon the original sale.

Where an estate is in settlement, the legal tenant for life Legal tenant

^^ £ 1 * £

is primd facie entitled to the custody of the title deeds (a) : entitled to
and the Court will not interfere with this right, except in CU8tody-
cases where he has been guilty of misconduct; or where

(t) See Lambert v. Rogers, 2 Mer. that the deed itself should be enrolled

490 ; Burton v. Neville, 2 Cox, 242 ; in Chancery, and a covenant given

Sug. 443 ; Thorpe v. Holdsworth, 7 Eq. for its production.
139, 150; see Bray on Discovery, 276. (a:) Foster v. Crabb, 12 C. B. 136 ;

(u) Lord Banbury v. Briscoe, 2 Ch. cf. Wrightv.Robotham, 33 Ch. D. 106.
Ca. 42 ; Sug. 442 ; and see Shore v. (y] But formerly not at Law, Sug.

Collett, G. Coop. 234; and A.-G. v. 447, note; except in cases coming

Lambe, 3 Y. & C. 162 ; 8. C. at the within the 14 & 15 V. c. 99, s. 6.
Bolls, 11 B. 213; Riccard v. Inch- (z) fain v. Ayers, 2 S. & S. 533;

sure Commissioners, 4 E. & B. 329 : in this case the purchaser claimed to

the order in Harrison v. Coppard, 2 be entitled to a covenant for produc-

Cox, 318, seems to have been by con- tion under the covenant for further

sent ; and see Elton v. Elton, 27 B. assurance, but this particular point

632 ; where the Court made it a was not decided.
term of the delivery of the parti- (a) Garner v. Hannyngton, 22 B.

tion deed to one of several parceners, 444.

474

PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DEEDS.

Sect. 2. '

Whether

enforce pro-

Court is carrying out the trusts of the property, and
the deeds are wanted for that purpose (b). But, he cannot,
it seems, insist on this right as against trustees who, though
taking no estate, have active duties to perform ; or where, on
other grounds (as, e.g., on account of a pending suit), it is
more convenient that the deeds should remain in their pos-
session (c) ; and if wanted for a proper purpose, their produc-
tion can be enforced by a vested remainderman, or by a
purchaser from him (d) ; but it seems that a contingent
remainderman cannot enforce their production, even for the
purpose of effecting a sale or mortgage (e) ; and it has been
thought that, as a general rule, a vested remainderman can-
nofc compel their production except under special circum-
stances (/) ; but, in a modern case, the Court, although
admitting that the ordering of such production was not a
matter of right, but rested in the discretion of the Court,
and that it would not be directed unless for a purpose which
the Court should deem to be proper, held the principle to be
that the person so entitled in remainder or his mortgagee is
entitled to, and may compel, such production ; and if it be
suggested that the purpose for which the documents are
required is an improper one, the burthen of proving this lies
on the party resisting production ; but that the right only
exists where the title of the plaintiff to the interest which he
claims in the land is free from all reasonable cause of litiga-
tion (g) : and this seems to be the reasonable doctrine.

(b) Leathes v. Leathes, 5 Ch. D.
221. "Where a woman, married
before the Married Women's Pro-
perty Act, 1882, is tenant for life, her
husband is entitled in her right to
the custody of the deeds, Ex parte
Rogers, 26 Ch. D. 31. But whether
the husband's trustee in bankruptcy
has any right to their custody :
quccre, ibid. ; and see Schoole v. Sail,
1 Sch. & L. 176.

(c) Stanford v. Roberts, 6 Ch. 307.
(d} Lord Lempster v. Lord Pomfret,

1 Dick. 238 ; Davis v. Lord Dysart,
20 B. 405 ; 21 B. 124.

(e) Noel v. Ward, 1 Mad. 322.

(/) See 2nd Ed. 227 ; Shaw v.
Shaw, 12 Pr. 167; Lord Lempster v.
Lord Pomfret, 1 Dick. 238.

. (g) Davis v. Lord Dysart, supra;
He Coivin, 33 Ch. D. 179. A person
who is out of possession, and whose
ultimate right to keep possession
of the title deeds depends on the
validity of his title, may maintain a
suit for their delivery up to him, if
the evidence in support of his title is
not in his own power, but depends
on the production of the deeds of
which delivery is prayed ; WhiUing-
ham v. Cusack, 6 I. E. Eq. 451.

PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DEEDS. 475

And it is conceived, that where, as sometimes happens, Cj^P- IX-

oect. 2..

A. and B. jointly purchase property, taking the conveyance —

so as to give to B. merely an estate in remainder, B. has a man under a

general right to the production of the muniments of title. §eed.U

Before the Conveyancing Act, 1881, a mortgagee was not, Mortgagee

in general, bound to produce the deeds until he was paid

off(^), even although the devisee of the mortgaged estate de*J8 "ntl1
might be ignorant of particulars relating to the security (i) :
it was, however, held that this immunity did not, as between
mortgagor and mortgagee, extend to the mortgage deed
itself ; for this is as much evidence of the mortgagor's title to
redeem, as it is of the mortgagee's estate (k) : but in a later
case (/) L. J. Giffard, in discharging an order for production,
made by V.-C. James, laid it down that after the mortgage
had become absolute, the mortgagor could not see the title
deeds which he had deposited with the mortgagee, except
upon payment of principal, interest, and costs; and, appa-
rently, no distinction was drawn between the mortgage
deed and the earlier title deeds, as regards the appli-
cation of the rule (m) . A mortgagee who had bought the
equity of redemption, subject to a right of re-purchase
reserved to the mortgagor and exerciseable within a limited
period, was within the rule ; and need not, unless his money
were tendered, produce the deeds for the satisfaction of an
intending purchaser from the mortgagor (ft). Since, how-
ever, a person can, as a general rule, give no right which he

(h) See Sparkev. Montriou, 1 Y. & (k) Patch v. Ward, 1 Eq. 436.

C. 103 ; Addison v. Walker, 4 Y. & C. (/) Chichesterv. Marquis of Donegal,

447; Greenwoods. Rothwell, 7 B. 291 ; 5 Ch. 497.

Darner v. Lord Portarlington, 15 Si. (m) As to production of a mort-

380 ; Cannock v. Jauncey, 1 Dr. 497, gage deed in bankruptcy under the

507. Lord Kenyon is said to have Act of 1861, see lie Marks Trust deed,

advised a mortgagee to put his deeds 1 Ch. 429 ; and as to production

into a box and sit upon it, until the under the Companies Act, 1862,

money was put into his hands; see 1 25 & 26 V. c. 89, B. 115, of docu-

Y. & C. 107. The protection ex- ments subject to a solicitor's lien for

tended to drafts, and copies, &c., costs, see South Essex Estuary, §c. Co.,

Sycroft v. Sibel, 20 L. T. O. S. 197. 4 Ch. 215.

(t) Brownev. Lockhart, 10 Si. 421 ; (ri) Smith v. Pawson, 25 L. T. O. S.

sec Crisp v. Platel, 8 B. 62. 40.

476 PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DEEDS.

Chap. IX. does not himself possess (0), the mortgagee of a person who
- would be liable to produce the deeds must himself, unless he
could protect himself by want of notice (p), produce them at
the suit of those persons who could compel their production
as against the mortgagor (q) ; but he would not be justified
in so producing them except with the consent of the latter, or
under an order of the Court (r).

Law altered In the case of mortgages made since the commencement of
1881. ' the Conveyancing Act, 1881, the mortgagor, so long as his

right to redeem subsists, is entitled from time to time, at
reasonable times on his request and at his own cost, and on
payment of the mortgagee's costs and expenses in this behalf,
to inspect and make copies or abstracts of, or extracts from,
the documents of title relating to the mortgaged property
in the custody or power of the mortgagee (s) .

Lien of soli- The solicitor of a mortgagee has no lien upon the deeds,
citor.

as against the mortgagor, to an amount exceeding what is

due on the security (t). So, the lien of the solicitor of an

(o) See Telly v. IVathen, 1 D. M. (r) Lambert v. Rogers, 2 Mer. 490.

& G. 16 ; Gibson v. May, 4 D. M. & See Gough v. Offley, 5 De G-. & S.

G. 512. 653.

(p] See Wallwyn v. Lee, 9V. 24 ; (*) S. 16.

a case of a mortgage in fee by a per- (t} Hollis v. Claridge, 4 Taun. 807 ;

son originally so seised, and who sup- Wakefield v. Newbon, 6 Q. B. 276;

pressed an intermediate settlement ; Rider v. Jones, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 329 ;

and see and consider Heath v. Crea- Pcihj v. Wathen, 1 D. M. & G. 16 ;

lock, 10 Ch 22 ; Joyce v. De Molcyns, Hope v. Liddell, 7 D. M. & G-. 331 ;

2 J. & L. 374 ; Francis v. Francis, a solicitor who has the custody of

2 D. M. & G. 73, 78 ; 5 D. M. & G. the title deeds for the mortgagee, and

108 ; but see Newton v. Newton, 4 has used them in preparing for a

Ch. 497. sale by the direction of the mort-

(q) Sails v. Margrave, 4 B. 119; gagor, has no lien upon them against

and see Hercy v. Ferrers, ib. 97 ; also the trustee in bankruptcy of the

a singular case of Must on v. Brad- mortgagor for the costs of the at-

shaw, 15 Si. 192 ; where it was held tempted sale; Ex p. Flitter, 16 Ch.

that a purchaser could not, on the D. 617; but see and distinguish Ex

ground of the vendor's wife having p. Cahert, 3 Ch. D. 317, where the

possessed herself of the deeds, make deeds were in the custody of the

her a defendant to a suit for specific solicitor for the mortgagor ; and see

performance; and see Rumbold v, Sheffield v. Eden, 10 Ch. D. 291.
Fortreath, 3 K. & J. 44.

PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DEEDS. 477

executor upon title deeds of a testator's leaseholds, is subject Chap. IX.
to the amount (if any) due from his client to the testator's -
estate (u). If the solicitor of the mortgagor induce the
solicitor of the mortgagee to part with the deeds, by a verbal
undertaking to pay a sum claimed to be due for costs, such
undertaking will be enforced summarily upon motion (.r) ;
and it has been held that the lien of the mortgagor's
solicitors upon the engrossment of the reconveyance was not
prejudiced by their sending it to the mortgagee's solicitors,
with a request that they would hold it for them subject to
the lien ; and a purchaser from the mortgagor was restrained
from proceeding at Law for the recovery of the deed (y) .

A mortgagee who consents to a sale by the Court must Exceptions
bring the deeds into Court in the usual way (z) ; and it is
conceived that, in an ordinary case, a mortgagee who has
countenanced a mortgagor in selling under the expectation
of his concurrence, would not be allowed to stop the sale by
refusing to produce the deeds before actual payment (a) .

A mortgagee who has, even although insane, destroyed (b), Liability of
or has negligently lost (c) the muniments of title, will, it iJJgS ^de-
seems, be compelled to replace such as can be replaced ; and J r,"£tlon of
as respects originals, which cannot be replaced, will be re-
quired either to give an indemnity, or to make compensation,
for the damage thereby done to the estate ; but a mortgagee
taking the same care of the deeds forming his security as he

(u) Turner v. Letts, 7 D. M. & G. by his client ; Ex p. Jarman, 4 Ch.

243. D. 835.

(x) Re Gee, 2 D. & L. 997; see, (y) Watson v. Lyon, 7 D. M. & G-.

in Equity, Gilbert v. Cooper, 15 Si. 288 ; Newton v. Beck, 3 H. & N.

343, rev. 647; a solicitor's lien will 220.

not entitle him to refuse to produce (z) Livesey v. Harding, 1 B. 343.

the deeds for inspection by his (a) See Crosse v. Reversionary So-

client's trustee in bankruptcy ; Ex ciety, 3 D. M. & G-. 712.

p. Bramble, 13 Ch. D. 885, and see (b) Hornby v. Matchan, 16 Si. 325;

now Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 27. Brown v. Sewell, 11 Ha. 49.

Delivery up of papers will not be (c) Lord Midleton v. Eliot, 15 Si.

ordered while a suit is pending the 631.
costs of which have not been paid

478

Chap. IX.
Sect. 2.

Mortgagee
has no right
to copies.

PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DEEDS.

took of his own, ought not, it would seem, to be severely
dealt with if they are accidentally lost (d). His bond has
been held a sufficient indemnity to the owner of the equity of
redemption (c) ; and if such a bond, and a reconveyance, be
executed by the mortgagee, the mortgagor can be compelled
to pay the amount due (/).

A mortgagee, or transferee of a mortgage, on being paid
off, has no right to keep copies of the mortgage deed, or deed
of transfer ; but whatever copies he has, as a general rule, are
copies properly paid for by the mortgagor, and are to be
delivered up to him when he pays off the mortgage ; and no
costs of copies will be allowed (g}. The reason of this rule
apparently is, that the mortgagee stands in a fiduciary
position subject to his right to payment, and therefore will
not be allowed to say that the copies were made for any other
purposes than those of the security.

Production of The 15 & 16 Viet. c. 51 (Ji) contains provisions for securing
to the owners of lands enfranchised under the Copyhold
Enfranchisement Acts, the production of the Court Rolls of
the manors whereof the lands are holden ; and Order XXXI.
r. 19 of the R. S. C. 1883, provides for the order upon the
lord of a manor for the usual limited inspection of the Court
Rolls on the application of a copyhold tenant upon an
affidavit that the tenant has applied for and been refused
inspection (i).

Statutory
right to pro-
duction.

We may here refer generally to the statutory powers (k)
conferred upon the Court to compel production and inspection

(d} Woodman v. Higgins, 14 Jur.
846; James v. Rumsey, 11 Ch. D.
398.

(c) Slcelmardine v. Harrop, 6 Mad.
39 ; and see a form of bond, ib.
41, n.

(/) Stokoe v. Rolson, 19 V. 385 ;
Smith v. Bicknell, 3 V. & B. 51, n. ;
Skelmardine v. Harrop, ubi supra.

(</) Re Wade and Thomas, 17 Ch.
D. 348.

(h] Sects. 20, 21.

(?) As to the right to production
aud to an acknowledgment from the
lord of the manor on enfranchise-
ment, see Re Agg- Gardner, 25 Ch. D.
600.

(#) See Order 31 of B. S. C. 1883.

PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OP THE DEEDS. 479

of documents ; and also to the power which the Chancery Chap. IX,

Sect. 2.
Division of the High Court has, under the Companies Act, -

1862 (/), after a winding up order has been made, to compel
the production of deeds or other documents relating to the
company (m).

(3.) Non-production of deeds — how far important. Sections.

The non-production of the deeds is material, not only as Non-produc-
it deprives the purchaser of the usual means of verifying the —how far
title deduced upon the abstract, but as inducing a suspicion impo ant'

, . . Importance of

that they may have been deposited by way of equitable non-produc-
mortgaare : it has even been held, on a sale of a public house ,

00 . t r May affect

in London, that their non-production amounted to notice to purchaser

a mortgagee of such a deposit with the brewers who supplied their deposit,
the house (n) . This decision has been disapproved of (o) : and
has been thought to depend upon the presumed notoriety of
the practice of London publicans so to deposit their deeds,
and upon the fact of the mortgagee having been aware that
the publican was indebted to the brewers ; in fact, the Court
considered that there was wilful blindness, the security
having been taken for the repayment, not of a contempora-
neous advance, but of a sum already due (p) : however, in
one case, it was held by Sir L. Shadwell, V.-C., that the
omission to ask for the deeds was sufficient to postpone a
mortgagee who took a conveyance of the legal estate by way
of security for a pre-existing debt, although it did not appear
that he was aware of the mortgagor being indebted to the
prior incumbrancer (q).

(1} 25 & 26 V. c. 89, s. 115. 547, where it appeared that the

(m) See Re South Essex Estuary security was for money previously

Co., 4 Ch. 215. due; and see Hewitt v. Loosemore, 9

(n) Whitbread v. Jordan, 1 Y. & C. Ha. 449; Peto v. Hammond, 30 B.

303. 495 ; but see Agra Bank v. Barry,

(0} See 4 Y. & C. 563 ; Sug. 767. L. R. 7 H. L. 135 ; Manners v. Mew,

(p) 1 Ph. 255. 29 Ch. Div. 725, and cases there cited ;

(q) Worthington v. Morgan, 16 Si. see post, pp. 950 et scq., 979.

430

PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DEEDS.

Chap. IX.
Section 4.

Examination
of deeds —
matters to be
observed in.

Points to be
attended to in
comparing
abstract with
the deeds.

(4.) Examination of deeds — matters to be observed in.

In the examination of the abstract with the documents,
the most scrupulous care is requisite on the part of the
solicitor. The object of the examination is to ascertain, 1st,
that what has been abstracted is correctly abstracted ; 2ndly,
that what is omitted is clearly immaterial ; 3rdly, that the
documents are perfect, as respects execution, attestation,
indorsed receipts, registration, stamps (r), &c. ; and 4thly, that
there are no indorsed notices, nor any circumstances attending
the mode of execution, attestation, &c., &c., calculated to
excite suspicion (s). Anything out of the ordinary course —
e.g., formerly the unusual position of the indorsed receipt (£)—
should be made the subject of inquiry. Every part of every
document ought to be read through, especially the covenants
for title, &c., in a conveyance or mortgage. Notice of an
incumbrance is equally notice whether contained in one or
in another part of a deed (u) : and if an important point be
overlooked, the purchaser, after the conveyance is executed
and the purchase-money is paid, will have no remedy against
the vendor unless it falls within the covenants for title ; and
this, apparently, even although the abstract may have been
incorrect (#). Perhaps few of the most important duties of
a solicitor are so frequently performed in a perfunctory
manner.

Erasures and Tffe may here remark, as connected with the present sub-
in terlmea-
tions. ject, that erasures and interlineations in a deed are to be

presumed to have been made prior to, or at the time of, its
execution (y) ; as, on any other supposition, a crime must be

(r) A purchaser is entitled to have
all deeds (including even a discharged
mortgage), which form part of the
chain of title, properly stamped ;
Whiting to Loonies, 14 Ch. D. 822 ;
17 Ch. D. 10; and see and distin-
guish Ex parte Birkbeck Land Society,
24 Ch. D. 119.

(*) See Kennedy v. Green, 3 M. &
K. 699.

(t) Kennedy v. Green, supra, and
the judgment in Greenslade v. Dare,
20 B. 284 ; but see now Conv. Act,
1881, s. 54.

(«) See Smith v. Capron, 7 Ha.
189.

(x) See M'Culloch v. Gregory, 1 K.
& J. 291.

(y) Doe v. Catomore, 16 Q. B. 745.

PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DEEDS.

presumed to have been committed (z) : but, in the absence
of proof to the contrary, erasures and interlineations on the
face of a will are presumed to be made after its execution (a) ;
and also after the execution of a codicil, which does not
refer to them (b). It seems that unattested alterations in a
will dated before, but coming into operation after, the late
Wills Act are presumed to have been made before the Act (c).

481

(z) Per V.-C. W. in Williams v.
Ashton, 1J. & H. 115, 118.

(a) Doe v. Palmer, 16 Q. B. 747 ;
Cooper v. BocMt, 4 Mo. P. C. 419;
Grevitte v. Tylce, 7 ib. 320 ; Freeman
v. Steggel, 13 Jur. 1030 ; Simmons v.
Rudall, 1 Si. N. S. 115, 136; Gannv.
Gregory, 3 D. M. & G. 777; Re
White, 6 Jur. N. S. 808 ; and see
Williams v. Ashton, 1 J. & H. '115,

118, and statement of the rule in
the judgment.

(b) Rowley v. Merlin, 6 Jur. N. S.
1165. Alterations in a soldier's will
which was signed by him while he
was on actual military service are
presumed to have been made during
the continuance of such service, Re
Tweedale, L. K. 3 P. & D. 204.

(c} Re Streaker, 28 L. J. Prob. 50.

Chap. IX.
Sect. 4.

P. VOL, I.

I I

( 482 )

Chapter X. CHAPTER X.

AS TO MATTERS ARISING BETWEEN DELIVERY OF ABSTRACT AND
PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

1. Time, when essential at Law and in Equity.

2. Objections to title — negotiations upon and waiver of —
listen possession taken amounts to waiver.

3. General rights and liabilities of purchaser in possession.

4. Vendor in possession — alteration of property by, may avoid
contract.

5. As to entry and possession by railway companies before
completion.

(1.) AT Law, the time fixed for completion was formerly of
the essence of the contract (a) ; and the purchaser might
recover his deposit, unless the vendor could deduce and verify
a marketable title and give a conveyance at the time agreed
on (b).

Since the Judicature Act, 1873, stipulations in contracts as
to time or otherwise which would not, before the passing of
the Act, have been deemed to be or to have become of the
essence of such contracts in a Court of Equity, are to receive
in all Courts the same construction and effect as thev would

V

formerly have received in Equity (c) .

Time, how In Equity it has always been the rule that although un-
in Equity. reasonable delay will of itself conclude either party, the Court

Section 1.

Time for-
merly essen-
tial at Law.

Judicature
Act, 1873.

(a) Berry v. Young, 2 Esp. 640, n. ;
Stoivcll v. Robinson, 3 Bing. N. C.
928 ; Marshall v. Powell, 9 Q. B. 779,
791 ; Hanslip v. Padwick, 5 Ex. 623.

(b) Sug. 259. See also Porcher v.

Gardner, 8 C. B. 461 ; Maryon v.
Carter, 4 C. & P. 295 ; Carter v. Scar-
gill, L. K. 10 Q. B. 564.

(c} S. 25 (7) ; see as to this provi-
sion, Nolle v. Edicards, 5 Ch. D. 3 "8.

MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY, ETC. 483

will relieve against, or enforce, specific performance, notwith- Chap. X.

standing a failure to keep the dates assigned by the contract -

either for completion, or for any of the steps towards

completion, if it can do justice between the parties (d) ; and

if there is nothing in the express stipulations of the agree-

ment, or the nature of the property, or the surrounding

circumstances, which would make it inequitable to interfere

with and modify the legal right. This is what is meant, and

all that is meant, when it said that in Equity time is not of

the essence of the contract (<?). This equitable doctrine ha%

of course, no application where time has been made of the

essence of the contract by express agreement (/) ; or where,

from the nature of the property or other circumstances, it is

clear that such must have been the intention of the parties (g}.

For instance, on an agreement by a tenant at will of a As where
public house for the sale of the possession, trade, and good- liability by

will, at a fixed sum, and of the stock and furniture at a valua- ^P"^ Pro'

peny ,

tion, possession to be taken and the money paid on a given
day, the delay of a single day on the part of the purchaser
in having the valuation completed, and in taking possession
and paying the purchase-money, was held to relieve the
vendor from the contract : inasmuch as he incurred fresh lia-
bilities by retaining the premises, and the stock in the
meantime varied (K).

So, upon the sale of a public house as a going concern,
time is of the essence of the contract; and if the vendor
cannot, by the day appointed for the completion of the pur-
chase, procure a transfer of the licence under the Licensing
Act, the purchaser may repudiate the contract (/).

(d) See Lord Cairns, C., in TiUey 16 B. 59, overruling S. C., 2 Si.
v. Thomas, 3 Ch. 67. N. S. 1.

(e) Per Turner, L. J., in Roberts v. (h) Coslake v. Till, 1 Eus. 376.
Berry, 3 D. M. & G. 284. (i) Seaton v. Mapp, 2 Coll. 556 ; 9

(/) IT<>neymanv.Marry(itt,21~B.24. Geo. IV. c. 61; 35 & 36 V. c. 94,

(g] Sug. 262 ; Lennon v. Nappcr, s. 75 ; Day v. Luhke, 5 Eq. 336 ;

2 Sch. & L. 682 ; Roberts v. Berry, 3 Claydon v. Green, L. R. 3 C. P. 511 ;

P, M, & G. 284 ; Parkin v. Thorold, Coiclcs v. Gale, 7 Ch. 12, following

MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X. So, the fluctuating value of the property may alone show

— — that time was to be of the essence of the contract : as upon

of fluctuating an agreement for the sale of foreign stock (A1), or of a mining
value; lease (I), or of a reversion, which may become an estate in

possession during the delay, and the sale of which generally
or of a deter- evidences immediate want of money (w), or a life annuity,
character; or life estate, which may determine by the death of the

cestiti que vie (n).

or of a

wasting cha-
racter ;

So, where the property is of a wasting character, as, e.g.,
a leasehold for a short un expired term (o).

or is evidently So, where the purchaser evidently requires the property for

required at L .

once ; his residence (p), or for some other immediate purpose (<?).

or where the So, where the vendors, (being beneficially interested,) are
fluctuating a fluctuating body (as in the case of a dean and chapter),

where delay may give the purchase-money to persons other

than those who signed the contract (r).

Modern de- And the tendency of modern decisions has been to hold

cisions tend to _ . ... . - , n

render time persons concerned in contracts relating to land, bound, as in
a ' other contracts, to regard time as material ; and this prin-
ciple has been applied with the greater strictness where the
property was connected with trade (s). The question is,

Day v. Luhke; see, too, s. 9 of 32 & 33
V. c. 27, regulating the transfer of
licences ; and see now 35 & 36 V.
o. 94, ss. 40, 75.

(£) Doloret v. Rothschild, 1 S. & S.
590.

(1) Macbryde v. Weekes, 22 B. 533.

(m) See Newman v. Rogers, 4 Br.
C. C. 391 ; Spurrier v. Hancock, 4 V.
667, 672 ; Hipwell v. Knight, 1 Y. &
C. 401, 416; Wyvillv. Up. of Exeter,
1 Pr. 292, 298.

(») See Withy v. Cottle, T. & R. 78.

(o) Hudson v. Temple, 29 B. 536,
643.

(p) Gedye v. Duke of Montrose, 26

B. 45 ; Levy v. Lindo, 3 Mer. 84 ;
Tilleij v. Thomas, 3 Ch. 61 ; Webb v.
Hughes, 10 Eq. 281.

(q) Wright v. Howard, 1 S. & S.
190 ; Parker v. Frith, ib. 199.

(r) Carter v. Dean of Ely, 7 Si. 211.

(s) Per Wigram, V.-C., in Walker
v. Jeffreys, 1 Ha. 348 ; and see Wright
v. Howard, 1 S. & S. 190 ; Parker v.
Frith, ib. 199, n. ; Coslake v. Till,
1 Rus. 376 ; Sparrow's case, cited 2
Sch. & L. 604 ; Seaton v. Mapp, 2
Coll. 556 ; and Lord Cranworth's
decision in Parkin v. Thorold, 2 Si.
N. S. 1 ; which, however, went very
far, and has since been overruled;

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 485

however, in all cases one of intention, depending on the Chap.
nature of
contract (t).

« JL .

nature of the property and the true construction of the -

So, an option to purchase under a right of pre-emption Exercise of

A • A 4' «, -l, A ' l/\ right of pre-

must be exercised within the prescribed period (u) . emption.

So, the circumstance of the purchase-money being evidently Purchase-

. , „ , „ . , . . moneywanted

required ior payment of incumbrances, is important ; espe- to discharge
cially if the rate of interest which they bear exceed that bJ.anceg.
which the purchaser is to pay during delay (#).

But the private motives which may have induced a party Private unex-

. . pressed mo-

to enter into a contract, unless expressed in the agreement, tives for
or such as might be presumed from the general apparent *
circumstances of the case, do not make time essential ; c. g.,
the unexpressed intention to reside immediately upon the
estate (u) : where, however, the motive is of material import-
ance — as in the case of the intention to reside — although
not disclosed in the contract, it would, it appears, bo sufficient
to bind the vendor to the time named in the contract, if
communicated at or within a reasonable period after its
execution (z).

A stipulation that time shall be of the essence of the Time made
contract as respects the delivery of objections to the title, objections to

raises a presumption that it is not to be essential as regards

purchase.

the completion of the purchase ; and this presumption is essential as to

completion of

9; Wells v. Maxwell, 32%. N. S. 1141; Evans v. Stratford, ib.

408; Gedye v. Duke of Mont rose, 26 861. A written acceptance -within

B. 45 ; Hudson v. Bartram, 3 Mad. the period is of course sufficient to

440 ; Barclay v. Messenger, 43 L. J. constitute a contract without more ;

Ch. 449 ; and see cases cited ante, p. Mills v. Hcywood, 6 Ch. D. 196.

483. (x) Popham v. Eyre, Lofft, 786 ;

(t) Patrick v. Milner, 2 C. P. D. Sug. 262; Anon., cited 2 Sch. & L.

342. 604.

(u) Brooke v. Garrod, 2 D. & Jo. (y) Bochm v. Wood, 1 J. & "W.

62, 66 ; Aldcrson v. White, 3 Jur. 422 ; Dyer v. Hargrave, 10 V. 508.

N. S. 1316 ; Austinv. Tawney, 2 Ch. (z) See 7 V. 279 ; Nokes v. Lord

143 ; Eowlands v. Evans, 8 Jur. N. S. Kilmorey, 1 De Gr. & S. 444 ; Gedye

88 ; Lord Eanelagh v. Melton, 10 Jur. v. Duke of Montrese, 26 B. 45,

486

MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X. strengthened by a provision for the payment of interest by

OGCT). 1 •

the purchaser, in the event of the purchase not being com-
pleted by the day named (a).

Undertaking j^or js a mere undertaking that possession (which in such
possession. a stipulation means not merely actual possession, but posses-
sion with a good title shown (6),) shall be delivered on a
certain day, of itself binding in Equity (c) .

Effect of
wilful delay

In all the above cases the delay may be supposed to have
arisen from the state of the title, or otherwise without any
wilful or gross neglect by the party in default ; gross or
wilful neglect (<f), however, by either party, will, in any case,
entitle the other party to avoid the contract in Equity ; e.g.,
where the vendor, although urged by the purchaser to make
out his title, takes no steps to do so, the purchaser immedi-
ately upon the expiration of the time fixed for completion
may rescind the agreement (e).

of protest Where time is of the essence of the contract, the purchaser

• ii i / i

tive pressure, should not be content with merely asking the vendor to take
the necessary steps towards completing the purchase, but
should diligently press him to do so (/) ; and a purchaser
who takes no steps to enforce the contract within a reasonable
time, will be left to his remedies at Law ; and the strong
tendency of modern decisions is to diminish the time allowed
to either party for enforcing his rights under the contract.
But, of course, where the contract, though incomplete, has

(ft) Wells v. Maxwell, 32 B. 408 ;
cf. Webb v. Hughes, 10 Eq. 281.

(b) Tilleyv. Thomas, 3 Ch. 61.

(c) Bochm v. Wood, 1 J. & W.
419 ; and see Webb v. Iluyhcs, 10 Eq.
281, where the negotiations were
continued by the purchaser after the
date on which he had stipulated for
possession ; Patrick v. Milner, 2 C.
P. D. 342. As to what is delivery
of possession, see Lake v. Dean, 28

B. 607, and vide infra.

(d} Lcnnon v. Napper, 2 Sch. & L.
682 ; Roberts v. Berry, 3 D. M. & G.
289 ; Tilley v. Thomas, 3 Ch. 61.

(e) Lloyd v. Collett, 4 Br. C. C. 469,
cited 5V. 737; Warde v. Jeffery, 4
Pr. 294 ; Venn v. Cattett, 27 L. T.
469.

(/) Brooke v. Garrod, 3 K. & J.
608, 616 ; Williams v. Glenton, 1 Ch.
200.

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 487

been acted on, and either party has substantially had the Chap. X.

OCCtJ* 1.

benefit contracted for, time does not so readily run ((/).

Where time is not of the essence of the contract, and the When title

must be

delay originates in the state of the title, it is sufficient, upon shown in
a bill for specific performance being filed by the vendor, if a
good title be shown at the date of the decree (/*), or of the
investigation at chambers, if the title is referred to chambers.

And formerly, at Law, where no time was fixed for com- and at Law,
pletion, and the purchaser did not require the title to be
produced, and none was produced before an action had been
commenced by the tender, it was sufficient if the latter per-
fected his title at any time before the trial (i) ; but if a title
were produced, and proved defective or were not properly
verified, or, a fortiori, if the vendor on being required to
produce a title altogether neglected to do so, the production
of a perfect title before trial was insufficient (/,•) .

But although time may not originally have been of the Time may bo
essence of the contract; either party may, by proper notice, notice,
bind the other to complete within a reasonable specified
period (/) ; and the question whether the period is reasonable
must be judged of as at the time when the notice is given (m).

The notice should, at least as a matter of precaution, be in allowing a
writing, and should allow a reasonable time for completion : period,
what time can be so considered, must greatly depend upon
the circumstances of the particular case. Three days' notice
by a vendor would be too short (n) ; even six weeks has been
held to be insufficient (0) ; so, a week's notice by a purchaser,

(y) Sharp v. Milligan, 22 B. 606. Welb v. Hughes, 10 Eq. 281, and

(h) Post, p. 1227 et seq. ; and see cases cited in next notes.

Southcomb v. Bp. of Exeter, 6 Ha. (m) Crawford v. Toogood, 13 Ch. D.

213. 153.

(«') Thomsons* Miles, 1 Esp. 184. (n) See Reynolds v. Nelson, 6 Mad.

(k) Vide post, p. 1086. 18;Sug. 268.

(I) Stewart v. Smith, 6 Ha. 223, n. ; (o) Pegg v. JTisdeti, 16 B. 239.
see ffeaphy v. Hill, 2 S. & S. 29 ;

488

MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY

Chap. X.
Sect. 1.

As to the
deposit.

Purchaser
cannot re-

within which time the vendor was required to prove a dis-
puted legitimacy, was held too short (p) ; so, two months'
notice by a purchaser, where the vendor was taking active
steps to remove the only two remaining objections to the
title, but for the removal of which longer time was obviously
wanted (q) ; but two months' notice by a purchaser, within
which time the vendor was required to remove an objection
to the title depending upon a defective execution of a power,
appears to have been considered sufficient in one case, which
was, however, decided upon another point (r). In another
case, where a delay of two months had occurred in procuring
the execution of the conveyance by certain parties, a ten
days' notice by the purchaser was considered sufficient (s).
In a later case, a notice requiring the vendor to complete the
title within fourteen days after the day originally named for
completion was considered unreasonable (t) ; but in a still
later case, a month's notice by a purchaser after two months'
delay was considered sufficient ; although the performance of
the contract depended upon the vendor being able to enter
into a complete arrangement with third parties ; but the
decision in this case rested in a great measure upon the
fluctuating character of the property (u).

It is not, as a general rule, essential to the binding effect
of a vendor's notice that he should, at the expiration of it,
return or tender the deposit (#) ; nor, on the other hand,
where the purchaser's notice has expired, is he bound to
bring an action for his deposit (y).

But a purchaser cannot, in general, determine the contract

(p) King v. Wilson, 6 B. 124.

(q) Wells v. Maxwell, 32 B. 408 ;
McMurray v. Spiccr, 5 Eq. 527.

(r) Southcomb v. Bishop of Exeter,
6 Ha. 213. Five weeks was held too
short in Crawford v. Toogood, 13 Ch.
D. 153 ; and three weeks in Green v.
Sevin, ib. 589 ; but each case is to
be determined on its own special
circumstances.

(s] Benson V. Lamb, 9 B. 502.

(t) Parkin v. Thorold, 16 B. 59 ;
8. 0., 2 Si. N. S. 1 ; Nott v. Eiccard,
22 B. 307.

(u) Macbrydev. WeeJccs, 22 B. 533;
Haywood v. Cope, 25 B. 140.

(x) Sug. 269.

(y} Southcomb v. Bishop of Exeter,
6 Ha. 213,

ABSTRACT ANt) PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 489

without due previous notice (z) ; although notice even of Chap. X.

OGCb« 1 •

immediate determination would, it is conceived, be so far

. . ., scind without

material as that it would more strongly impose upon the notice.
vendor the necessity of using expedition in proceeding to
enforce the contract (a) ; and where the vendor has positively
refused to comply with the purchaser's valid requisition, the
latter may, after allowing the vendor a short time for con-
sidering whether he will persist in his refusal, or, perhaps,
even without giving any further notice, rescind the con-
tract (b) : and the same principles would, it is conceived,
apply to notices by a vendor. If the vendor himself fails
to fulfil the conditions as to time, he cannot hold the pur-
chaser to them (c).

Where a railway company had power at any time within Time when

, , T i T n ,1 jr J.T_ ill- held to remain

seven years to take land lor the purposes 01 the undertaking, at option of
and agreed to purchase land, and to pay interest upon the purchasers,
purchase-money from the day they should commence their
works on the land until the purchase-money should be paid,
it was held that the vendor could not enforce specific per-
formance ; the company not having commenced their works,
and the seven years limited by the Act remaining unex-
pired (d).

And time, although of the essence of the contract by Time,
original agreement, or made imperative in Equity by subse- essential, may
quent notice, may be enlarged or waived, by subsequent be enlarged or
agreement, or by conduct of the parties amounting to
waiver (e).

Thus, if a purchaser proceed in the purchase after the by proceeding
expiration of the time fixed by the contract (/), or limited m pu

(z) Taylor v. Brown, 2 B. 180; 436.

Woodv. Machu, 5 Ha. 158. (d] Bodington v. G. W. £. Co., 13

(a) See Guest v. Homfray, 5V. 818. Jur. 144.

(b) Nottv.JRiccard, 22 B. 307; King (e) Cutts v< Tlwdey, 13 Si. 206;
v. Chamberlayn, W. N. (1887), 158, Nokes v. Lord Kilmorey, 1 De G. &

(c) Southby v. Hull, 2 M. & Cr. S, 444.

207 ; Uppcrton v. Nicholson, 6 Ch. (/) Boyes v. Liddell, G Jur. 725.

Chap. X.
Sect. 1.

or by neglect
to require
possession.

MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

by his notice (#), it amounts to waiver (Ji) : the same rule
holds good as regards a vendor (/). But the mere enlarge-
ment of time by the vendor does not amount to a waiver (A1).

So, where a purchaser made no demand of the possession
of the purchased premises until a quarter before twelve at
night on the day fixed for completion — part of the property
consisting of cottages let to weekly tenants — this was held,
at Law, to be a waiver of the condition as to time (/).

Conditional
waiver.

Time for de-
livery of ab-
stract, how
waived in
Equity.

A conditional written waiver by a purchaser of his pre-
vious notice of abandonment, will be construed strictly
against the vendor (m).

And where the conditions provide for delivery of the ab-
stract at a certain time, the purchaser waives them in Equity
by receiving the abstract after that time : or even, it would
seem, by perusing it unnecessarily, or retaining it, when
delivered under circumstances which prevent its immediate
rejection («). So, a vendor who receives and entertains the
purchaser's requisitions delivered after the time specified,
waives his right (unless expressly reserved) to insist on the
conditions (o) ; and, as a general rule, either party relying
on time being essential, as a defence to an action for specific
performance, should make the point promptly Q;).

And, at all events, where it is not the duty of the vendor
to deliver an abstract, a condition for its delivery on a certain
day, is waived in Equity by a purchaser who does not ask
for it within a reasonable time before the day fixed for its

(g) Well v. Stiff hes, 10 Eq. 281 ;
Flint v. Woodin, 9 Ha. 618.

(h) King v. Wilson, 6 B. 124 ; and
see Ex parte Gardner, 4 Y. & C. 503.

(i) Pegg v. Wisden, 16 B. 239.

(*) Parkin v. Thorold, 2 Si. N. S.
1 ; Sug. 270 ; Barclay v. Messenger,
43 L. J. Ch. 449.

(t) Palmer v. Temple, 9 A. & E.
508 ; Carpenter v. Blandfordt 8 B. &

C. 575.

(>«) See Stewart v. Smith, 6 Ha.
222, n.

(n) Scion v. Sladc, 7 V. 278 ; Hip-
u-ell v. Knight, 1 Y. & C. 401 ;
Magennis v. Fallon, 2 Moll. 576.

(o) OaMcn v. Pike, 11 Jur. N. S.
666.

(p] Monro v. Taylor, 3 M. &. G.
713.

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 491

delivery (q) : the same rule would, no doubt, apply to the Chap. X.

OCCi/. X*

production of evidence, &c. : and it is conceived that a -
waiver of time as respects matters (such as the delivery of
the abstract, &c.,) which must necessarily precede completion
by a considerable period, would, in general, amount to a
waiver of the time (if any) fixed for completion.

So, a stipulation that time shall be of the essence of the Time waived
contract, is waived by a purchaser who receives, and retains jecting to

without objection, an abstract upon the face of which it hlghfy prob-

appears that a title cannot be made within the time fixed for able

completion.

completion (r) ; or who, without an objection on that specific
ground, proceeds with the purchase under a knowledge that
there is no reasonable probability of the title being perfected
in time for completion ; as when it depends upon the result
of a hostile chancery suit (s).

It is not easy to see how a mere protest against the delay Protest.
can save the benefit of the stipulation (t} : it is conceived
that, until the expiration of the time limited for com-
pletion, a purchaser may safely, and is indeed bound to,
proceed in the matter so long as a reasonable probability
exists of the title being perfected in time; taking care,
nevertheless, to protest in writing against the delay, and to
give notice of his intention to insist on his strict rights.
When the time has expired, or when previously it becomes
certain that the title cannot be perfected in time, he should
take no further steps in the matter, but should in writing
rescind the contract ; and then, if inclined to give the vendor
the opportunity of completing within a reasonable period,
all subsequent communications should be expressed to be
without prejudice to the notice of rescission, and should take
the shape of mere negotiations for a fresh agreement.

(?) Supra, and see Sug. 260. 332 ; Wood v. Kernel, 19 V. 220 ; and

(r) See Hipivellv. Knight, 1 Y. & see Williams v. Glenton, 1 Ch. 200.
C. 401, 419. (t) See Sug. 265 ; but see Williams

(*) PincJce v. dirties, 4 Br. C. C. v. Glenton, supra, and ante, p. 486.

492

MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X.
Sect. 1.

"Month"
means primd
facie a lunar
month.

It may be observed, that even in a contract for, or con-
nected with, the sale of land, the term month means primd
facie a lunar month ; although it may be construed a calendar
month, if, from the context, or from the surrounding circum-
stances, at the time of making the contract, such appears to
have been the intention of the parties («). In Acts of Parlia-
ment the term month is to mean a calendar month, unless
words are added showing that a lunar month is intended (or) ;
and every Act is now to be deemed a public Act, unless the
contrary be expressly provided (y).

Section 2.

Objections to
title ; — nego-
tiations upon
and waiver
of ; — when
possession
taken
amounts to
waiver.

Effect of ne-
gotiations
upon condi-
tion as to
objections.

Solicitor pur-
chasing can-
not object to
title which he
accepted for
his client.

(2.) Objections to title ; — negotiations upon and waiver of; —
when possession taken amounts to waiver.

We have already (z) adverted to the effect which negotia-
tions with respect to the title may have upon the vendor's
rights under the ordinary conditions limiting a time for
taking objections, and giving him the power to rescind the
contract.

It may be observed that a solicitor purchasing from his
client, cannot insist upon any objections to the title which he
— or his then partner in the case of a firm — considered unim-
portant when acting for the client upon his original
purchase (a). The rule, however, it is conceived, would not
preclude objections founded upon alterations which had been
made in the Law in the interval between the purchase and
the resale. Subject to this qualification, it would seem to be
also applicable to counsel.

(«) latiffv. Gale, 1 M. & S. Ill ;
Simpson v. Margitson, 11 Q. B. 23;
and see Lord St. Leonards' remarks,
V. £ P. 257, on Hipwell v. Knight, 1
Y. & C. 401. As to the meaning of
" next " in this connection, seeDaivcs
v. Charsley, W. N. (1886) 78 ; ante, p.

142, note (r).

(x) 13 & 14 V. c. 21, s. 4. This
enactment is not retrospective.

(y} s. 7.

(z] Ante, p. 183.

(a) Beevor v. Simpson, Tanil, 69.

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 493

Care should be taken not to make frivolous or unnecessary Chap. X.
objections or requisitions : objections clearly frivolous, made

and persisted in, would certainly indispose, even if tbey did frivoious ob-
not prevent (b), a Court of Equity from enforcing the con- jeetionsand

* J requisitions.

tract at the suit of the purchaser. It perhaps seldom happens,
upon the perusal of an abstract, that his advisers confine
their requisitions within the strict limits of their client's
rights, or within the limits prescribed by the conditions.
Points which could not perhaps be absolutely insisted on, but
which are yet of real moment, may often, if urged, be con-
ceded, either from courtesy, or as the price of the purchaser's
relinquishing requisitions which, although capable of being
enforced, are yet of less practical importance. It is, however,
material that no untenable requisition should be tenaciously
adhered to : for instance, where a purchaser had required un-
necessary evidence, and had in consequence been refused that
to which he was really entitled, he was not allowed his costs,
although he obtained a decree for specific performance (c) . In
one case, when a purchaser from a mortgagee alleged that
the latter was unable to deliver possession, and insisted on the
concurrence of the mortgagor, although the mortgagee offered
to deliver possession, it was held, in a suit for specific per-
formance, that the mortgagee was entitled to a decree with
costs, if then able to deliver possession ; and the Court refused
to inquire whether, when his offer to deliver possession was
not accepted, he was able to perform it (d) . It seems difficult
to support the latter branch of the decision.

In this connection it may be observed that the recent cases Effect of
of Re Dames and Wood(c], and Glenton to Haden(f), which r
have been already discussed (#), render it more than ever
necessary to exercise great caution in framing requisitions, in
all cases where the condition enabling the vendor to rescind
does not expressly provide for notice being given to the
purchaser of intended rescission if the requisition is per-
sisted in.

(b) Sug. 352. (*) 29 Ch. D. 626.

(c) Newall v. Smith, U. & W. 263. (/) 53 L. T. 434.

(d) Allen v. Martin, 5 Jur. 239. (?) Ante, p. 182.

494

Chap. X.
Sect. 2.

Danger of
withholding
objections,
&c., —
whether it
amounts to
waiver.

As to costs.

And, on the other hand, a purchaser should be careful not
- to hold back important objections or requisitions : if he
knowingly do so, the question may arise whether he has not
impliedly waived them (h) ; and where a purchaser puts a
vendor to expense in complying with requisitions, &c., and
then takes and insists on a fatal objection, which he originally
had the means of discovering, it seems probable that if an
action were brought by the vendor for specific performance
and dismissed, the Court would not dismiss it with costs,
and would even allow to the vendor, by way of set-off,
the expenses so incurred by him (/) ; although it does not
appear that he could otherwise recover them (/).

As to requir- And though it is not, perhaps, absolutely necessary that

ing concur- . . . . ,

rence of other a purchaser s original requisitions should go beyond matters
arising out of the title as abstracted, it is always desirable
that he should, in the first instance, make any requisition
which he considers of importance as to the special form of
the conveyance, or as to the concurrence therein of parties
other than the vendor. In one case (A-), it appears to have
been considered, though it was not necessary to decide the
point, that if the purchaser insists on a requisition as to
matter of conveyance which the vendor refuses to comply
with, and the purchaser on this ground, after due notice,
rescinds the contract, the Court cannot, if the requisition

(h] See Lord St. Leonards' remarks
on Magennis v. Fallon, V. & P. 347 ;
and Stanton v. Tatter sail, 1 S. & Gr.
529 ; Alexander v. Crosby, 1 J. &
L. C66. Where a purchaser made
frivolous objections, and the vendor
brought an action for specific per-
formance, the purchaser was held to
be entitled in his answer to the bill
to raise an entirely new objection;
Gray v. Fowler, L. E. 8 Ex. 249.
And where judgment is given for
specific performance of a contract for
sale, and an inquiry is directed in
general terms whether the vendor
can make a good title, it means a

good title according to the terms of
the contract ; but if the vendor
wishes to prevent objections which
have been waived before the action
from being renewed under the in-
quiry, the point must be considered
at the hearing and noticed in the
judgment ; Upper t on v. Nickolson, 6
Ch. 436.

(i) See and consider Deverell v.
Lord Bolton, 18 V. 505, 514, 515;
Corbet t v. Commissioners of JT'orlcs, 16
W. E. 889.

(/) See Sug. 363, and vide infra.

(k] Denny v. Hancock, 6 Ch. 1 ; see
p. 13.

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 495

is well founded, enforce specific performance at the suit of Chap. X.

Sect. 2.

the vendor.

In a very recent case it has been decided that a requisition Requisition
that the vendor should at his own expense obtain a judicial constructTon
construction of an ambiguous will, on which his title is of wlll>
founded, is an admissible requisition ; if the construction is
against the vendor he will have to pay the costs (/).

"We have already considered (m) what expressions will Purchaser's

prim d facie

negative the purchaser s primd facie right to a marketable right to a
title : he will, however, be bound, not only by express stipu- *
lation, but also by a clear notice of the state of the title
given to him before entering into the agreement (n).

But a purchaser, may, after the contract, either expressly May be
or impliedly, waive, either wholly or in part, his right
(whether it be absolute or qualified) to a marketable title,
or to the usual evidences thereof.

"We have seen that a purchaser is not bound by his Purchaser not
counsel's approval of the title ; but that if counsel waive a counsel' I
requisition or objection, the purchaser, adopting his opinion °Pimon»
and dealing with the vendor on that view, cannot afterwards adopt it.
repudiate it(o). "Where a purchaser, having taken several Effect of ac-
objections, expresses himself willing to accept the title upon title subject
a specified objection being removed, this waiver of the other
objections is merely conditional upon the removal of the
specified objection ; so that, if such objection be not removed
and an action be commenced against him for specific per-
formance, he is entitled to a general reference as to title (p) ;
and although the objection taken by the purchaser may not
be his true reason for refusing to complete the purchase, the
Court will not pry into his motives, but will simply decide

(1} Re Hill and Chapman, 51 L. J. (p) Lestiirgcon v. Martin, 3 M. &

Ch. 595. K. 255 ; Sweet v. Meredith, 8 Jur. N.

(m) Ante, p. 163 et seq. S. 638 ; 3 Gif. 610, where the judg-

(n) Ogihie v. Foljamle, 3 Mer. 64, ment is very inadequately reported.
0) Ante, p. 350,

498

MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X. whether the objection is tenable or not (q). Acceptance

of the title, as abstracted, is no waiver of the purchaser's

title as ab- right to have the abstract verified (r) : nor will the Court

waiverdo?the imp!y a waiver of any objection which is not clearly raised

right to have by the contents of the abstract (s) : nor does a purchaser, by
it verified. .... . .

waiving his right to an abstract, necessarily waive objections

to the title which are otherwise known to him (t) ; nor does
acceptance of the title bind the purchaser, where the vendor
conceals some material fact (u). "Where a purchaser of a
freehold and copyhold estate accepted the title, subject to the
production of " a declaration of identity of lands mentioned
in the deeds to those now sold," this was held to be a waiver
of his original right to have the tenure of a particular part
distinguished (#) ; and where a purchaser, in his answer to
a suit for specific performance, admitted his belief that
at the date of the contract the vendor had a title, this was
treated as an admission of the fact, which he could not
afterwards question (y).

Waiver may
be implied: —

And waiver need not be expressed : it may be implied
from either letters or mere acts of the party.

From apolo-
gies for non-
payment.

For instance, where a purchaser who had been let into
possession — but which, as it was according to the contract,
does not appear to be very material — and who had retained
the abstract for a considerable period without objection, and
had altered and let the premises, wrote a letter to his solicitor
for the purpose of its being communicated to the vendor, and
therein expressed his " vexation at the delay which had
happened about payment," and his gratification "at the
liberality and patience shown" to him, this was held to

(q] Denny v. Hancock, 6 Ch. 1, 10.

(r) Southby v. Hutt, 2 M. & C. 217.

(s) Blaclcloiv v. Laivs, 2 Ha. 47;
A.-G. v. Sitwell, 1 Y. & C. 570;
Bentleij v. Crascn, 17 B. 204 ;
Ttirquancl v. Rhodes, 37 L. J. Ch.
830.

(t) Sidelottam v. Harrington, 3 Jur.
947.

(M) Botisfield v. Hodges, 33 B. 90.

(x) Dawson v. Brinckman, 3 M. &
Q. 53.

(y] PMpps v. Child, 3 Dr. 709,

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 497

amount to an admission that the title was approved (2) : and Chap. X.
the same decision was come to in a later case, where a pur-

chaser took possession under the contract, paid part and gave ment for, and

security for the residue of the purchase-money, and mort-
gaged her interest under the contract (a) . So where a From reten-
purchaser had been in possession of the estate, and had abstract '
retained the abstract for five months without making any ™thout

* making requi-
requisition as to title, and then, while under notice by the sitions.

vendor to complete within fourteen days, merely required
the production of the deeds, he was, under the special cir-
cumstances, held to have thereby accepted the title as ab-
stracted (b) .

The preparation of the conveyance cannot, in general, be Approval of
much relied on as evidence of waiver (c) : where, however, in conveyance °
the case of a lease, the lessee, without previously requiring a when a
title to be shown, approved of a draft lease furnished by the
lessor, and took possession under the contract, he was held
to have waived all objections to the title (d) ; but this is not
so where there has been a common mistake (c). "Where a
purchaser of a leasehold house, after transmission to him of
the original lease, prepared a draft assignment, and made
various objections as to repairs and other matters, but did not
require the production of the lessor's title, the Court seems to
have considered that Ije had waived its production (/) : so,
where requisitions on the title were made and answered, and
the purchaser sent to the vendor the draft conveyance without
prejudice to the requisitions, it was held that the purchaser,
having taken no objection to the vendor's replies, and the
only negotiation pending between the parties being as to the
payment of the purchase-money, must be deemed to have

(z) Margravine of Ampach v. Noel, Oakley, 3 Sw. 159 ; Harwoodv. Bland,

1 Mad. 310. But see and distin- Fl. & K. 540.

guish Cooch v. Walden, 46 L. J. Ch. (d) Warren v. Richardson, You. 1 ;

639. and see Simpson v. Sadd, 4 D. M. &

(a) Haydon v. Bell, 1 B. 337. G. 665.

(b) Pegg v. Wisden, 16 B. 239; (e) Jones v. Clifford, 3 Ch. D. 779.
vide ante, p. 489. (/) Clivc v. Beaumont, 1 De G. &

(c) See Sug-. 345; Burroughs v. S. 397 ; Smith v. Capron, 7 Ha. 191.

D. VOL. I. K K

MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X.
Sect. 2.

Conditional
waiver.

accepted the title (y) ; subject, of course, to the requisitions
being complied with, so far as the vendor, by his replies, had
agreed to comply with them. It may be observed, however,
that execution of the conveyance is by itself no waiver of a
claim for compensation, where the purchase-money has been
paid into Court (h).

At any rate, where the purchaser prepares and tenders the
draft conveyance, this cannot, as a general rule, amount to
waiver of objections on the title, except conditionally upon
the vendor's acceding to the proposed form of conveyance (i}.

Attempt to
resell.

The fact of an intended lessee having advertised the pro-
perty for sale, although not considered conclusive, was relied
on in a modern case, as one among other evidences of his
having waived the production of the lessor's title (7t) ; but, in
general, no great importance as regards waiver can be fairly
attached to the mere circumstance of the purchaser having
attempted to resell the property ; except that the actual or
attempted resale of merely a portion of the estate, may, as
between the original vendor and purchaser, show that the
latter did not consider such portion material to the enjoy-
ment of the residue (/). Where the purchaser has actually
contracted to resell, or has published conditions with a view
to a resale, the form of the contract or conditions may be
material : as it may be fairly presumed that he can neither
have intended on the one hand to insist as against the original
vendor upon any objections, which he may have guarded
against on the resale, nor on the other hand to waive any to
which the title would then remain liable. If, under the sub-
contract or conditions, the sub-purchaser is to be bound to take
the title as it stands, this would, it is conceived, be strong

(^) Sweet v. Meredith, 8 Jiir. N. S.
637.

(h) Perriam v. Perriam, 32 W. R.
369.

(i) LuJcey v. Ififfffs, 1 Jur. N. S.
200.

(k) Simpson v. Sadd, 4 D. M. & G.
665.

(1) See Knatchbull v. Grucber, 1
Mad. 170; 3 Mer. 124; Jones v.
Gilford, 3 Ch. D. 779.

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 499

evidence that the original purchaser had waived all his objec-
tions to the title.

Possession of the property by the purchaser is the fact Possession ;
most frequently relied on as furnishing evidence of waiver
of objections to the title (m) : its importance, however,
depends upon the circumstances attending its acquisition
and retention.

Where the possession is taken after the delivery of the taken after

• • delivery of

abstract, and not in pursuance of any special provision 01 the abstract,
contract, it \s> primd facie a waiver of all objections appearing
on the abstract ; and it lies on the purchaser to rebut this
presumption (n).

The strongest case against the purchaser is, where he Forcible pos-
forcibly, or without the consent of the vendor, and without
being authorized by the contract so to do, takes possession :
forcibly taking possession was held in an early case to
amount to a waiver of an objection for want of title to an
important part of the estate (o), though compensation appears
to have been allowed.

Possession, however, if taken in accordance with the clear Possession
intention of the parties, as evidenced by the terms or subject- contract, or
matter of the contract (p), or with the consent of the 01

vendor (q), is not in itself, as a general rule, any waiver of
the purchaser's right to a good title, or of any pending
negotiations upon the title : where, however, the purchaser
was, upon his own application, let into possession, this was
held to be a waiver of an objection (viz., a right of sporting

(m) Fludyerv. Cocker, 12V. 25, 27; (o) Calcraft v. Roebuck, 1 V. 221.

Fleetwoodv. Green, 15 V. 594 ; Sinks (p) Dixon v. Astley, 1 Mer. 134 ;

v. Lord Rokcby, 2 Sw. 222, 226 ; Stevens v. Guppy, 3 Rus. 171 ; Bolton

Haydon v. Sell, 1 B. 337 ; Deller v. v. London School Board, 1 Ch.'D. 7GG.

Simonds, 5 Jur. N. S. 997. (?) Vancouver v. Bliss, 11 V. 458,

(n) Sown v. Stenson, 24 B. 631 ; 464; Burroughs v. Oakley, 3 Sw. 159;

Gloag and Miller's Contract, 23 Ch. D. Simpson v. Sadd, 4 D. M. & G. 665.
320.

K K 2

500

MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X.
Sect. 2.

Long reten-
tion of pos-
session.

What
amounts to
possession.

over the property) which appeared upon the face of the
abstract delivered three months previously, but which had
not been made the subject of remark by the purchaser or his
solicitor (r) . It is material here to observe, first, that the
purchaser's general requisitions upon the title appear (s) to
have been made prior to the application for possession ; and
secondly, that the objection was of a permanent character,
and not probably capable of removal : the case may, perhaps,
be held to show that the acceptance of possession amounts
to an implied waiver of any known objection, which the pur-
chaser knows, or may reasonably believe, cannot be removed ;
or has not formed part of his previous requisitions upon the
title (supposing any requisitions to have been already made).
In a later case, the taking of possession, though held to be a
waiver of all objections appearing on the abstract, did not
preclude the purchaser from objecting to the title upon
grounds which subsequently came to his knowledge aliunde (t) ;
so, also, it was held to be no waiver, where there was a serious
misdescription of the property, not discovered until after pos-
session was taken (u) .

Where purchasers retained possession for two years,
without requiring an abstract, which, according to the
agreement, was to be paid for by themselves, if required,
this was held to be a waiver of their right to investigate the
title (ar). And where a purchaser has taken possession of,
and enjoyed the subject-matter of, the contract, the Court
will, as against him, make every presumption in favour of the
validity of the contract (y) .

The grant of a lease by the purchaser to a tenant in
possession is equivalent to taking possession (z) : so is accept-
ance of the keys of a house (a).

(r) Burnellv. Brown, 1J. &W. 168.
(*) See ibid. 171.
(t] Boivn v. Stenson, 24 B. 631.
(u) Turquand v. Rhodes, 37 L. J.
Ch. 830.

(x] Sibbald v. Lotcric, 18 Jur. 141 ;

JFallisv. Woody car, 2 Jur. N. S. 179.

(y) Port of London Assurance case,
5 D. M. & a. 465.

(z) Ex p. Sidebotham, 1 M. & A.
655.

(a) Guest v. Homfray, 5 V. 823.

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 501

And, as it is not so usual to require the lessor's title on the Chap. X.
grant of a lease as it is to require the title on the purchase of

freeholds, smaller circumstances may satisfy the Court that

the right has been waived in the former case than would he chase of lease-
holds and of

sufficient to induce the same conclusion in the latter (b) ; and freeholds,
the same principle would apparently apply to the case of a
purchase of leaseholds in cases not within the Vendor and
Purchaser Act, 1874, or the Conveyancing Act, 1881.

Lastly, we may remark that a personal undertaking by Undertaking
the vendor's solicitor to do certain acts for clearing up the perfLttitle.°
title, will not be enforced by the Court under its summary
jurisdiction (c).

(3.) As to the general rights and liabilities of a purchaser in Section 3.

possession (d). General

rights and

Where the purchaser is already in possession as tenant at purchaser in
will the purchase contract puts an end to the tenancy (c) ; poss€ llon*
and even in the case of a purchaser being tenant for a term
of years, it has been said that the relation of landlord and
tenant is determined by a contract between the parties for
the pale of the estate (/). But at Law a lease is not affected
by a contract which depends upon a good title being de-
duced (g) ; and it is conceived that where a purchaser, who
is in possession as tenant, and entitled to require a valid
title, acts pending the completion of the purchase merely as
he might properly have done if the tenancy were still sub-
sisting, his possession will not be deemed an acceptance of
the title.

It appears to be clear that a purchaser who is authorized Purchaser

„ , , , authorized to

to enter into possession oi the estate, may, to some extent, enter into

(b) Simpson v. Sadd, 4 D. M. & G-. 253.

665. (/) S. C., sed qucere.

(c) Peart v. Bushell, 2 Si. 38. (g) Doe v. Stanion, 1 M. & TV. 695,
(d} Et vide post, Ch. XVII. s. 2. 701; Tarte v. Darby, 15 M. & W.
(e) Daniels v. Damson, 16 V. 252, 601 ; Sug. 178.

502

MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X. act as owner without thereby accepting the title. He may

OGCTJ* O»

• — - take a fall of underwood in due course (h) : so, in the case

acting as of a timber estate, a fall of timber would, it is conceived,
noTwafve68 ^e no necessarj acceptance of the title, although it might
objections. "foe restrained at the suit of the vendor upon the ground of
its diminishing his security for the purchase-money (?) : nor
does it appear that any act of management of the estate in
a due course of husbandry, or in a f air - exercise of the sup-
As by altering posed right of ownership (&), would be of importance: thus
it has been held that, upon a purchase of four acres of land,
stubbing up an osier bed of nine perches, levelling the land,
and filling up a pond, did not amount to a waiver of title (/).

Whether uni-
versally so.

Whether so
after dis-
covery of
defect in title.

In fact, Lord St. Leonards states without qualification (m),
that " acts of ownership after an authorized possession are
of no importance : " the reported cases, however, do not seem
to support so wide a proposition ; nor can it be maintained
upon principle («). If the purchaser of a residential pro-
perty, let into possession pending the investigation of the
title, were to fell the ornamental timber, or were otherwise
to destroy or permanently alter for the worse any of those
features of the estate, which conferred upon it an adventi-
tious value, it cannot be supposed that, at the present day,
the Courts would allow him to get rid of his bargain upon
the ground of the title being not strictly marketable.

At any rate, it appears that a distinction must be made
between important acts of ownership committed previously
to, and those committed after, the discovery of a serious
objection to the title (o) ; for acts which materially affect the
property are justifiable only under the purchaser's belief that

(h] Burroughs*?. Oakley, 3 Sw. 170.

(») Ante, p. 289.

(/,•) Small v. Attwood, You. 506.

(1) Osborne v. Harvey, 1 Y. & C.
C. C. 116 ; and see Turquand v.
Shodes, 37 L. J. Ch, 830. Qucere
whether the result would have been
the same, had the purchaser known

of the defect, and that it was irre-
mediable ; see p. 503, post.

(m} Sug. 344.

(«) Donovan v. Fricker, Jac. 165 ;
post, p. 505 ; Wallis v. Woodycar, 2
Jur. N. S. 179.

(0) Dixon v. Astlcy, 1 Mer. 135.

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 603

lie is in fact the owner. And it is conceived that a purchaser cJaP- x-

o1 i't . •!.

in possession may so act as to preclude himself from ulti- - — -

roately rejecting the title, without necessarily waiving his

right to have the title perfected to the best of the vendor's

ability ; and also that a distinction must generally be made

between acts affecting residential or building property and

acts affecting mere agricultural land.

And where a purchaser, who had been long in possession Retention of

possession

of the property, and had taken frivolous objections to the and refusal to

title, refused to receive any further explanations, and yet title?"

retained possession, he was held to have accepted the
title (p).

An act which amounts to a waiver of the purchaser's right Waiver of ob-

. „ .-, . jectionsbut

to reject a defective title, is not necessarily a waiver 01 his not of corn-
right to compensation for the defect (q).

So, acts by a purchaser in possession, which might other- Modification
wise have been considered as a waiver of objections to the
title to a portion of the estate, have been held to be modified
by his continuing to ask for the title (r).

A purchaser may (s), and as a matter of prudence should, Purchaser re-
decline to take possession while the title is in dispute, except
under a special agreement : for, if he take possession and

then reiect the title, he may be elected by the vendor (t) ; sation for

expenditure.
and cannot at Law claim any allowance for improvements or

repairs ; nor will Equity afford him any relief unless there
has been fraud on the part of the vendor («). Upon taking

(p) Hall v. Laver, 3 Y. & C. 196. the taking of possession being an act

(q} Calcraft v. Roebuck, 1 V. 221 ; of part performance of the contract,

Hughes v. Jones, 3 D. F. & J. 307, post, p. 1136.

316. The clerk of the vendor's soli- (*) Fortcllow v. Shirley, 2 Sw. 223.

citor has no implied authority to (t) And the agreement will amount

bind the client to allow compensa- to an acknowledgment of the vendor's

tion ; Burnell v. Brown, 1 J. & W. title ; Doe v. Burton, 16 Q. B. 807.

168. (M) Sug. 347; Nicloson v. Words-

(r) See 1 Mad. 170 ; Knatchlull v. worth, 2 Sw. 365.

Gruebcr, 3 Mer. 124. And see as to

504

MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X.
Sect. 3.

What allow-
ances made
when vendor
sues in
Equity for
repairs, im-
provements,
&c.

Purchaser
not liable fcr
use and occu-
pation, if
title bad,

until it is re-
jected.

possession, lie becomes, in the absence of any special agree-
ment (#), tenant at will to the vendor, although there is a
stipulation for payment of interest until completion (y) ; and
the right of the vendor to recover possession by ejectment
will be subject to the 7th section of 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27 (z).
When a purchaser in possession under the contract is advised
to rescind the contract, and assert a paramount title to the
property, he is not bound to give up possession before assert-
ing such paramount title by making a formal entry (a) .

If the contract be rescinded in Equity, even on the ground
of fraud in the purchaser (ft), the Court will, in general,
direct an allowance to be made to the purchaser for sub-
stantial improvements and repairs (c) : this allowance, how-
ever, when the sale is set aside at the suit of the purchaser,
will not extend to improvements, or even repairs — except
such as are essential to the preservation of the property (d)
— made subsequently to the discovery of tlue matter on
which he grounds his right to relief ; nor to a greater extent
than is specifically asked for (e).

On the other hand, it has been decided, that, where the
title proves defective, an action for use and occupation will
not lie against the purchaser for the time during which he
has been in possession under the contract (/) : but if, after
the contract is clearly abandoned, he retain possession, he
will be liable in respect of such subsequent occupation (g).

(x) Saunders v. Musgrave, 6 B. &
C. 524.

(y) Doe v. Caperton, 9 C. &P. 112;
Doe v. Chamberlaine, 5 M. & W. 14 ;
Doe v. Jackson, 1 B. & C. 448 ; Doe
v. Leeds R. Co., 16 Q. B. 796 ; Doe
v. Neeld, 3 Man. & G. 271 (case of
exchange). As to what will deter-
mine the tenancy, see 4 Jarm. Conv.
466 ; the tenancy at will is deter-
mined by a mere rescission without
any demand for possession ; Markey
v. Coote, 10 I. R. C. L. 149.

(z) Doe v. Rock, 4 Man. & G. 30 ;
ante, p. 442.

(a) Southcomb v. Bp. of Exeter, 6
Ha. 213.

(1)} Donovan v. Fricker, Jac. 165 ;
Ncesom v. Clarkson, 4 Ha. 104.

(c) Sug. 254.

(d) Ibid.

(e) See Edwards v. M'Leay, 2 Sw.
287.

(/) Winterbottom v. Ingham, 7
Q. B. 611 ; Eirtland v. Pounsett, 2
Taun. 145 ; Seaton v. Booth, 4 A. &
E. 528.

(g} Howard v. Shaw, 8 M. & W.
118 ; Markey v. Coote, 10 I. R. C. L.
149.

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 505

Where a purchaser retained possession for eight years, with- *aP- X.
out payment, and refused either to accept the vendor's -
defective title, or to abandon the agreement, and upon a
bill being filed by the vendor, and the master reporting
against the title, still refused to accept it, he was ordered
to account for the rents and profits and to pay the costs
of the suit (h).

Where C., a sub-purchaser from B., entered into posses- Purchaser

_. may maintain

sion, and then, pending a suit for specific performance by B. useandoccu-
against A. (the original vendor), was induced by A. to give respect S his
up possession under a mistake of facts, it was held that, equitable
upon a decree being made for specific performance of the
contract between A. and B., and a conveyance being executed
by A., C. could maintain use and occupation for the time
during which ho had been out of possession (i) ; but it
appears to have been subsequently held in the same case,
that although the equitable owner might maintain use and
occupation under the circumstances, yet such action would
not lie against the vendor, because the relation of landlord
and tenant was never contemplated between the parties (/»•).

Where a contract was rescinded upon the ground of fraud Liability of
in the purchaser, the latter was compelled to reinstate a respect of al-
private house which he had converted into a shop (/) : the
fraud is not noticed by Lord St. Leonards, in stating the
case (M) ; and if, as may therefore be supposed to be his
opinion, this was not the ground of the decision, the decision
seems to be an authority for this very reasonable proposition,
viz. : that alterations by the purchaser, although not in them-
selves a waiver of title, will yet deprive him of the aid of a
Court of Equity in rescinding the contract, if they are such
as change the nature or character of the property, and do not

(h) King v. King, 1 M. & K. 442; (k) Ib. 618 ; Tew v. Jones, 13 M.

Hope v. Hope, 22 B. 365. & W. 12 ; Turner v. Cameron's Co., 5

(i) Hull v. Vaughan, 6 Pr. 157; Ex.932.

and see Winterbottom v. Ingham, 7 (0 Donovan v. Fricker, Jao. 165.

Q. B. 617. (»») Sug. 254, 255.

506 MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X. admit of reinstatement : or if lie declines or is unable to

Sect. 3.

reinstate them.

His lien on If the contract be rescinded through want of title or other
chase-money default on the part of the vendor, the purchaser, if he have
p paid all or any part of the purchase-money, will have a lien

for it, with interest (w), on the estate, even although he may
have taken an independent security (0) , and also for his costs
of suit ( p) : but no such right exists where the contract is
void on the ground of illegality ( q) ; or where the purchaser
is by Law disqualified from holding such an interest in real
estate (/•) ; or where he himself abandons the contract («) . A
person, who has paid purchase-money under a bond fide
mistaken belief that he is entitled to the benefit of the
contract, has a lien on the property, in the hands of the
person rightfully entitled, for the money paid by him under
the mistake (t).

Where the vendor of an estate contracted to be sold exe-
cuted a mortgage upon it, of which notice was duly given to
the purchaser by the mortgagee, who did not interfere with
the contract, and the purchaser, who was allowed to take and
retain possession, paid several instalments of the purchase-
money as provided by the contract, but eventually (on grounds
which were adjudged sufficient) rejected the title, it was held
that the purchaser had a lien upon the estate for the pay-
ments made and interest, which might be enforced against
the mortgagee (n) . If before completion the purchaser has

(«) Torrance v. Bolton, 8 Ch. 118. (r) See and consider Harrison v.

(0) Lacon v. Merlins, 3 Atk. 1,4; Southcotc, 2 V. Sen. pp. 389, 393 ;

Mackreth v. Symmons, 15 V. 345 ; Mackreth v. Symmons, 15 V. at p.

Oxcnham v. Esdaile, 3 Y. & J. 262 ; 337.

Surgessv. Wheate, 1 Ed. 211 ; Wythes (*) Dinn v. Grant, 5 De G-. & S.

v. Lee, 3 Dr. 396. 451.

(p) Middleton v. Magnay, 2 H. & (t) Maddison v. Chapman, 1 J. & H.

M. 233 ; Turner v. Marriott, 3 Eq. 470 ; and see Parkinson v. Hanlury,

744; Thomas v. Buxton, 8 Eq. 120; L. R. 2 H. L. 1.
Torrance v. Bollon, supra. (H) Rose v. Watson, 10 H. L. C.

(q) Ewwy v. Osbaldiston, 2 M. & C. 672.
53, 88.

ABSTRACT AND TREPANATION OF CONVEYANCE. 507

resold, the sub-purchaser will have a lien for any money paid Chap. X.
by him upon whatever interest the purchaser may possess in •
the property (#).

(4.) Vendor in possession, ly altering property, avoids the Section 4.

Contract. Vendor in

possession, by
altering pro-

Any alteration of the subject-matter of the contract by the Pcrt7> avoids
vendor, in any particular which does not admit of compensa-

tion or reinstatement, as the cutting of ornamental timber (y) or ration of pro-
other trees, will entitle the purchaser to abandon the contract, vendor may
The felling of ordinary timber by the vendor pending the tract.
completion of the contract may be a matter for compen-
sation (z) : and, as we have already seen, a vendor may,
in due course of husbandry, cut coppice wood and get in
crops, but in such a case the net profits will belong to the
purchaser (a).

And in a case between vendor and purchaser the Court, it Felling orna-
is conceived, would consider whether the trees destroyed timber.
were in fact, or might reasonably be considered, ornamental ;
and would not — as in cases between tenant for life and
remaindermen — regard as ornamental only trees which were
planted or left for ornament (b) .

We (c) have already considered the relative rights of the Alterations in
vendor and purchaser in the several events of the estate estate,
increasing or diminishing in value, or of the failure of the
consideration for, or subject-matter of, the contract, before
conveyance.

(x] Aberamanlromvorksv.Wickens, Marker v. Marker, 9 Ha. 1; Webster

4 Ch. 107. v. Donaldson, 34 B. 541. As to the

(y) Magcnnis v. Fallon, 2 Moll. measure of damages where a vendor

588. has altered the property, and the

(z) S. C. purchaser still seeks specific per-

(rt) Poole v. Shergold, 1 Cox, 273, formance, see Erehl v. Park, 31 L.

and vide ante, p. 286. T. 325.

(b} See Magcnnis v. Fallont supra, ; (c) Ante, p. 284 ct scq.

or

508 MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X.

Sections. (5.) As to entry and possession by railway companies before

As to entry Completion.

and possession

companTesbe- ^y ^e °lauses °^ the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act,
fore comple- 1845, which relate to the entry upon lands by the promoters
As to entry °^ the undertaking (d), it is, in effect, provided, that the pro-
bndrailSSeSS10n mo^ers sna^ n°t> without the consent of the owners (that is,
companies. all persons having any interest, although not in posses-
sion,) (e) and occupiers, enter upon any land (except for the
purpose of making surveys and other similar purposes speci-
fied in the Act) until they have paid or deposited the
purchase-money or compensation for the same. If, however,
before the amount of purchase-money or compensation has
been determined by agreement, award, or a verdict, they are
desirous of entering, they are enabled to do so, upon making
Upon making sucn deposit and giving such bond by way of security as are

deposit, and L °

giving secu- specified in the S5th section of the 8 & 9 Yict. c. 18, as re-
ntybybond. cently modified by the 36th section of the 30 & 31 Yict.

c. 127 (/). The valuation to be made by the surveyor
appointed under the provisions of these Acts is to include the
amount of all damage and injury, so far as capable of
estimation (g) ; and the security must be for the value of all
the land comprised in the notice of purchase given by the
promoters under the 1 8th section, although the proposed entry
be upon only a part of such land (//.) ; and should be in the
very terms of the Statute (i) ; and if the bond first given be

(d} Sects. 84 to 92. $c. E. Co., 5 Eq. 190. As to the

(e) Inge v. Birmingham, $c. E. Co., principle upon which the amount of

3 D. M. & GT. 658. the deposit is to be calculated in a

(/) The bond given under this doubtful case, see Hill v. M. JR. Co.,

section is to secure the purchase- 21 Ch. D. 143.

money and compensation for the (g} 30 & 31 V. c. 127, s. 36.

particular lands taken, and does not (h) Barker v. N. S. R. Co., 2 De

include sums payable as compensa- G-. & S. 55 ; Hoiking v. Phillips, 3

tion for minerals under sects. 78 and Ex. 168; Dakin v. L. $ N. W. It.

81, even although the submission to Co., 3 De G-. & S. 414.

the arbitrator empowers him to (i) Poynder v. G. N. R. Co., 2 Ph.

assess the amount of compensation 330; Langham v. G. N. R. Co., 1 De

for minerals ; Ex p. Neath $ Brecon G-. & S. 486 ; Willcy v. S. E. R. Co., 1

R. Co., 2 Ch. D. 201. As to what it M. & GT. 58 ; Cotter v. Metr. R. Co., 10

does include, see field v. Carnarvon, Jur. N. S. 1014. The provision as to

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 509

informal, or insufficient, a second may bo substituted for Chap. X.

J . Sect. 5.

it (A-). Before the recent Statute, no prior notice to the -
landowner of the intention of the promoters to proceed under
the 85th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act
appears to have been necessary (/) ; but now, by the 30 & 31
Yict. c. 127, s. 36, the company are bound to give to any
party interested in, or entitled to sell and convey, the lands in
question, and not consenting to the entry of the company,
not less than seven days' notice of their intention to apply to
the Board of Trade for the appointment of a surveyor (m) : such
a notice, however, does not amount to a contract binding them
to take the property (n) . The entry and deposit may be
made at any time before the expiration of the period allowed
for compulsory purchase (o). Where a company has entered,
under section 85, before the expiration of such period, they
may continue to hold the land afterwards (/?) ; and a company
which during such period has given a notice to treat may
enter after it has expired (q) ; but an entry subsequent to the
recent Statute cannot be made upon a previous valuation
under the Lands Clauses Act (r) : nor are the company jus-
tified in proceeding under the 85th section of that Act, unless
there is an urgent necessity for immediate entry on the
land (*) ; and if they avail themselves of their powers under
this and the following sections, they cannot also enforce
specific performance of an agreement previously entered into

sureties to the bond has been altered (q) Marquis of Salisbury v. G. N.

by s. 36 (4) of 30 & 31 V. c. 127, in R. Co., 17 Q. B. 840 ; and see

cases where the parties differ ; see generally on the section, Tiverton

Loosemore v. Tiverton R. Co., 22 Ch. R. Co. v. Looscmorc, 9 Ap. Ca. 480,

D. 25, 32. which finally decides that, whether

(k) Willey v. S. E. It. Co., 1 M. & or not the railway can be completed

G-. 58. within the prescribed period, an

(1) Bridges v. Wilts $ W. R. Co., 4 entry under this section is lawful at

R,. C. 622. any time within it, and that the

(m) Prior to the recent Act, the company may remain upon the land

appointment rested with two justices. and finish the making of the railway

(n) Grierson v. Cheshire Lines' Com- after the expiration of the period.

mittee, 19 Eq. 83. (r) field v. Carnarvon R. Co., 5

(o) Worsky v. S. D. R. Co., 16 Eq. 190.

Q. B. 539. (*) S. C. But see Willey v. S. E.

(p) Doe v. N. S. R. Co., 16 Q. B. R. Co., 1 M. & G. 58.
526.

6 10 MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X. -with respect to the same lands (t) ; the service of a notice to

Sect. 5.

treat and entry into possession under the 85th section being

regarded as an abandonment by the company of their rights
under the contract. It is conceived that if the company,
having entered into a binding contract for the purchase of
land, afterwards put in force their compulsory powers with
respect to the same land, the landowner may, at his option,
either enforce the contract, or allow the price to be deter-
mined by a jury or by arbitration, as he may deem most to
his advantage. The rules, applicable to the operation of this
section, extend also to streams taken by a Waterworks Com-
pany (M) : as also to the powers given under various other Acts
which incorporate the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act (v).

Application, ijine deposit is to remain as a security for the performance of
posit. the bond, and is to be applied under the direction of the Court

of Chancery (to)-; and it will not generally be paid to the com-
pany without notice to the landowner, although the purchase
may have been completed by agreement, and the purchase-
money paid (x) ; and he is entitled to his costs of appear-
ance (y) : he does not, however, seem to have any lien upon
it for his costs payable by the promoters (s) : nor can he
oppose its repayment to the company, if he have repudiated

(t) Bedford It. Co. v. Stanley, 2 J. 151. The consent in writing of the

& H. 746. landowner to the prayer of the

[u] 10 V. c. 17, s. 6; and see petition is sufficient ; Ex p. Mayor of

Ferrand v. Corporation of Bradford, Huddcr afield, 46 L. T. 730 ; and the

21 B. 412 ; Stone v. Corporation of fact of the bond being in the posses-

Yeovil, 2 C. P. D. 99. sion of, and produced by, the pro-

(v] See "Woolf & Middleton, 434. moters is sufficient evidence of the

(w) S. 87. If the condition of the fulfilment of the conditions of the

bond is broken, the landowner may bond ; EC L. $ N. W. R. Co., 26

present a petition for payment out to L. T. 687. If the application is not

him adversely to the company ; Re made until many years after con-

Mutlow's Estate, 10 Ch. D. 131. veyance to the company, service may

"Where the amount of the deposit be dispensed with ; Exp.L.QY.R.

does not exceed 1,000?., the applica- Co., 55 L. T. 58.

tion must now be made by summons (y} See Ex p. Stevens, 2 Ph. 772 ;

in Chambers; R. S. C. 1883, O. 55, see, however, Re Tottenham R. Co.,

r. 2 (2) ; Ex p. Maidstone R. Co., 14 W. R. 669.

25 Ch. D. 168. (z) Ex p. Stevens, 2 Ph. 772.

(x) Ex p. S. W. R. Co., 6 R. C.

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 511

the proceedings of which the original deposit, &c., formed a Chap. X.
part (a). The fund is not available for the payment off of a
mortgage on the lands (b) ; the principle being that, upon
fulfilment of the condition of the bond, the promoters are
entitled to payment out without any deduction (c).

It has been held that the making of a permanent tunnel Entry, what,
through the soil without disturbing the surface, is an entry
upon or user of the land within the 85th section of the Lands •
Clauses Consolidation Act (d) ; so also is throwing an arch
over the land (e). Placing waggons, rails, &c., on the land,
with the consent of the tenant, has been held to be no
entry (/) : but if permanent injury is done, though the entry
is with the tenant's consent, yet the owner may obtain an
injunction (g). Where the entry was merely for surveying
and setting out the line, and the company were no longer in
possession, the Court refused an injunction (h).

"Where the land is in mortgage, the deposit and bond should Where laud in
be sufficient to cover all claims which the mortgagee may be ^St^h^uld6
entitled to enforce ; and in one case where the company had c?Ter e?forc<;-
notice that land was subject to a mortgage, not payable till a mortgagee,
future day, and paid the purchase-money into Court upon the
ordinary valuation to the credit of the mortgagor, without
communicating with the mortgagee, they were restrained
from proceeding with their works, though not from retaining
possession of the land (i) : so where equitable mortgagees

(a) lie Fuoks, 2 M. & G. 357. (/) Standish v. Mayor, $c. of

(b) Martin v. L. C. § D. 11. Co., I Liverpool, 1 Dr. 1.

Ch. 501. (g) Armstrong v. Watcrford $

(c) Re Neath $ Brecon R. Co., 9 Limerick R. Co., 10 Ir. Eq. R. 60.
Ch. 263. (A) Fooksv. Wilts, S. $ W. R. Co.,

(d) Ramsdenv. Manchester $ Altf in- 5 Ha. 199.

eham R. Co., I Ex. 723; and ease- (i) S. 108; Rankenv.E.$ W.India

ments generally are within the section Docks R. Co., 12 B. 298; but see

where there is express power to take Williams v. S. W. R. Co., 3 De Gr. &

them; Hillv. M. R. Co., 21 Ch. D. S. 354, where no difficulty appears

143, 147. to have been felt as to the jurisdic-

(e) See Pinchin v. Blackwatt R. Co., tion to restrain the company from
1 K. & J. 35. keeping possession.

512

MATTERS BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X. were not formally served with notice of the inquiry to assess
Sect. 5.

- damages, and took no part in it, and the amount of compen-
sation awarded fell short of what was due on their security, it
was held that they were in no way bound; and that, in
default of payment, they were entitled as against the company
a'nd the landowner to a conveyance of the land comprised in
their security (/»;).

Where land But where a person claims under a title altogether adverse
an adverse to that of the parties with whom the company have con-
e* tracted, Equity will not interfere, at his suit, to restrain the

company from committing waste (/) ; in such a case the
adverse claimant should bring an action of trespass or eject-
ment.

Penalty on

unlawful

entry.

Remedy
against land-
owner refus-
ing- posses-
sion.

Any wilful entry by the promoters, without consent and"
before payment or deposit, is made the subject of a 10/.
penalty : and the retention of possession after conviction in
such penalty, renders them liable to a penalty of 25 /. per
diem (m) : but the penalties are not incurred by an entry
after payment or deposit made to or in favour of parties
who were believed to be, but were not, actually entitled (n).
In case of an unlawful refusal by the landowners or occu-
piers to give up possession or permit an entry, the promoters
of the undertaking can claim the assistance of the sheriff (o) :
and a landowner who has by his silence and conduct en-
couraged a company to carry on their works, upon the
supposition that they were entitled to enter and take the
land in question, and who subsequently disputes the terms
of the contract, is not entitled to an interlocutory injunction

(k) Martin v. L. C. $ D. E. Co., I
Ch. 501.

(/) Webster v. S. K E. Co., 1 Si.
N. S. 272 ; Alston v. E. C. E. Co., 1
Jur. N. S. 1009.

(m) S. 89. Hutchinson v. Man-
chester E. Co., 15 M. & W. 314 ; and
Hutchinson v. E. L. E. Co., 3 R. C.
748,

(«) See last note, and Steele v.
M. E. Co., 21 L. T. 387.

(o) S. 91. Apparently the section
imposes no obligation on the com-
pany to call in the assistance of the
sheriff, excepting where the entry
would be forcible ; Loosemore v.
Tiverton E. Co., 22 Ch. D. 25 ; see p.
41.

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 513

to restrain them from so entering (p). Where a company, on S!ia£' X.
a purchase, agreed with the landowner that, if they should
require any additional land for the purposes of their railway,
it should be sold to them at a stated price, it was held that
they were authorized under the agreement to purchase
additional land at any time within the statutory period for
the completion of the works, although their compulsory powers
had expired (?).

Where a railway company, after the compulsory powers of Whether
their original Act had expired, obtained another Act autho- powers can bo
rizing additional works, it was held that a notice to treat, aftT^tlmo
given under the former Act, was not available for the taking limited for

0 ' completion of

of land subject to the compulsory powers of both Acts (r). works has
But the decision in this case was mainly rested on the
ground, that there was no evidence that the land proposed
to be taken was required for any specific purpose authorized
by the former Act. In the recent case of Tiverton and North
Devon Railway Company v. Loosemore (s), the late Earl Cairns,
in his speech on moving the judgment of the House of Lords,
made the following observations (t) on the case above referred
to : — " Were such a case now to arise, I should be disposed to
think, as I was disposed to think in Richmond v. North Lon-
don Railway Company, that if nothing more was done, and
the company have slept upon their rights, and certainly if
the delay cannot be explained, they should be held to be
disabled from going on with any compulsory purchase, and
in such a case the landowner should, as I think, be held to be
disabled also. Both parties have been content to let the time
run out. There is no rei interventus, no change of the status
quo ante, nothing which requires to be undone. The whole
matter has been a project merely ; and as a project it has

(p) Greenhalgh v. Manch. $ Birm. 306.

R. Co., 3 M. & C. 784; Swaine v. (r) Richmond v. N. L. JR. Co., 3

G. N. R. Co., 3 N. R. 109, 399 ; and Ch. 679.

see Seton, 177, 196. (*) 9 App. Ca. 480.

(q) Rangeky v. M. R. Co., 3 Ch. (t) Ibid. p. 489.

D. VOL. I. L L

514

MATTEES BETWEEN DELIVERY OF

Chap. X.
Sect. 5.

Company
after lawful
entry cannot
be ejected.

come to an end." In the case before the House of Lords,
the company had, a few days before the expiration of the
period of three years, limited for their exercise of compulsory
powers of purchase, served on a landowner a notice to treat
for part of his land. No agreement was come to between the
parties, nor was the compensation assessed, and nothing more
was done until thirteen days before the expiration of the
period of five years prescribed for the completion of the
railway, when the company, having complied with the
requirements of sect. 85 of the Lands Clauses Act, entered
and proceeded to make the railway, in spite of the protest
and resistance of the landowner. It was decided that,
whether or not the railway could have been completed within
the remaining thirteen days of the period of five years, the
entry was lawful, and that the company could not be re-
strained by injunction, but were entitled to remain and
complete the works after the expiration of the five years.

A company which has duly entered under the 85th section
cannot be ejected by the landowner at the expiration of the
time limited by the special Act for the exercise of their
compulsory powers, although the amount of purchase-money
remain unascertained, and the land be not conveyed (u) : it
is for the landowner to take the initiative under the 68th
section in order to have the amount ascertained (x).

Lien on rail-

unpaid pur-
chase-money,

The owner of land of which a railway company has taken
possession, whether under the 85th section or by agreement,
j^ a jjen -^Q^ ^e jan^ for fag unpaid purchase and com-

pensation moneys, which the Court will enforce by sale,
even though the railway is actually made and ready for
traffic (y) ; and the fact of a deposit and bond having been
made and given under the 85th section does not prejudice

(u} Doe v. N. S. E. Co., 16 Q. B.
526 ; Hudson v. Leeds $• Bradford JR.
Co., 16 Q. B. 796 ; Worsley v. 8. D.
£. Co., 16 Q. B. 539.

(x) Adams v. Blacltwall E. Co., 2

M. & G-. 130.

(y} Wing v. Tottenham E. Co., 3
Ch. 740; Walker v. Ware E. Co., 1
Eq'. 195; and seeAllgoodv. Mcrri/-
bentE. Co., 33 Ch. D. 571.

ABSTRACT AND PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 515

his lien for the excess of the purchase and compensation

Sect. 6.

moneys over the sum deposited (z).

Where a railway company purchased land by agreement
with the landowner and entered into possession, but after-
wards leased the line which they constructed to another
railway company, the vendor was held entitled, in a suit for
specific performance against both companies, to a declaration
of lien for his unpaid purchase-money, and to have it
enforced by a sale (a)9 and the appointment ad interim of a
receiver (b) ; and this has been done even where a receiver
was already in possession at the instance of debenture
holders (c). But the Court will not for the purpose of en-
forcing the lien restrain the company from running trains
over the land until the sale is made (d).

Where land is taken by a railway company and the Landowners
purchase-money is ascertained by arbitration under the for costs of
Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, the vendor is not a
entitled to a lien on the land sold for the costs of the arbi-
tration payable to him by the company (e).

Lands included in the company's notice, but not actually Mere notice
taken or actually affected by the company, are not within land within
the 68th section, and the landowner's remedy is under the
preceding sections (/).

(z) Walker v. Ware E. Co., 1 Eq. Eq. 261. See, however, Earl St.

195. Germans v. Crystal Palace It. Co., 11

(a) Bishop of Winchester v. Mid Eq. 568, where the company was
Hants R. Co., 5 Eq. 17. restrained from continuing in pos-

(b) Pell v. Northampton R. Co., 2 session. See further on this sub-
Ch. 100; Cozens v. Bognor JR. Co., 1 ject, post, p. 835 et seq.; \21Qetscq.
Ch. 594 ; and see cases cited in next (e) Earl Ferrers v. S. $ 17. R. Co.,
note, and infra. 13 Eq. 524.

(c) Drax v. Somerset $ Dorset R. (/) BurJcinshaw v. Birmingham,
Co., 38 L. J. Ch. 232; Williams v. $c. R. Co., 5 Ex. 475. As to the
Aylesbury R. Co., 21 W. R. 819. meaning of the word "take " in the

(d) Munns v. I. of Wight R. Co., 5 Act, see Spencer v. Metrop. Board,
Ch. 414 ; Lycettv. S. $ U. R. Co., 13 22 Ch. D. 142.

LL2

( 516 )

Chapter XI.

CHAPTEE XL

Section 1.

What in-
quiries should
be made of
vendor's soli-
citors ; and of
supposed in-
cumbrancers,
trustees, and
tenants.

Inquiry as to
incumbrances,
should be
made of ven-
dor's solici-
tors;

AS TO SEARCHES FOR AND INQUIRIES RESPECTING
INCUMBRANCES.

1. What inquiries should be made of vendor's solicitors ;
and of supposed incumbrancers, trustees, and tenants.

2. What searches should be made for incumbrances, — law
respecting judgments, fyc.

3. Time for making searches and inquiries.

(1.) It was, until recently, a very usual course to inquire of
the vendor's solicitors (as part of the general requisitions on
the title), whether they were aware of any judgment or other
incumhrance affecting the property, or of any other matter
not noticed in the abstract and affecting the vendor's ability
to make a marketable title, subject only to the stipulations in
the contract or conditions of sale ; and occasionally, whether
the property was held under the title abstracted and under
no other title (a). Such an inquiry may often save much
useless expense ; and a favourable reply not only adds to the
security which the purchaser will derive from the searches of
his own professional advisers, but will also remove any doubt as
to his right to be paid for the preparation of the conveyance,
if such searches disclose incumbrances which cannot be got
in. It has, however, been held by the Court of Appeal in a
recent case (&),that the duty of the vendor with regard to
title is limited to furnishing an abstract, and verifying or
completing it on any point on which the purchaser may show

(a) As to the expediency of this
inquiry, see Mr. Christie's evidence
before the Registration Commission-

ers, 1st Report.

(b] He Ford and Hill, 10 Ch. D.
365.

SEARCHES FOB INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 517

that it appears to be defective, and that this duty does not Chap. XI.

extend to answering questions for the purpose of negativ- -

ing the existence of incumbrances ; and the inquiry was held

to be one which neither a vendor nor his solicitor is bound to

answer. When there is reason to suspect the existence of andofsup-

, * , posed incum-

any particular incumbrances, an application should be made brancera.
to the supposed incumbrancers : the motive for the applica-
tion should, of course, be stated, and the parties applied to
will be bound by their replies (c) ; it does not, however,
appear that a mortgagee need answer any inquiry respecting
the particulars of his security, unless the applicant is entitled
and offers to redeem him (d).

An incumbrancer, it is said, need not voluntarily communi- Whether in-
cate the existence of his claim to a person whom he knows to need commu-

be about purchasing the estate (c) : this, however, it is con-

ceived, only holds good in cases where there is no reason to tended pur-

J t > chaser.

suppose that the vendor is about to commit the fraud of
selling the estate as unincumbered : if, with knowledge of
such a fraud being in progress, the incumbrancer were to
conceal his claim, Equity, it appears, would interfere to pre-
vent his setting up his right against the purchaser ; and
infancy, or coverture, would be no excuse (/) : d fortiori, he
would be postponed in Equity, if he were a direct party to the
fraud, or facilitated or encouraged its commission (y) : and,
inasmuch as no prudent person buys an equity of redemption
without communicating with a known incumbrancer, it may
be conjectured that if a mortgagee, being aware that the
purchase was about to be concluded on a certain day, and
having received no inquiry from the purchaser on the subject
of the charge, were to allow him to complete in ignorance
of its existence, the Courts would be disposed, on slight

(e} Ibbotson v. Rhodes, 2 Vern. 554 ; (/) Savage v. Foster, 9 Mod. 36 ;

Stronge v. Uawkes, 4 D. M. & G. Clare v. Earl of Bedford, 13 Vin. Abr.

186 ; 4D. & J. 632; vide ante, p. 109. 53G ; Re Lush's Trusts, 4 Ch. 591.

(d) Bugden v. Bignold, 2 Y. & C. As to fraud by a married woman,
C. C. 390. vide post, pp. 947, 1120.

(e) Osborn v. Lea, 9 Mod. 96 ; see (g) Berrisford v. Milicard, 2 Atk.
p. 97 ; Dolman v. Nokes, 22 B. 402. 49.

518 SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XL additional grounds, to treat such an incumbrancer as an

Sect. 1.

accomplice of the vendor (h).

Inquiry of If the interest about to be purchased be merely equitable,

inquiry as to incumbrances should, as a matter of prudence,
be made of the trustees, or other parties in whom the legal
estate is vested; and, as a general rule, notice should be
given to them of completion. Thus, notice to trustees for
sale of an assignment of a share of the sale proceeds will
give priority, even though the estate is unsold, and the time
for selling has not arrived (i). The same precaution is not
absolutely necessary where the subject-matter of the pur-
chase is an equitable interest in real estate, or in a chattel
real (k) ; but a solicitor who acts with a view to his own, as
well as to his client's safety, will in this, as in every other
doubtful case, use too much, rather than too little, caution.
Liability of Trustees are often unwilling to answer such questions, on
wrong infor- account of a case (I) where a trustee, who (through forget-
mahon. fulness as he subsequently alleged) denied the existence of a

charge of which he had notice, was held liable to the pur-
chaser: it appears, however, that he told the purchaser
11 positively and distinctly " (m) that the vendor was abso-
lutely entitled, that he had " an undoubted right " to assign
the property (n) ; and, probably, a more guarded reply, one,
for instance, merely denying the present recollection of any
notice, would not involve a trustee in similar liability.

Inquiry of And, as notice of a tenancy is notice of the tenant's

equities (o), it is a proper precaution, where the property is

(h) And see Sibson v. Fletcher, 1 and see Slim v. Croucher, 1 D. F. &

Ch. R. 32. J. 518 ; Barry v. Croskey, 2 J. &

(*) Lee v. Hewlett, 2 K. & J. 531 ; H. 1.

EC Hughes' Trusts, 2 H. & M. 89; (in) Burrou~esv. Lock, 10 V. p. 476.

Foster v. Cockerell, 3 C. & F. 456. (») 16. p. 475.

And see as to notice, Ch. XV. s. 2. (0) See Lord Eldon in Allen v.

(k] See cases cited in last note, and Anthony, 1 Mer. 282 — 284; Daniels

Jones v. Jones, 8 Si. 633; Wiltshire v. Davison, 16 V. 249; Bailey v.

v. Rabbits, 14 Si. 76 ; Wilmot v. Pike, Richardson, 9 Ha. 734; Wilbraham

5 Ha. 14 ; Hooper v. Harrison, 2 K. v. Livesey, 18 B. 209 ; Cavander v.

6 J. 103. Bulteel, 9 Ch. 79, 84; and^os^, p. 975
(1) Burrowes v. Lock, 10 V. 470 ; et seq.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 519

not in hand, to inquire of the occupying tenants as to the Cg^t' ^Ie
extent and nature of their interests (p). It was stated in •
former editions of this work, that notice of the tenancy was
not necessarily notice of the tenant's equities, as hetween
vendor and purchaser. The point, however, was decided the
other way by Lord Eomilly (#), and his decision was subse-
quently followed in the Common Pleas (r), and in the Irish
Court of Appeal (s) ; but in another case (t) the Lords Jus-
tices, affirming the decision of Sir George Jessel, M. R., re-
stored what is conceived to be the true rule, viz., that the
doctrine as to notice has reference merely to equities between
the purchaser and the tenant after the completion of the
contract, and has nothing to do with the rights and liabilities
of vendor and purchaser pending completion. The obvious
answer to the reasoning in Lord Romilly's judgment in the
case before him above referred to, is that it is not the duty of
the tenant, and it is the duty of the vendor to inform the
purchaser what it is that he is about to buy. A description
of property as " now or late in the occupation of N. R. and Reference to
others," has been held not to affect the purchaser with
notice that the tenants held on leases for lives at low
rents (u). So, in another case, where a shop with a flat
roof was demised " as the same was late in the occupation of
H. C.," it was held that these words were inserted in the
description merely for the purpose of identifying the pro-
perty, and not of limiting the operation of the deed; and
that they did not amount to a notice of a right to the
occupation of the flat roof (v) ; but a purchaser buying the
undivided share of a tenant in common in a house, which
the purchaser knows is occupied for business purposes by a

(p} I Jarm. Conv. 119. (a) Carroll v. Keayes, 8 I. R. Eq.

(q) James v. Lichfield, 9 Eq. 51 ; 97.

see also Penny v. Watts, 1 M. & G. (0 Caballcro v. Henty, 9 Ch. 447.

150 ; Wilbraham v. Livesey, 18 B. (u) Hughes v. Jones, 3 D. F. & J.

206 ; and see 1 Ha. 62. 307.

(r) Phillips v. Miller, L. R. 9 C. P. (v) Martyr v. Lawrence, 2 D. J. &

196 ; reversed in the Ex. Ch. but on S. 261 ; diss. K. Bruce, L. J. ; Polden

other grounds; see L. R. 10 C. P. v. Bastard, L. R. 1 Q. B. 156, a case

420. of devise. See further on this sub-
ject, post, p. 977.

520

SEAKCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Cgap; ^p-' firm in which the vendor is a partner, has notice that the
- house is partnership property, should such be the fact (x).

Where a No inquiries need be made of a person who has recently

recently given held, but relinquished possession of the property (y) : if it is

' clear that there has been an intentional abandonment of

possession (s).

Inquiry as to

undisclosed

easements.

It may often be prudent for a purchaser to inquire whether
any undisclosed easement, such as a way of necessity or a
right of light or of drainage («), exists over or through the
property ; such an easement may pass or be reserved by im-
plication, without express words (b) ; and the existence of
such an easement where it is patent, and no inquiry has been
made respecting it, is no defence to a vendor's suit for specific
performance (c).

As to title
deeds.

So, too, it may sometimes be well to inquire whether there
are any undisclosed covenants or conditions, restrictive of the
enjoyment of the property in the hands of the purchaser (d).

So, a prudent purchaser will inquire for the title deeds,
and demand a satisfactory explanation if any of them are
not forthcoming. His omission to make such an inquiry
may perhaps fix him with notice of an equitable mortgage

(x) Cavander v. Bulteel, 9 Ch. 79 ;
when the transaction was a mort-
gage. As to what inquiries may be
made on a purchase of leaseholds,
see Ringer to Thompson, 51 L. J. Ch.
42 ; Lawrie v. Lees, 7 Ap. Ca. 19 ;
and see ante, p. 193 et scq.

(y} Miles v. Langley, 1 R. & M. 39.

(a) Holmes v. Powell, 8 D. M. & G.
572, 581.

(a) See Herveij v. Smith, 22 B.
299; 8. C. on motion, 1 K. & J.
389 ; case of undisclosed smoke ease-
ment, and. post, pp. 521, 974.

(b) Pearson v. Spencer, 1 B. & S.
571; Pyer v. Carter, 1 H. & N. 916;

Ewart v. Cochrane, 4 Macq. 117;
Watts v. Kelson, 6 Ch. 166, case of
underground artificial watercourse ;
Kay v. Oxley, L. R. 10 Q. B. 360;
Barkshirev. Grubb, 18 Ch. D. 616;
Bayleyv. G. W. R. Co., 26 Ch. D.
434; Clancy v. Byrne, 11 I. R.
C. L. 355.

(c] Oldfield or Boivles v. Round, 5
Ves. 508.

(d) Parker v. Whyte, 1 H. & M.
167; Robson v. Flight, 34 B. 110;
Clements v. Welles, 1 Eq. 200 ; Nor-
land v. Cook, 6 Eq. 252 ; Wilson v.
Hart, 1 Ch. 463 ; and see and con-
sider Carter v. Williams, 9 Eq. 678.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCE8, ETC. 521

by deposit (e). So, a mere physical fact may, it seems, Cg*P; •^I-
amount to notice of a charge affecting the property ; e. g.,

Physical fact

upon the purchase of land forming part of a district lying may be notice
beneath the level of the neighbouring sea, the purchaser was &c.
held to be affected with notice of a private deed, under which
the owners of the land were liable to contribute to the ex-
pense of keeping up a sea-wall (/) ; so, the purchaser of a
house has been held to have notice of an agreement to grant
a smoke-easement, from the mere fact of there being fourteen
chimney-pots on the chimney stack, and only twelve flues in
the house (#). But the doctrine of constructive notice from
the physical condition of the property will not be extended ;
thus, in a recent case it was held that the mere fact of there
being windows in a house overlooking the purchased pro-
perty is not constructive notice of any agreement for a right
to light through them (h).

(2.) What searches should be made for incumlrances ; — Laic Section 2.

respecting judgments, fyc. What

searches

The Conveyancing Act, 1882, has considerably simplified should be

. , made for in-

the law and practice relating to searches. By sect. 2, sub- cumbrances ;
sect. 1, any person may make a requisition (i) for search to fag*j!S^?cc
be made in the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judi- ment8> &c-
cature for entries of judgments, deeds, or other matters or Act,^ 1882?1
documents, of which entries are required or allowed to be
made in that office by any Act described in Part I. of the
first schedule to the Conveyancing Act, 1881, or any other
Act(y). By sub-sect. 2 the proper officer is to make the

(e) Sug. 767, and cases there schedule principally referred to are

cited; and see post, p. 979 et scq. sects. 11, 13, 18, 19, 22 of 1 & 2 V.

(/) Morlandv. Cook, 6 Eq. 252. c. 110; sects. 4, 5, 7 of 2 & 3 V.

(g} Hervey v. Smith, 22 B. 299. c. 11; sects. 4—7, 11, 12 of 18 & 19

(h) Allen v. Seckham, 11 Ch. D. V. c. 15; sects. 11, 22 of 22 & 23 V.

790. c. 35 ; sects. 1—5 of 23 & 24 V. c. 38 ;

(i) As to the form of requisition, the whole of 23 & 24 V. c. 115; sects,

see sub- sects. 4 and 5. 3 and 4 of 27 & 28 V. c. 112 ; sects.

(y) The sections of the Acts in- 48 and 49 of 28 & 29V. c. 104; sects,

eluded in the first part of the first 1—3 of 31 & 32 V. c. 54. The words

522

Chap. XI.

Liability of

for mcum-

SEARCHES FOE INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

search required, and to make and file in the office a
certificate of the result, office copies of which are to be issued
on requisition. By sub-sect. 3 the certificate is to be conclu-
sive in favour of a "purchaser" — who is defined to include a
lessee or mortgagee or other person who for valuable consi-
deration takes or deals for property — as against persons
interested under or in respect of judgments, deeds, or other
such matters or documents as above-mentioned. By sub-sect.
8, when a solicitor obtains an office copy certificate of result
of such search, he is not to be answerable in respect of any
loss from error in the certificate. By sub-sect. 9, where a
solicitor is acting for trustees, executors, agents, or other
persons in a fiduciary position, those persons also are not to
be so answerable. By sub-sect. 10, where such persons
obtain such an office copy without a solicitor, they are to be
protected in like manner. By sub-sect. 11, the provisions of
the section are not to apply to deeds enrolled under the Fines
and Eecoveries Act, or under any other Act, or under any
statutory rule. The list of searches to which the provisions
of the Act apply, is, of course, not exhaustive ; searches in
county registers, Customary Court Eolls, or for bankruptcies
being excluded. The provisions of the Act and the form of
requisition prescribed by the Rules made under it, while they
have simplified the procedure, have left the necessity or pro-
priety of making the different searches dependent on the
general law.

A solicitor is said to be liable to his client for any loss
occasioned by his omission to make any one of the numerous
searches, which may by possibility disclose matter affecting
the title (k) ; and he would certainly be held liable for

"any other Act " apply, it is con-
oeived, to future Acts, which may
allow or require entries of the kind
specified, c. g., the provision for
registration of an order under s. 7
of the Settled Land Act, 1884, con-
tained in sub-s. 5 of that section.

(k) 1 Jarm. Conv. 104 ; Watts v.
Porter, 3 E. & B. 743; see, as to neg-

ligence in stating a case for counsel's
opinion, Ireson v. Pearman, 5 Dowl.
&R. 687; as to negligence in passing
a defect in title, Baikie v. Chandless,
3 Camp. 17; and generally as to the
liability of a solicitor omitting to
make the usual searches, Brooks v.
Day, 2 Dick. 572 ; Parker v. Eolls,
H C. B. 691.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCE6, ETC. 523

omitting to require the statutory search to be made ; unless, Chap. XI.
however, special circumstances render such a course expedient, —
it was not formerly usual for conveyancing counsel, upon
private purchases, to direct a search for more than judg-
ments (/), Crown debts and accountantships, lites pcndcntcs, and
annuities (m) ; and also a general search in the county register
(if any), and in the Customary Court Eolls (if the property
is copyhold) ; and it may be doubted whether a solicitor
would be liable for an omission which is sanctioned by gene-
ral practice. At any rate, it is conceived, that where the
title is laid before counsel, who advises a search for certain
specified incumbrances, the solicitor need not make a more
extensive search, unless aware of some particular reason for
so doing : but if to his knowledge such reason exist, he
is bound to act upon it : e.g., it has been said that he was
bound to search the Insolvent Court, if he had reason to
suspect that the vendor had been insolvent, or even if there
was notice that he was or had been in embarrassed circum-
stances («) : and the fact of the solicitor making inquiry on
the point from a party whose known interest it was to
deceive him, has been held to be an admission as against
himself that an efficient search ought to have been made (o).

And on purchases of large estates, or even of agricultural Drainage
land of moderate acreage, it is now prudent to search for
drainage and land improvement loans (p) ; and in the case
of house property within the district of a local authority, it is
desirable to inquire whether there is any charge under the

(!) And now for writs of execution (p) 19 & 20 V. c. 9; 24 & 25V.
under the 23 & 24 V. c. 38. Judg- c. 133, and 27 & 28 V. c. 114 ; 33 &
ments entered up against an insol- 34 V. c. 56. Searches at the Office
vent under the 1 & 2 V. c. 110, were of the Inclosure Commissioners, No.
frequently omitted to be registered ; 3, St. James's Square, and at the
it being considered doubtful whether Land Registry Office, are generally
they required registration under the sufficient. See further on the sub-
Act, ject, 2 Dav. pt. 2, pp. 200 et scq. ;

(m) Vide post, p. 568. and the Mortgage Debenture Act,

(») By Erie, J., in Cooper v. Ste- 1865, 28 & 29 V. c. 78. See for full

phenson, 21 L. J. Q. B. 292 ; a case list of such searches, Elph. & Cl.

of a mortgage. 109 et seq.

(o) S. C.

524

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Certificate a
part of the
title.

Chap. XL Public Health Act, 1875(7). These incumbrances, where

Q 4- O

- they exist, take priority of all other charges ; and, in more

than one instance in the author's own experience, an omission

to make the search would have involved serious consequences.

The expediency of making it is not, however, as generally

Metropolitan known in the profession as it ought to be. On purchases of

and Building land within the metropolitan area, search should be made at

c 8' the office of the Board for charges authorized by various

Metropolitan Management and Building Acts (qq).

A certificate of search under the Act of 1882 is conclusive ;
and no purchaser is entitled to go behind it, although he
may make searches to which it relates independently. Such
a certificate forms, it is conceived, a part of the title : and a
purchaser need only search as from the date of the last
certificate appearing on the abstract.

The full list of searches is a formidable, almost a prohi-
bitive, one ; comprising writs of execution, registered under
23 & 24 Yict. c. 38, and 27 & 28 Yict. c. 112, appointments
of a receiver, judgments, Crown debts (r), decrees, orders, and
litcs pendentes, registered under the 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, and
2 & 3 Yict. c. 11 (including orders under sect. 7 (5) of the
Settled Land Act, 1884), and grants of annuity and rent-
charges registered under the 18 & 19 Yict. c. 15 ; searches
for recognizances, and for grants of life annuity and rent-
charges registered under the former Acts, for adjudications
in bankruptcy, and also the county registers and manorial
Court Rolls in the appropriate cases, and also in many cases
for drainage and land improvement loans.

Of these searches, the most generally important is that for
judgments, and writs of execution issued, or appointments of
a receiver made, under them ; and, although the necessity for
making this search, or rather the risk of omitting to do so, has

As to search-
ing for judg-
ments—
general law
respecting.

(q) See s. 257 ; and Tottenham
Local Board v. Rowell, 15 Ch. D.
378 ; Corporation of Birmingham v.
Bakery 17 Ch. D. 782.

(qq) See Elph. & C. 117; and 45

V. c. 14, s. 18.

(>•) See now 28 & 29 V. c. 104, s.
48 ; lands are not now bound by
Crown debts, until execution has
issued, and been registered.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 525

been greatly lessened by recent legislation, it is still necessary, Chap. XI.
in order clearly to understand the law on this important sub- — •

ject, to consider it briefly as it existed prior to the 1 & 2 Viet.
c. 110, and then the alterations which have been introduced
by that and later statutes.

And here it may be proper to observe, that as against As respects
purchasers or mortgagees who advance their money without &cf,C \dthout
notice of subsisting judgments, the 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110, is no*ic?> law

o J o remains as

rendered a dead letter by the subsequent Act of 2 & 3 Yict. before

J 1 & 2 Viet.

c. 11 («) : so that, as respects such purchasers and mort- c. no.

gagees, the law as it existed before the passing of the

former Act, is alone important : nor does registration under

that Act amount to notice (t] ; unless a search is actually

made (u) : at the same time it is inexpedient to rely upon But want of

i jr> j«/\/ • n i ji notice cannot

any presumed want 01 notice (x) (especially where the same be relicd on
solicitor acts for both parties) ; and the propriety of a search m Practlco-
by an intended purchaser or mortgagee, may, practically,
be considered chiefly with reference to the extended effect
of judgments under the new law.

Upon an elegit, under the old law, the judgment creditor judgments
might take in execution a moiety (or under two judgments ^w^
of the same term an entirety) (//), of the following property affected:
of his debtor (z) : -viz., freeholds, land held in ancient a moiety of
demesne, rents-charge, estates granted by the Crown for ' '

the maintenance of dignities, impropriate tithes, and terms
for years, including (perhaps) leases of copyholds granted
by licence of the lord, or under a special custom ; and this,

(s) Extended to judgments in the (x) For this, among other reasons,

Palatinate Courts, by 18 & 19 V. viz. : that if judgments exist, and

c. 15. are discovered by a sub -purchaser

(t) See and consider 2 & 3 V. c. upon a re- sale, it may be impossible

11, s. 5; so held in Robinson v. to satisfy him of the original want

Woodward, 4 De G. & S. 562 ; West- of notice ; Freer v. Hesse, 4 D. M.

brook v. Blyth, 3 E. & B. 737 ; Lane & G. 495.

v. Jackson, 20 B. 535; where it was (y) At t. -Gen. v. Andrew, Hard,

held that it was not incumbent on 23 ; Doe v. Creed, 5 Bing. 327 ; (case

the purchaser to search the register. of entirety taken by two creditors on

(u) Procter v. Cooper, 2 Dr. 1 ; writs tested the same day and term),

affd. 1 Jur. N. S. 149. (z) Prid. J. 7, 8, 9.

526

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI.
Sect, 2.

reversion :

terms for
years;

lands held in
trust for the
debtor.

What they did
not affect.

whether the same respectively were held in severally, copar-
cenary, or in common ; and although they were acquired
subsequently to the judgment (a).

The right affected reversions on leases for lives or years (act),
estates held hy a hushand during coverture or by the curtesy,
estates tail during the life of tenant in tail, and estates held
in joint tenancy during the life of the joint-tenant against
whom execution issued.

And, as to terms for years, either the moiety might be
extended upon a single writ, or the entirety might be sold as
part of the debtor's chattels.

And under the 10th section of the Statute of Frauds, the
sheriff is empowered to deliver execution of all such lands,
&c., as any person or persons should be seised or possessed
of, in trust for the debtor at the time of execution sued, like
as if the debtor had been seised of such lands, &c., of such
estate as they be seised for him at the time of execution sued.
This provision has been held not to affect trusts of terms for
years (&), or equities of redemption (c), or any equitable estate
in which the debtor has not the sole beneficial interest (rf);
or estates which, although held in trust for the debtor at the
date of the judgment, are aliened prior to execution (e).

But advowsons in gross, glebe, rents-seek, and copy-
holds (/) (except, perhaps, as respects leases thereof), were not
extendible under the old law ; nor were the lands of a tenant
in tail, or joint-tenant, so extendible, except for his life (g).

(a] Brace v. Duchess of Marl-
lorough, 2 P. W. 491, 492.

(aa) 2 Saund. 69 n. ; 1 Rol. Abr.
894, pi. 5.

(b] Prid. J. 15 ; Scott v. Scholey,
8 Ea. 467 ; nor could such a trust
be taken on ajl. fa., ib. ; and see Ex
p. Padivick, 18 W. R. 8 ; but see, as
to attendant terms, Doe v. Evans, 1
Cr. & M. 450 ; and see Doe v. Green-
Mil, 4 B. & Aid. 684.

(c] Burdonv. Kennedy, 3 Atk. 739 ;

Lyster v. Dolland, 1 V. 431.

(d) Doe v. Greenhill, 4 B. & Aid.
684 ; Harris v. Booker, 4 Bing. 96 ;
Forth v. Duke of Norfolk, 4 Mad.
505 ; Hulkes v. Day, 10 Si. 48.

(e) Hunt v. Coles, Com. R. 226 ;
Harris v. Pugh, 4 Bing. 335, 345 ;
Higgins v. York Buildings Co. , 2 Atk.
107 ; and see 1 J. & L. 634.

(/) See Scriven, 47, 48.
(g] Prid. J. 7 ; Ashburnham v. St.
John, Cro. Jac. 85.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 527

And it seems doubtful whether the exemption of copyholds Chap. XI.
extended to customary freeholds (h).

Nor, under the Statute of Frauds (M), as against pur-
chasers (e), was a term for years bound, until the writ was
delivered to the sheriff (k) ; nor did the writ bind after it had
been returned without a sale (/) .

And in order that a judgment might be binding as against Docketing
purchasers, or mortgagees, it had, unless it were a Palatinate as against
judgment, to be docketed under the Acts of William and P^*8618-
Mary (in) ; a very slight omission in the prescribed formalities
as to docketing rendered the judgment void (n) ; but an old
undocketed judgment, if duly registered (nn) under the 1 & 2
Viet. c. 110, became valid under 2 & 3 Yict. c. 11, s. 5, against
purchasers and mortgagees without notice, only to the extent to
which a judgment, duly docketed under the old law, would have
been valid against them (o). By the 4 & 5 Will. & M. c. 20, As against

. executors and

no undocketed judgment was to have any preference against administrators

• . n . . , , • j.i_ j • • i_ jj j? in administra-

heirs, executors, or administrators in the administration 01 tion of assets,
assets. The 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, did not contain any similar
provision ; and the result of closing the docket under the

2 & 3 Viet. c. 11, was to revive the law as it existed prior to
the Statute of William and Mary ; thus making an executor
liable for a devastavit, if he paid a simple contract debt before
a judgment debt, even though he had no actual notice of the
latter (p) ; but this omission has been supplied by a recent
Statute (q) .

(h) See Scriven, 570 ; Mann. Exch. (n) Brandling v. Phimmer, 8 D. M.

Pract. 2nd ed. 42, 350, 358 et seq.; & G. 747.

3 Man. & R. 332, 338. (nn) It is not clear that an old tm-
(hh) Sect. 16; Prid. J. 11. docketed judgment could be regis-
(i) Bed alitcr, as against the tered ; 2 & 3 V. c. 11, s. 2 ; Elph.

debtor's personal representatives ; & C. 26 ; but, even if it could, its

Eanlcen v. Hancood, 5 Ha. 215. effect could be no greater than that

(k) Prid. J. 12 ; Surdon v. Ken- stated in the text.
nedy, 3Atk. 739 ; Causton v. Macklcw, (o) Doswellv. Reece, 11 Jur. N". S.

2 Si. 242. 764.

(t) Williams v. CraddocTc, 4 Si. 313. (p) Fuller v. Redman, 26 B. 600.

(m) 4 & o W. & M. c. 20 ; made (q) 23 & 24 V. c. 38, ss. 3 & 4.
perpetual by 7 & 8 W. III. c. 36.

528

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI.
Sect. 2.

—

register.

But purchaser
•was bound in
Equity by
notice of un-
docketed
judgment.

Equity aided

judgment

creditor

Where the judgment was intended to affect land in a
register county, it had to be entered in the local register, as
well as in the Common Pleas, now the Central Office ; and the
priorities of several judgments inter se depended upon the
order of their registration in the local registry (r) ; so that a
judgment registered in the Common Pleas, but not in the local
register, was postponed to a subsequent judgment which was
first entered in the local register (s).

The omission to docket or register, was, however, prior to
3 & 4 Yict. c. 82, s. 2, immaterial in Equity, if a purchaser
or mortgagee advanced his money with actual notice (either
to himself or his agent) of the judgment (t). In a case
already referred to, where an estate was conveyed " subject
to the charges and incumbrances affecting the same," a judg-
ment against the vendor, in docketing which the "number
roll " had not been entered, was held not to affect the land :
but the decision rested entirely on the question whether
the requisitions of the Statute had been complied with ;
and it does not appear that the purchaser had examined the
docket-book (it).

And Equity would assist a judgment creditor to the partial
equitable interest of his debtor, in those cases in which he
would have been entitled to execution under the Statute of
Frauds in case the debtor had owned the entire beneficial
interest (x) ; but he was obliged to sue out an. elegit before
filing his bill (y}. So, first suing out execution under &fi.fa.,
he could obtain relief in Equity against the debtor's equitable
interest in a term for years (z) .

(r) Prid. J. 45 et seq.; see Johnson v.
Holdaworth, 1 Si. N. S. 106; West-
brook v. Blyth, 3 E. & B. 737 ;
Hughes v. Lumley, 4 E. & B. 274 ;
Benham v. Eeane, 3 D. F. & J. 318 ;
Neve v. Flood, 33 B. 666.

(s) Hughes v. Lumley, 4 E. & B.
274 ; Neve v. Flood, 33 B. 666.

(t) Prid. J. 46 ; Davis v. Earl of
Strathmore, 16V. 419 ; Cockburne v.
Wright, 6 Ir. Eq. E. 1 ; Sug. 521.

(u) Brandling v. Plummer, 8 D. JtT.
& G. 747.

(x) Prid. J. 23.

(y} Ncate v. Duke of Maryborough,
3 M. & C. 407; Smith v. Hurst, 1
Coll. 705; S. C., 10 Ha. 30; Godfrey
v. Tucker, 33 B. 280. See this sub-
ject more fully discussed, post, p. 542.

(z) Gore v. Boivscr, 1 Jur. N. S.
392; Langhorne v. 'Harland, 2 Jur.
N. S. 873.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 529

The judgment creditor acquired no preference in bank- Chap. XI.
ruptcy, unless execution had been sued before the issuing
of the fiat or commission (a) ; but the bankruptcy of the
vendor after conveyance, was no protection to a purchaser
against prior judgments (b). If, however, the vendor became
bankrupt before conveyance, the judgments were held to be
inoperative as against a purchaser from the assignees (c).

Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (d), any execution or Under the
attachment against the land of the bankrupt, completed in
good faith before the date of the order of adjudication, if the
person, on whose account such execution or attachment was
issued, had not, at the time of the same being so completed by
seizure, notice of any act of bankruptcy committed by the
bankrupt, and available against him, is to be valid, notwith-
standing any prior act of bankruptcy ; and there is a similar
provision as respects any execution or attachment against
the goods of the bankrupt.

It followed from what has been above stated, that a pur- Purchaser

T IIP • i A i / \ i • without notice

chaser who, betore judgment entered up (e), got m an out- protected by
standing legal estate, (even a mere satisfied term,) or procured a s estate,
declaration of trust in his favour by the trustee, or who, (as in
the case of a mortgagee purchasing the equity of redemption,)
was himself seised or possessed of the legal estate, was pro-
tected from judgments of which he had no notice (/) at the
time of his purchase : but, of course, where the outstanding

(a) Orlebar v. Fletcher, 1 P. "W. 18, 25 ; aliter, as regards a mort-
737; Newland v. Anon., ib. 92; Sloper gagee; Willock v. Dargan, 1 Ir. Ch. R.
v. Fish, 2 V. & B. 145; Ee Perrin, 2 39 ; White v. Baylor, 4 D. & War.
D. & War. 147 ; Sharps v. Rhoade, 2 297.

Ro. 192; 6 G. IV. c. 16, s. 108; but (c) Sharps v. Rhoade, 2 Ro. 192.

see 12 & 13 V. c. 106, s. 184 ; which (rf) 46 & 47 V. c. 42, s. 45, under

section was not repealed by 24 & 25 which the return of the sheriff to the

V. c. 134, see Schedule G-. ; Hutton v. writ to an elegit is equivalent to

Cooper, 6 Ex. 159; Ex parte Boyle, 3 seizure ; Re Hobson, 33 Ch. D. 493.

D. M. & G. 515 ; Holmes v. Tutton, (e) Sug. 539; Elph. & C. 7.

24 L. J. Q. B. 346 ; Sug. 539 ; and (/) Tumtall y. Trappes, 3 Si. 286,

see now 32 & 33 V. c. 71, s. 95. 299 ; Greswold v. Marsham, 2 Ch. C.

(b) Baldwin v. Belcher, 1 J. & L. 170.

D. VOL. I. MM

530 SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI. estate was less than the fee simple, it was no protection
— — against subsisting judgments of a date prior to its creation ;

and the want of notice was essential in Equity.

Purchaser But the exercise of a power of appointment defeated a

appointment, judgment entered up subsequently to the creation of the

Power > an(^ notice in this case was immaterial (//.), for the
notwith- -judgment only affected the estate limited until and in default

standing

notice. of appointment.

Effect of A judgment entered up against the vendor, subsequently

after contract, to the contract but before conveyance, was immaterial in
Equity (/), except that it formed a lien upon such part (if
any) of the purchase-money as remained unpaid (A*) ; and an
ejectment against a purchaser in possession by a creditor
who had sued out an elegit on such a judgment, would be
restrained by injunction (/) : so, also, a trust for sale was not
affected by subsequent judgments against any party upon
whom such trust was binding ; nor, if the trustee had power
to give receipts, were the judgment creditors necessary parties
to the conveyance (m) : nor was it material that the sale was
not by the trustees, but by the Court (n) : and the same, it
is conceived, is the rule under the new law. Even a volun-
tary settlement in favour of third parties is unaffected by a
subsequent judgment against the settlor (o) : but a bare
voluntary trust for sale, when merely equivalent to an
authority to sell, for the settlor's own benefit, would, it is
apprehended, be subject to judgments entered up against
him, prior to a binding contract being entered into by the
trustee.

(A) 3 Si. 300 ; Eaton v. Sanxter, Oh. 8.

6 Si. 517 ; Skeeles v. Shearly, 3 M. & (m) Lodges. Lyseley, 4 Si. 70 ; and

C. 112 ; where an indemnity was see Foster v. Blackstone, 1 M. & K.

taken against the judgment. 307 ; Browne v. Cavendish, 1 J. & L.

(t) Lodge v. Lyscley, 4 Si. 70, 75 ; 606, 628 et seq. ; Robinson v. Hedger,

Sug. 519. 13Jur. 846.

(k) Prid. J. 21 ; Forth v. Duke of (n) Alexander v. Crosby, 1 J. & L.

Norfolk, 4 Mad. 505 ; see as to Bank- 672.

ruptcy, cases cited tfwfe, p. 529, n. (a). (0} Bsavan v. Lord Oxford, 6 D.

(1) Brunton v. Neale, 14 L. J. M. & a. 507.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC

lth section of tho 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110,

by the 2 & 3 Yict. c. 11, and 3 & 4 Yict. c. 82,) a judgment,
duly registered, entitles the creditor to take in execution, — iegai opera-

By the llth section of tho 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, (as modified Chap. XI.

except as against purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors (/)) who J^ts under"

under
became such before the first day of October, 1838, and also l & 2 Vict-

purchasers and mortgagees without notice (</), — an entirety
of " all such lands, tenements, rectories, tithes, rents, and
hereditaments, including lands and hereditaments of copy-
hold or customary tenure, as the person against whom
execution is so sued, or any person in trust for him, shall
have been seised or possessed of at the time of entering
up (r) the said judgment, or at any time afterwards ; or over
which such person shall, at the time of entering up such
judgment, or at any time afterwards, have any disposing
power, which he might, without the assent of any other
person, exercise for his own benefit."

And by the 13th section of the 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, (as Extended
modified by the same Acts,) a registered judgment is, (except operation of
as against purchasers or mortgagees without notice, or pur- jJJJa ments

chasers, mortgagees, or creditors, who became such before l & 2 Viet.

c. no.
1st October, 1838,) made to operate as a charge upon all

lands, tenements, rectories, advowsons, tithes, rents, and
hereditaments («) (including lands and hereditaments of
copyhold or customary tenure) of or to which such person
shall at the time of entering up such judgment, or at any
time afterwards, be seised, possessed, or entitled for any
estate or interest whatever, at Law or in Equity, whether
in possession, reversion, remainder, or expectancy, or over

(p ) Which seems to include simple ment is entered of record ; and this,

contract creditors ; Re Perrin, 2 D. although the original entry in the

& War. 147 ; decided contra on the Master's book be subsequently

English Act, Simpson v. Morky, 2 K. amended on a revision of the taxa-

& J. 71; see judgment and distin- tion of costs: Fisher v. Budding,

guish Re Perrin. 3 Man. & Gr. 238 ; Newton v. Grand

(q) 2 & 3 V. c. 11, s. 5. Junction R. Co., 16 M. & W. 143 ;

(r) That is, the day on which but see Pierce v. Dcrry, 4 Q. B. 635.'

judgment is originally signed in the (s) As to leaseholds being included

Master's book, not the day on which in this section, see Avison v. Holmes,

the roll is carried in and the judg- 1 J. & H. 530, 544.

M M 2

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.
Chap. XI. which such person shall at the time of entering up such

Sect. 2. . . .

judgment or at any time afterwards, have any disposing

power which he might without the assent of any other
person exercise for his own benefit (t) ; and is to be binding
as against the person against whom judgment shall be so
entered up, and against all persons claiming under him after
such judgment; and is also to be binding as against the
issue of his body and all other persons whom he might,
without the assent of any other person, cut off and debar
from any remainder, reversion, or other interest in or out of
any of the said lands, tenements, rectories, advowsons, tithes,
rents, and hereditaments : and every judgment creditor is to
have such and the same remedies in a Court of Equity
against the hereditaments so charged by virtue of the Act,
or any part thereof, as he would be entitled to in case the
person against whom such judgment shall have been so
entered up had power to charge the same hereditaments, and
had, by writing under his hand, agreed to charge the same,
with the amount of such judgment debt and interest thereon:
Provided that no judgment creditor shall be entitled to pro-
ceed in Equity to obtain the benefit of such charge until
after the expiration of one year from the time of entering up
such judgment (u). This proviso does not render it necessary
that a year shall have elapsed since registration (x) .

Judgments By the 23 & 24 Yict. c. 38, after reciting that it was

23 & 24 Viet, desirable to place freehold, copyhold, and customary estates
c' * on the same footing with leasehold estates, in respect of

judgments, statutes, and recognizances, as against purchasers
and mortgagees, and also to enable purchasers and mort-
gagees of estates, whether freehold, copyhold, or customary,
or leasehold, to ascertain when execution has issued on any
judgment, statute, or recognizance, and to protect them from
delay in the execution of the writ, it was enacted, that no
judgment, statute, or recognizance, to be entered up after

(t} Which excludes a power of tes- (x) Derbyshire ft. Co. v. Bainlridge,

tamentary appointment, semble. 15 B. 146.

(tt) See Smith v. Hurst, 1 Coll. 705.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. £33

the passing of the Act, should affect any land of whatever Chap. XI.

Sect . Zt

tenure, as to a bond file purchaser for valuable consideration,
or a mortgagee, (whether such purchaser or mortgagee had
notice or not of any such judgment, statute, or recognizance,)
unless a writ, or other due process of execution of slich judg-
ment, &c., should have been registered as therein mentioned,
before the execution of the conveyance or mortgage to him,
and the payment of the purchase or mortgage money by
him ; but it was provided that no judgment or writ of execu-
tion, although duly registered, should affect any land as to
a bond fide purchaser or mortgagee, unless such execution
should be put in force within three calendar months from
the time when it was registered. The Act also established a
register for writs of execution, and prescribed a new mode of
registration, viz., in the name of the execution creditor ; thus
rendering a double search necessary (y). The Act also re-
stored to heirs, executors, and administrators, in the adminis-
tration of their ancestors', testators', and intestates' effects,
that protection against unregistered judgments which was
inadvertently taken from them by the closing of the docket
under the 2 & 3 Yict. c. 11 (z) ; and provided for the re-
registration, as against them, of judgments every five
years (#).

By the 27 & 28 Yict. c. 112, after reciting that it was Judgments
desirable to assimilate the law affecting freehold, copyhold, £7 &r28 Viet,
and leasehold estates, to that affecting purely personal estates, c- 112-
in respect of future judgments, statutes, and recognizances, it
was enacted, that no judgment, statute, or recognizance,
to be entered up after the passing of the Act, should affect
any land of whatever tenure, until such land should have
been actually delivered in execution by virtue of a writ of
elegit or other lawful authority, in pursuance of such judg-
ment, statute or recognizance ; and the 3rd section provides
for registration in the manner prescribed by the 23 & 24 Yict.

(y) S. 2. (a) S. 4 ; and see 2 & 3 V. c. 11,

(z) S. 3 ; and see Fuller v. Redman, and 18 & 19 V. c. 15.
26 B. 600, and ante, p. 527.

534

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI.
Sect. 2.

Certain de-
crees and
orders have
the effect of
judgments.

Judgments of
inferior Courts
may be re-
moved.

Decrees and
orders of
Palatine
Court.

c. 38 (save only that it is to be in the debtor's and not the
creditor's name) ; and dispenses with prior or other registra-
tion of the judgment, statute, or recognizance ; and under
the 4th section the judgment creditor, having complied with
the requisitions of the Statute, can apply to the Court for
a summary order for sale (b) .

It is beyond the scope of this treatise to attempt an exhaus-
tive inquiry into the law upon this intricate subject ; and, in
the following remarks, it is proposed briefly to consider, 1st,
what are judgments within the meaning of the Acts ; 2ndly,
what property of the debtor they affect ; 3rdly, what are the
present remedies of the judgment creditor ; and 4thly, how
far the recent statutory provisions affect the law of vendor
and purchaser.

And first, what are judgments within the Acts : —

By the 18th section of 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, decrees and
orders of Courts of Equity, and all rules of Courts of
Common Law, and all orders of the Lord Chancellor, or of
the Court of Review (while it existed) in matters of bank-
ruptcy, and all orders of the Lord Chancellor in matters of
lunacy, whereby any sum of money, or any costs, charges or
expenses, shall be payable to any person, are to have the effect
of judgments. And by the 22nd section, judgments, &c., of
certain inferior Courts of record may be removed into the
superior Courts ; and are there to be registered ; and there-
upon are to become binding as judgments of such superior
Courts (c) : and by the 13 & 14 Viet. c. 43, s. 24, the provi-
sions of the 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, as to decrees and orders in
Equity, are made applicable to decrees and orders of the
Palatine Court of Lancaster ; but before the latter can affect
any land as against purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors, full
particulars of the cause or matter, and of the decree or order
made therein, are to be left with the prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster, and entered by him in

(b) Vide post, p. 544.

(c) See 18 & 19 V. c. 15, s. 7.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 535

a book kept for the purpose. And by the 18 & 19 Yict. c. 15, Chap. XI.

s. 2, similar provisions were made as to the Common Law

Palatinate Courts (now abolished by the Judicature Act,
1873), and the Chancery Court of Durham.

But in order to bring a decree or order of a Court of The decree or
Equity within the 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, it must be one "where- for the pay-
by any sum of money, or any costs, charges, or expenses, JJJ^y
shall be payable to any person." Thus, a decree for an
account, and for payment of what shall be found due thereon,
does not entitle the person in whose favour it is made to
obtain a charging order, pending the taking of the account (d) ;
so, where a decree was obtained against an executor for pay-
ment of a certain sum to his testator's estate, with which he
was to be charged in taking the accounts in a pending
administration suit, it was held that it did not constitute a
judgment debt (<?) ; so, a decree directing payment to the
credit of a cause, is not within the Act (/) ; so, a decree
directing payment of costs is not a charge upon land, until
the costs have been taxed, and the decree registered (g) ; and
a certificate of the chief clerk, finding money due, is not an
" order for payment " (h) : so, the person who seeks to enforce
as a charge on land a rule of a Court of Common Law direct-
ing payment of money, must be the person to whom the
money is payable under the rule (?').

By the 5th section of the 23 & 24 Yict. c. 38, and by the Meaning of
2nd section of the 27 & 28 Yict. c. 112, the term " judg-
ment," in each of those Statutes, is to include registered
decrees, orders of Courts of Equity and Bankruptcy, and
other orders having the operation of a judgment. The term
is not expressly limited to such decrees or orders as direct the

(d) Chadwick v. Holt, 2 Jur. N. S. (g) Nortcliffe v. Warburton, 10
918 ; distinguish Duke of Beaufort v. W. R. 635.

Phillips, 1 De G-. & S. 321. (/*) Lord Mamfidd v. Ogle, 5 Jur.

(e) Garner v. Briggs, 4 Jur. N. S. N. S. 419. And see Shaw v. Neale,
230. 20 B. 157; 6 H. L. C. 581.

(/) Ward v. Shakcshaft, 1 Dr. & (t) Crowther v. Crowther, 2 Jur.

S. 269, 272. But see Gibbs v. Pike, N. S. 274.
6 Jur. 465.

536

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI. payment of money, or costs, charges, and expenses ; but there
— - — can be but little doubt that such restrictive construction is

the correct one.

Secondly, as to what property of the debtor is affected by
judgments under the new law : —

What Under the provisions of the 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, and the

extendible succeeding Statutes, a creditor may now, (except as against
under the new purcliasers and mortgagees prior to the 1st October, 1838,
and purchasers and mortgagees without notice,) take under
an elegit the entirety (instead of a mere moiety) of the
debtor's property : and this right extends to copyholds,
estates over which the debtor has only a general power of
appointment, and leasehold estates ; upon all of which the
Judgment an judgment can operate : and it is said, that where the interest
charge in in a term of years is merely equitable, it is subject to the
Equity. legal as well as the equitable remedy (k). Where the pro-

perty is of such a nature that it cannot be taken in execution
as, e.g., an advowson, an estate in remainder, a reversionary
interest, or an equity of redemption, the judgment, or the
writ of execution, prior to the 27 & 28 Yict. c. 112, operated
as an immediate charge upon the estate, instead of being, as
formerly, a mere general lien (/) ; but under that Statute,
actual delivery in execution is now necessary to create a
charge (m).

Estate of
joint- tenant ;

It is also observable, that the estate of a joint- tenant is
extendible as against the jus accrescendi of a surviving
joint-tenant, and not, as formerly, merely for the life of the
debtor.

of tenant in
tail.

It also seems probable that the judgment creditor of a
tenant in tail, (where there is a protector,) can take the land

(k) See Sug. 524 ; Eolleston v.
Morton, 1 D. & War. 182 ; Gore v.
Bowser, 3 S. & G-. 1 ; and see Wallis
v. Morris, 10 Jur. N. S. 741.

(1) See 1 & 2 V. c. 110, s. 13 ; Gore

v. Bowser, and Wallis v. Morris.

(m) As to what is a delivery in
execution of an equitable interest,
see Hatton v. Haywood, 9 Ch. 229,
and post, p. 547.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 537

in execution as against the issue in tail, and that the iudg- Chap. XI.

Sect. 2.

ment creditor of a tenant in tail, (where there is no protector,)
can take the land in execution, not only as against the issue
in tail, but also as against remaindermen ; and there can be
no doubt as to the rights, in Equity, of a judgment creditor
of a tenant in tail. Where a judgment creditor filed a bill
to realise his charge against a tenant in tail in possession, the
latter was ordered to execute a disentailing deed (»).

It also seems probable that the joint donee of a power of Joint power—

ll O \V ITT Of *f f*fl

appointment, who is entitled to any estate or interest in
default of appointment, cannot, by concurring in an exercise
of the power, defeat the lien of his judgment creditor upon
such estate or interest ; as to do so would be to derogate from
what is by the Statute made equivalent to his own personal
assurance.

In Harris v. Davison, Shadwell, Y.-C., with reference to Judgment a
the 13th section of the 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, said, that he
" could not conceive any set of words better adapted to £ebt)
describe every possible interest in lands of every possible payable out
description ; they are as comprehensive as possible, and
include lands of every tenure, except, perhaps, lands held in
ancient demesne :" he then decided that a registered judg-
ment operated as a charge upon the beneficial interest of the
debtor (the grantee of a personal annuity) under a trust for
sale of leaseholds for better securing the payment of the said
annuity : so, an annuity charged upon, or issuing out of land
has been held to be an interest in land within the Statute (o) ;
a like decision was come to in Russell v. fiPCuttoch (p), as
respects a gross sum of money secured by covenant, and by
declaration of charge ; and the same, it is conceived, must be
the rule as to a legacy charged upon land. Where a trust
fund was invested upon mortgage, a judgment creditor of one
of the cestuis que trust was held entitled to a charge on the

(») Lewis v. Duncombe, 20 B. 398. (p) 1 K. & J. 313; and see Clare

(o) Younghusband v. Gisborne, 1 v. Wood, 4 Ha. 81.
De G. & S. 209.

538 SEARCHES FOK INCUMBKANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI. debtor's share of moneys payable out of the rents of the

'— '. — mortgaged property; but not on his share of the interest

paid by the mortgagor under his covenant, and not taken
from rents (q).

Practical in- The decision in Russell v. H'Culloch seemed to establish,

conveniences • ,-\ ,-\ • . « i • p • n > • ,

resulting from in theory, the necessity 01 searching ior judgments against a
the doctrine, mortgagee, upon paying of? or taking a transfer or release of
the security — and a like necessity in the case of any dealing
with an annuity, or, it is conceived, a legacy, respectively
charged on land ; and it was very difficult to avoid the con-
clusion that the same precaution ought in strictness to have
been taken in paying off, or assigning, or taking a release of
a registered judgment debt, it being the statutory equivalent
to an equitable mortgage ; and that if judgments were found
registered against a mortgagee, or against the owner of an
annuity or legacy charged on land, the like searches should
have been made in the names of his judgment creditors, and
in like manner against their puisne judgment creditors (if
any) ; and so on, in an infinite series. The practical incon-
veniences and absurdity of this excessive development of the
doctrine laid down in Harris v. Da-vison, are self-evident,
and were in fact the main argument adduced for disregarding
that decision — a decision which, it may be remarked, seems
fully warranted by the words of the 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110.
Partially re- There being thus evidently a nodus lindice dig mis, the
18&1i9 VIofc Legislature intervened, and by the llth section of the 18 &
c. 15, s. 11. 19 Yict. c. 15, enacted that "where any legal or equitable
estate or interest or any disposing power in or over any
lands, tenements, or hereditaments, shall, under any convey-
ance or other instrument executed after the passing of this
Act, become vested in any person as a purchaser or mort-
gagee for valuable consideration, such lands, tenements, or
hereditaments shall not be taken in execution under any
writ of ekgit, or other writ of execution, to be sued upon
any judgment, or any decree, order, or rule against any

(q) Avison v. Holmes, 1 J. & H. 530.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 539

mortgagee or mortgagees thereof, who shall have been paid Chap. XI.
off prior to, or at the time of the execution of, such convey- -
ance [or other instrument as aforesaid — Qt/."] ; nor shall any
such judgment, decree, order, or rule, or the money thereby
secured, be a charge upon such lands, tenements, or heredita-
ments [which, or any legal or equitable estate or interest in
or disposing power over which shall become — Qy.~], so vested
in purchasers or mortgagees, nor shall such lands, tenements,
or hereditaments [which, &c. — Qy. ut ante] so vested in
purchasers or mortgagees be extended or taken in execution,
or rendered liable under any writ of extent, or writ of execu-
tion, or other process issued by or on behalf of her Majesty,
her heirs or successors, in respect of any judgment, statute,
or recognizance obtained against or entered into by, or inqui-
sition found against, or obligation or specialty made by, or
acceptance of office by any mortgagee or mortgagees, whereby
he or they had, hath, or have become or shall become a
debtor or accountant, or debtors or accountants to the Crown,
where such mortgagee or mortgagees shall have been paid
off prior to or at the time of the execution of such convey-
ance [or other instrument — Qy.~] as aforesaid."

This enactment, it will be observed, does not expressly Remarks on
provide for the several cases of Crown debts and liabilities c. 15, s. n. '
and judgments affecting annuitants, legatees, judgment
creditors themselves, vendors claiming a lien in respect of
unpaid purchase-money (r), and all other persons having
pecuniary charges upon land, except mortgagees ; but there
can be little or no doubt that persons claiming, not as mort-
gagees strictly so called, but under securities by way of con-
veyance in trust to sell, or operating only to create a charge
or incumbrance, without conferring any right of foreclosure (s),
come within its provisions. Doubts may, however, be sug-
gested whether it provides for the simple case of paying off a

(r) See and consider Hood v. Hood, (s) See Bell v. Carter, 17 B. 11;

3 Jur. N. S. 684 ; and the similar Ee Underwood, 3 K. & J. 745.
wording of 17 & 18 V. c. 113.

540 SEAKCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI. mortgage, without reference to a sale or a re-mortgage ; or

Sect. 2. PIT •

- for the case of a transfer, where the mortgage is not paid off,
but the debt is assigned and kept on foot, as is often desirable
even upon a sale ; or for the case of judgments against a
puisne mortgagee whose concurrence is required to a sale of
part of the land, although the purchase-money is received by
the first incumbrancer ; or for the case of a mortgagee
releasing part of the land in consideration of a substituted
security being given for the debt, or in reliance on the suffi-
ciency of his remaining security. Nor does it appear, so
clearly as could be wished, that a sale by a mortgagee, under
the usual power, of part of the land, when the sale realizes
only a portion of the mortgage debt, is within the enactment ;
but there can be no reasonable doubt that it would be held to
be so ; as the mortgagee would in fact be paid off, qua the
particular land comprised in the sale. It has been held
under this section that, whether the mortgage be prior or
subsequent to the passing of the Act, a bond fide purchaser
acquires a valid title as against registered judgment creditors
of the mortgagees, provided that the mortgage be paid off
previously to, or at the time of, the execution of the con-
veyance (t).

Judgment is a A judgment entered up against the vendor after a contract

charge on un-
paid purchase- for sale, as formerly, may be enforced against the unpaid

ney> 'c. purchase-money ; although execution cannot be levied upon
it (u) : and, upon a sale by a mortgagee, the surplus proceeds
of sale may be resorted to for the discharge of judgments
entered up against the mortgagor subsequently to the mort-
gage (a?).

Not a sale for A judgment creditor is not a purchaser for value within
27 Eliz. c. 4. the %7 Eliz. c. 4, so as to avoid a prior voluntary settle-
ment (y).

(t) Greaves v. Wilson, 25 B. 434. (y) Beavanv. Zord Oxford, 6 D. M.

(M) Brown v. Perrott, 4 B. 585. & G-. 507 ; see, as to Ireland, 12 & 13

(x) Robinson v. Hedger^ 14 Jur. V. c. 95, s. 6.

784.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 541

Nor docs a judgment operate as a charge upon an ecclesi- Chap. XI.

i < 'i't . _ .

astical benefice; the words "rectories and tithes," in the llth

and 13th sections of the 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110, having reference On°an

only to lay rectories and tithes (z). ™£C&1 bene'

But a judgment on a bond of a municipal corporation will A charge on
operate as a charge on all lands and hereditaments of the lands.
corporation (a).

"We may here remark that, by the 30 & 31 Yict. c. 127, Railway plant
s. 4, the rolling stock and plant of a railway company are for f^nT^xe-
the future protected from being taken in execution ; but a cutlon-
receiver, and, if necessary, a manager of the undertaking,
may now be appointed, on the petition of the judgment
creditor ; and the moneys paid to such receiver or manager
will be applied and distributed under the direction of the
Chancery Division (b).

"We have already seen that the judgment creditor can Creditor's ex -
now take under an clecjit the entirety, instead of a mere at law;
moiety, of the debtor's land ; and that several kinds of pro-
perty, which were not extendible under the old law, are
now liable to be taken in execution. It does not, however,
appear, that the creditor has acquired any remedy at Law
against equitable estates, except in cases of simple trusts in
favour of the debtor : e.g., it is conceived that an equity of
redemption cannot be taken in execution (c) ; but that land
held simply in trust for the debtor at the date of the judg-
ment can under the 10th section of the Statute of Frauds (d)

(z) Hawkins v. Gathercole, 6 D. M. section, Re Manchester $ Milford R.

& Gr. 1 ; Long v. Storie, 3 De G. & S. Co., 14 Ch. D. 645 ; and He Southern

308; Cottlev. Warrington, 2 N. & M. R. Co., 5 L. R. Ir. p. 165; for form

227 ; Bates v. Brothers, 2 S. & Gr. 509 ; of Order, see Seton, 422.

Wise v. Bcresford, 3 D. & War. (c) Anglo-Italian Bank v. Davits,

276. 9 Ch. D. 275; Re Pope, 17 Q. B. D.

(«) Arnold v. Mayor, $c. of Graves- 743.

end, 2 K. & J. 574 ; but see Arnold (d) 29 C. II. c. 3 ; cf. Elph. &

v. Ridge, 13 C. B. 745. Cl. 7 et scq. The section only ex-

(b] See, as to the meaning of the tends to a simple trust, which af-

542 SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

r- be taken in execution, notwithstanding intermediate aliena-
- tion (otherwise than to an alienee for valuable consideration).

in Equity. Jn Equity, the judgment creditor is, under the 13th

section of the 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, to have the same remedies
against the hereditaments charged, as he would be entitled
to if the person against whom the judgment has been
entered up had power to charge, and had in writing agreed
to charge, the same hereditaments with the amount of the
judgment debt and interest : but he is not to proceed in
Equity to obtain the benefit of such charge, until a year
has elapsed from the entering up of the judgment. A
written agreement to charge being in Equity identical in
effect with an actual charge, the judgment creditor is by
this section placed in the position of an equitable incum-
brancer under a memorandum of charge, subject only to the
restriction as to the time when his judgment charge is to be
enforceable. It is not, however, necessary that a year should
have elapsed since the registration of the judgment (e) ;
and the Court will, within the year, interfere at the suit of
the judgment creditor, to prevent the destruction of the
property, although no substantial relief can be obtained
until the year has expired (/). Before the Judicature Act,
1873, a writ of elegit, and not merely a fi. fa., must have
issued before the Court would interfere (g) ; but now, under
one system of judicature, this idle form may be dispensed
with (A), nor is it necessary, for the purpose of getting a

fects the debtor's interest only, and (/) Tescombe v. Lander, 28 B. 80 ;

which does not include the interests Partridge v. Forster, 34 B. 1 ; and see

of others besides the debtor ; Forth Watts v. Jeffcrcys, 3 M. & G. 372 ;

v. Duke of Norfolk, 4 Mad. 504. The He Duke of Newcastle, 8 Eq. 700;

effect of the statute 1 & 2 V. c. 110 Anglo-Italian Bank v. Davies, 9 Ch.

is to extend the remedy to the whole D. 275.

of the debtor's lands, instead of con- (g} Smith v. Hurst, 1 Coll. 705 ; 10

fining it to a moiety ; and subject to Ha. 30 ; and see cases cited in last

this change the statute affects only note, and Neate v. Duke of Marl-

procedure. borough, 3 M. & C. 407, 415; Godfrey

(e] Derbyshire, $c. R. Co. v. Sain- v. Tucker, 33 B. 280.

bridge, 15 B. 146. (h] Ex p. Evans, Re Watkins, 13

Ch. D. 252.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 543

receiver appointed, that the judgment creditor should com- Chap- XI.
mence a fresh action (?').

Eegistration has no restrospective effect, so as to make the .

judgment, when registered, operate against purchasers or rateretrospec-

tivclv.

mortgagees as a charge from the date of its being entered
up (/»•) . So a certificate of the taxation of costs must he
registered, and operates only from the date of registration (/).

It has heen much douhted whether the proper remedy, in Whether in
Equity, for the judgment creditor, is sale or foreclosure (m). remedy is sale

£ 1

In one case, where the authorities were fully reviewed, it was c
held hy V.-C. Wood that the proper remedy for an equitable
mortgagee, who has not an agreement for a legal mortgage —
a position analogous to that of the judgment creditor — is
sale, and not foreclosure (n) ; and this decision was generally
accepted and followed. But in one case (o), which has since
been frequently followed, it was held on the authority of an
unreported case of Pryce v. Bury(p) before the Court of
Appeal, that the appropriate remedy for an equitable mort-
gagee is foreclosure, not sale. Under section 25 of the Con-
veyancing Act, 1881, an equitable mortgagee is now entitled
to a sale where he can obtain foreclosure (<?). It is, however,
conceived that this section does not entitle a judgment creditor
to a sale before the lapse of a year since the date of entering
up judgment (/•).

But the 27 & 28 Yict. c. 112, has provided a more Summary
summary remedy, in Equity, for the judgment creditor. By may'now bo°

(») Smith v. Cowell, 6 Q. B. D. 75; 8 B. 525. Foreclosure directed in

see also Anglo-Italian Bank v. Davics, Jones v. Bailey, 17 B. 582 ; Ford v.

9 Ch. D. 275 ; Salt v. Cooper, 16 Ch. Wastell, 6 Ha. 229 ; Messcr v. Boyle,
D. 544 ; where the writ was not 21 B. 559.

indorsed with a claim for a receiver. (n) Tuckley v. Thompson, U. & H.

(k) Hargrave v. Hargrare, 23 B. 126. But see Seton, 826, 827.

484. (0) James v. James, 16 Eq. 153.

(T) 8. C. (p) 16 Eq. 153, n. See Fisher,

(m) Sale directed in Footner v. ASletseq.; and. post, p. 1320.

Sturgis, 5 D. G-. & S. 736; Simpson v. (q) Oldham v. Stringer, 33 "W. R.

Morley, 2 K. & J. 71 ; Smith v. Hurst, 251.

10 Ha. 50; and see Carton v. Farlar, (>•) 1 & 2 V. c. 110, s. 13.

544 SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI. tlio 4th section it is enacted, that every creditor, to whom any
land of his debtor shall have actually been delivered in execu-

Equity. ti°n by virtue of any judgment under that Act, and whose

writ, or other process of execution, shall be duly registered,
shall be entitled forthwith, or at any time afterwards, while
the registry of such writ or other process shall continue in
force, to obtain from the Court of Chancery by petition (s),
in a summary way, an order for sale of his debtor's interest
in such land ; and every such petition may be served upon
the debtor only ; and thereupon, the Court is to direct all
necessary and proper inquiries as to the nature and particulars
of the debtor's interest in the land, and his title thereto ;
and in making such inquiries, and generally in carrying into
effect such order for sale, the practice of the Court, with
respect to sales of real estates of deceased persons for the
payment of debts, is to be adopted and followed, as far as the
same may be found conveniently applicable. If, on making
such inquiries, it appears that any other debt due on any
judgment, &c., is a charge on the land, the creditor entitled
to such charge (whether prior or subsequent to the charge of
the petitioner) is to be served with notice of the order for
sale, and after such service is to be bound thereby ; and the
proceeds of such sale are to be distributed among the persons
who may be found entitled thereto according to their respec-
tive priorities (t) ; and all parties claiming interest through
the debtor are to be bound by the order for sale (it). These
provisions, it must be observed, are merely prospective ; and
a creditor, to whom the land has been delivered in execution
under a judgment entered up prior to the Act, is not entitled
to a summary order for sale (x).

Construction The true construction of the 27 & 28 Yict. c. 112 has been

Viet. c. 112. the subject of much discussion. By the first section, to which

we have already referred, no judgment is to affect any land of

whatever tenure until it has been actually delivered in execution

(s) For form of petition, see Dan. (u) Sect. 6.

Ch. Forms, 415. (x) Re Isle of Wight Ferry , 11 Jur.

(t) Sect. 5. N. S. 279.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 545

by virtue of a writ of ekgiL or other lawful authority (y\ c£aP- XI-

* Sect. 2.

in pursuance of such judgment ; and the summary remedy

provided by the 4th section is expressly confined to cases
where there has been such an actual delivery, and the writ
or other process of execution has been registered under the
3rd section. These provisions, if construed literally, and
without reference to the context, can only mean that, except
in the comparatively few cases where the debtor's land is
capable of being delivered in execution, and has actually
been so delivered, no future judgment was to operate as a
charge on land. But the object of the Statute, as stated in
the preamble, is to assimilate the law affecting freehold,
copyhold, and leasehold estates, to that affecting purely
personal estate in respect of future judgments ; and if the
Legislature had intended at once to deprive the judgment
creditor of all his extended remedies under the 1 & 2 Yict.
c. 110, this would surely have been provided for by express
enactment, and not have been left to mere surmise. More-
over, by the 2nd section the term " land " is to include incor-
poreal hereditaments, and any interest, e.g., a reversionary
interest, in corporeal hereditaments (i.e., property not capable
of being taken in execution) ; and the 5th section speaks of
charges "prior or subsequent to the charge of the petitioner."
Clearly, therefore, the Statute contemplates the case of a
judgment creditor, who may acquire a charge under the Act,
and be entitled to the summary remedy in Equity which it
provides, although not in actual possession under a writ of
elegit (z).

In two cases, in which the question of what was intended Cases of Re
by "actual delivery" was very fully considered, it was held Co.
that, before a judgment creditor can apply by petition under
the Act, he must have got that which is the nearest equivalent
to being put in possession, viz., a return to the writ actually

(y) As to the meaning of which, see (z) See now Hatton v. Hay wood,

Nation v. Haywood, 9 Ch. 229 ; Re 9 Ch. 229 ; Re South, ib. 373 ;
South, ib. 373, and post, p. 547. Anglo-Italian Bank v. Davies, 9 Ch.

D. 275.

D. VOL. I. N N

546

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

0'iap. XI.
Sect. 2.

He Duke of
Newcastle.

Remarks on
these cases.

Hatton v.
Hayivood.

placed in the hands of the sheriff (a) ; but he is not prevented
from bringing an action to redeem a prior judgment creditor
to whom the land has been delivered: and, having thus
removed the legal obstacle, he may then petition for a sale
under the Statute (b) ; and it has been held that the priorities
of the judgment creditors inter so are determined not by the
dates of the judgments, but by the dates at which the writs
are placed in the hands of the sheriff (c).

In a later case of In re The Duke of Newcastle (d)9 the
Duke was entitled to an equitable life interest in a lease-
hold messuage ; a judgment creditor, having issued a writ of
fi.fa.) under which the sheriff entered and sold the debtor's
goods, presented a petition, while the sheriff was in possession,
for a summary order for sale of the Duke's interest in the
house, under the 4th section of the 27 & 28 Yict. c. 112.
Lord Eomilly held, first, that the Duke's interest could not
be taken in execution under a writ of fi. fa. ; and, secondly,
that the summary relief provided by the 4th section of the
Act of 1864 applies only in cases where there has been an
actual delivery in execution.

In the cases to which we have just referred, the Court, it
will be seen, treated the words " actually delivered in execu-
tion " as used in their strict technical sense, and not as
importing what we may term an equitable delivery of the
land in execution ; and accordingly, applying a cy-prh rule,
held that an enforcement of the legal process down to the
sheriff's return to the writ, was, as respects the debtor's
equitable interest, a delivery in execution within the meaning
of the Act.

But in Hatton v. Hayicood (e), a new construction was put

(a) Re Cowbridge JR. Co., 5 Eq.
413; Guest v. Cowbridge E. Co., 6
Eq. 619. But see now and consider
Hatton v. Hay wood, 9 Ch. 229.

(b} Re Cowbridge R. Co., supra;
see and compare Horsley v. Cox, 4
Ch. 92.

(c} Guest v. Cowbridge R. Co.,
supra; sed quare ; see post, pp. 547,
548.

(d) 8 Eq. 700.

(e) 9 Ch. 229; Re South, 9 Ch.
373 ; and see Anglo-Italian Sank v.
Davits, 9 Ch. D. 275 ; Smith v.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 547

upon the Statute. In that case a judgment creditor sued out Coap; "Jr'

OCCls. — .

an elegit against his debtor, whose only interest in land was -
an equity of redemption. After the sheriff had returned nil,
the debtor was adjudicated bankrupt, and the judgment cre-
ditor then filed his bill against the trustee for a declaration
of charge in the debtor's equitable interest, and for conse-
quential relief. The Court of Appeal, affirming V.-C. Malins,
who had allowed a demurrer to the bill, laid it down that the
term " delivery in execution " must be understood according
to the subject-matter, — that it was not confined to a delivery
at law by the sheriff; but that a delivery, or what was
tantamount to a delivery, " by any other lawful authority,"
satisfied the language of the Statute ; and consequently that
the relief given by a Court of Equity, whether by way of a
writ of assistance or sequestration or the appointment of a
receiver, is substantially a delivery in execution within the
Aet(/).

According to this decision a judgment creditor who cannot
obtain possession of the land under the cleg-it has no charge
upon his debtor's interest in it until he has obtained some
relief, either by a decree, or by an interlocutory order of the
Chancery Division in an action to enforce his equitable
charge ; and the Court has now jurisdiction to appoint a
receiver even where the legal remedy is open to the cre-
ditor (g}. Accordingly it has since been held (A) that there
is no reason why he should be required in the first instance
to go through the idle form of prosecuting legal remedies,
which can be productive of no result, instead of at once
availing himself of his only effectual means of relief (*') ; and

Cowell, 6 Q. B. D. 74 ; Salt v. (i) As to the necessity, before the

Cooper, 16 Ch. D. 544. Judicature Act, 1873, of first pur-

(/) 9 Ch. 373; where the property suing the legal remedy before re-
was an estate in remainder. sorting to Equity, see Wallis v.

((/} Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-s. Morris, 10 Jur. N. S. 741 ; Godfrey

8 ; Re Pope, 17 Q. B. D. 743. v. Tucker, 9 Jur. N. S. 1188 ; Par-

(h) Ex p. Evans, Ee Watkins, 13 tridge v. Foster, 34 B. 1 ; Thomas v.

Ch. D. 252 ; and see ante, pp. 542, Cross, 2 Dr. & S. 423.
643.

NN2

548 SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI. there is apparently no reason why the priorities of judgment

- creditors inter se should be determined according to the dates

at which the writs are placed in the sheriff's hands, and not

by the order in which they obtain an effectual charge on the

land or the debtor's equitable interest in it.

In one case (&), Sir Greorge Jessel, M. E., held that a
judgment creditor, who, by reason of an outstanding legal
estate or incumbrance, could not obtain possession of the
land under his ekgit, was not bound to file a bill for redemp-
tion ; but might, in a suit to which the debtor and subsequent
incumbrancers were alone parties, obtain a decree for the
appointment of a receiver and a sale of the property (I).

%

When a Where it is not clear that the debtor has a saleable

ordered under interest in the land delivered in execution, the Court will

cU22 1C*' no^ or^-er an immediate sale; but will direct inquiries as
to the nature of the debtor's interest : and if it should be
found unsaleable, the case appears not to fall within the
4th section (m) .

Judgment When it is said that a judgment operates as a charge upon

poned to <?***«» land, what is meant is, that where a debtor has merely a

priorrequit- modified or qualified interest in the lands, — as where he holds

able incum- them wholly or in part as a trustee or subject to any previous

incumbrance, whether legal or merely equitable, — the judg-

ment must be considered as the statutory equivalent to his

written agreement to charge not the lands themselves, but

merely that which he may rightfully charge, viz., his bene-

ficial interest (if any) in them ; so that the judgment creditor,

although he subsequently acquire the legal estate, is post-

(£) Wells v. Eilpin, 18 Eq. 298 ; 2 Ch. 382 ; and as to form of order

but see and compare James v. James, for sale of superfluous lands of a

16 Eq. 153; Beckett v. Buckley, 17 railway company under this section,

Eq. 435. see Re Hull and Hornsea R. Co., 2

(t) See 18 Eq. 300, for form of Eq. 262 ; Gardner v. L. C. $ I). R.

decree. Co., 2 Ch. 385; Re Calne R. Co., 9

(m) Re Bishop's Waltham R. Co., Eq. 658; and see Fisher, 487.

SEARCHES FOR IXCUMBRANCES, ETC. 549

poned to a ccstui que trust, or a prior equitable incumbrancer Chap. XI.
who advanced his money upon the security of the specific -
property (n).

In one case (o) it was held that judgment creditors, whose Where jndg-
judgments were not a charge on the land at the date of the

decree in a foreclosure suit, were entitled to redeem if within traj;ion

notice of a

the six months allowed for redemption they issued writs of charge.
elegit : but, in a later case (p), this decision was disapproved;
and it was held that judgment creditors who had not issued
execution were not necessary parties to a foreclosure suit.

In a modern case, a majority of the Court of Queen's
Bench held that a mortgage of an equitable interest in stock, °
where the mortgagee had omitted to give notice of the charge
to the trustees, must be postponed to a charging order ob-
tained under sect. 14 of 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110, by a subsequent
registered judgment creditor (q). This case, although pro-
fessedly decided in accordance with the decisions above re-
ferred to, on the 13th section, is very difficult to be reconciled
with them ; and the masterly judgment of the dissentient
member of the Court, Erie, J., offers reasons in support of
his opinion which many will deem to be unanswerable (r).

In a later case, it was held that a judgment entered up by Recent cases.
an heir for his own debt, before any action or suit by simple
contract creditors of the ancestor, had no priority over their
claims under the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 104, in respect of the
descended real estate (*). So, an equitable assignee of stock,
whose mortgage was subsequent to the judgment, but before
the charging order, was held entitled to priority over the

(«) Whiticorth v. Gangain, 1 Ph. (r) And see judgment in Beavan v.

728 ; and cases cited post, p. 550; Lord Oxford, 6 D. M. & G. 492, 524,

see, too, Elph. & C. 11. 525, 532; where the decision in

(o) Mildred v. Austin, 8 Eq. 220. Watts v. Porter was disapproved.

(p) Earl of Cork v. Russell, 13 Eq. And see under the equivalent Irish

210. Acts, Eyre v. McDowell, 9 H. L. C.

(q) Watts v. Porter, 3 E. & B. 373. 619, 642.

(*) Kinderley v. Jervis, 22 B. 1.

550

SEARCHES FOK INCUMBKANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI. judgment creditor, although lie had omitted to give notice of

^— - — his security (t) ; and, in a later case, it was laid down, that

where a judgment creditor had notice of a prior mortgage, or

a mortgagee had notice of a prior unregistered judgment,

each was equally postponed; in the former case, because the

debtor had parted with his interest ; in the latter, because the

mortgagee, having notice of the prior incumbrance, could not,

by contract, place himself in a better position than his mort-

gagor, who might not derogate from an interest which he

Priorities of had already created (u) : but that as between judgment

creditors inter creditors this principle had no application ; the judgment

creditor gaining his position by proceedings in inmtum ; so

that, notwithstanding notice of a prior unregistered judgment,

his judgment, if first registered in the County Register,

under the Act would have priority (#). So, under the 27 & 28 Yict. c. 112,

of 18fi4

the priority of judgment creditors inter se is regulated ac-
cording to the times when the several writs are placed in the
sheriff's hands (y). Where, however, the transaction, though
in form a judgment, is in truth a contract, as where money
is agreed to be advanced upon the security of certain land,
and the judgment is only the mode of carrying out the con-
tract, the principle above stated would probably be held to
apply (z). It may be here stated that an execution creditor
is not in the position of a purchaser, and that the rule as to
obtaining priority by notice does not apply to him («).

Eelease of By the llth section of the 22 & 23 Yict. c. 35, the release

part of land

charg-ed not from a judgment of part of any hereditaments charged there-
JU ^" with, is not to affect the validity of the judgment as to the
hereditaments remaining unreleased ; but this provision is not

(t) Scott v. Lord Hastings, 4 K. £
J. 633; see V.-C. Wood's judg-
ment;. Haly v. Barry, 3 Ch. 452,
and cases there cited ; B rear cliff v.
Dorrington, 4 De G-. & S. 122.

(u) Benham v. Keane, 3 D. F. & J.
318 ; Neve v. Flood, 33 B. 666.

(x) S. 0.

(y) Guest v. Coivbridge R. Co., 6

Eq. 619.

(z) Benham v. Eeane, 3 D. F. & J.
318; and see Croft v. Lumley, 6 H.
L. C. 672.

(a) Ardenv. Ardcn, 29 Ch. D. 702 ;
Badeky v. Consolidated Bank, 34 Ch.
D. 536 ; and see Ex p. Whitehouse,
32 Ch. D. 512, where the principle
was applied to a garnishee.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 551

to affect the rights of persons interested in the hereditaments Chap. XI.

i j 7,\ Scct- 2-

remaining unreleased (b).

The remedies of the judgment creditor depended, as we Remedies
have seen, upon the due registration of the judgment, until the iaw depend
Act of 1860 added registration of the writ of execution, and £a°tk>n?gi8~
that of 1864 substituted delivery in execution, together with
registration of the writ or other process, in cases where the
judgment creditor desired a sale of the lands (II}. Under the 1 & 2 Viet.

1 & 2 Yict. c. 110 (c), judgments did not affect lands, &c., as
against purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors, until they had
been registered in the manner specified in the Act. By the

2 & 3 Yict. c. 11, the old dockets were closed; and judg- 2 & 3 Viet,
ments then docketed were not to affect lands, &c., as against
purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors after the 1st of August,

1841, until a memorandum thereof was left for registration
at Westminster under the 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110 ; and as respects
judgments registered at Westminster, a fresh memorandum
was required to be left for registration every five years (d] ;
so that in no case need a search at Westminster (now in the
Central Office) extend back for more than five years ; but
the search for the five years preceding the purchase should
theoretically be made, not only as against the present vendor,
but also against former owners, although more than five years
may have elapsed since they parted with the property (e).

By the first section of the 23 & 24 Yict. c. 38, which is not Registration

-C *A £

retrospective (/), before a judgment can affect land (of what- execution
ever tenure), as against a purchaser or mortgagee, whether
with or without notice, a writ of execution must have been
issued, and registered before the conveyance or mortgage :

(b) Cf. on the analogous 10th (d) See sects. 1, 2, and 4 of 2 & 3
section, Booth v. Smith, 14 Q. B. D. V. c. 11.

318 ; the Irish Act, 11 & 12 V. c. 48, (e) See as to misnomer, Beavan v.

s. 72; Handcock v. Handcock, 1 Ir. Lord Oxford, 3 S. & G. 11 ; vide post,

Ch. R. 444. p. 560.

(bb) See Elph. & C. 35, 43. (/) Vide ante, p. 532 ; and see

(c) Sects. 19 and 21. Evans v. Williams, 2 Dr. & S. 32i.

552 SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

C|ect ? * an(^ ^e executi°n must be put in force within three calendar

months from the date of the registration of the writ : and by
the 2nd section a memorandum is to be left with the senior
Master of the Common Pleas, who is to enter the particulars
in a book in the name of the person on whose behalf the writ
was issued ; and all persons are to be at liberty to search
this book, in addition to all the other books in the same
office, on payment of the sum of one shilling. These pro-
visions are extended to the Palatine Courts, but not to
Ireland.

Cannot be Under this Statute a registered judgment, under which the

the end of the land has not been actually delivered in execution, instead of
months a cnarge of indefinite duration, if kept alive by the

process of re-registration, was made a charge upon the land
only while a writ of execution was in force, viz., for a period
of three calendar months from the date of registration.
There is no provision for the re-registration of the writ at the
end of the three months, and it is the practice at the office
to refuse re-registration, as not being authorized by the
but a fresh Statute (h) ; but there would seem to be nothing to prevent

writ on the

same judg- the registration 01 a second, or any subsequent, writ on the

ment may be • j i

registered, same judgment.
semble.

Registration By the 27 & 28 Yict. c. 112, which also is merely pro-
of 1864. spective, no judgment is to affect land until such land has

been actually delivered in execution by virtue of a writ of
e legit or other lawful authority. The writ or other process
of execution is to be registered in the name of the debtor, thus
avoiding the necessity of a double search ; and no prior or
other registration of the judgment is to be deemed necessary
for any purpose: and the summary relief provided by the 4th
section must be obtained while the registry of the writ continues
in force. As this Act, like the 23 & 24 Yict. c. 38, does not
provide for re-registration of the writ, the meaning of this
qualifying expression is far from clear. But except for the

(h] See Pask on these Acts, p. 9.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 553

purpose of putting in force his remedies under the 4th section. Chap. XI.
• . . Sect. 2.

a judgment creditor is under no obligation to register the writ

or other process under the 3rd section (i).

Where a judgment is re-registered after the expiration of Neglect to
more than five years from the date of the last registration, withnTfive
there is nothing in the 2 & 3 Viet. c. 11, to affect its validity, ^are-effect
except as against purchasers or mortgagees claiming under
an instrument executed between the expiration of such
period of five years and the subsequent registration (k).
Any doubts which had existed were prospectively removed
by the 6th section of the 18 & 19 Yict. c. 15, s. 6, which
enacted that it should be sufficient to bind purchasers, &c.,
if a minute were again left with the senior Master of the
Common Pleas within five years before the execution of the
conveyance, &c., although more than five years should have
expired by effluxion of time since the last previous registra-
tion before such minute was left ; and so toties guotics upon
every re-registry.

We may also remark that the provisions as to registration Provisions as
are operative not merely for the protection of the debtor's not merely for

immediate purchasers and mortgagees, but also for the *he ^^ of
benefit of all derivative bond fide purchasers and mort- chasers, &c.
gagees (/) : but where a purchaser or mortgagee has once
been duly bound by notice of a registered judgment, the
neglect of re-registration within the five years will not
relieve him. It is hardly necessary to observe that where
the title is derived otherwise than through the judgment
creditor, as, e.g., in the case of a lord taking by escheat, the
statute does not apply.

No provision was originally made for the fresh registra- Re-registra-
tion of judgments, &c., in the Palatinate Courts of Lancaster ments in* g"

Palatinate

(i) Re Pope, 17 Q. B. D. 743. 71 ; 18 & 19 V. c. 15, s. 6 ; Re Lord Court8-

(k} Beavan v. Lord Oxford, 6 D. M. Kensington, 29 Ch. D. 527.

& G-. 492 ; Shaw v. Nealc, 6 H. L. C. (T) Benham v. Keane, 1 J. & H.

581; Freer v. Hesse, 4 D. M. & G-. 685; 3 D. F. & J. 318. See and

495 ; Simpson v. Morley, 2 K. & J. consider judgments.

554 SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI. and Durham; the 4th section of the 2 & 3 Yict. c. 11,
Sect. 2.

- referring merely to those judgments, &c., which must he

originally registered with the senior Master of the Court of
Common Pleas at Westminster ; hut this omission was sup-
plied hy the 18 & 19 Yict. c. 15 (m). "We may here remark,
that since lands in a County Palatine may he extended on a
judgment ohtained in the High Court of Justice (mm), it
will he proper to search the register in the Central Office, in
addition to the local register.

Purchaser A. purchaser with notice of an unregistered judgment is

with notice of

unregistered protected (n) from the additional remedies of the judgment
ho\^farUable. creditor under the 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110; and, since the old
dockets are closed, he is equally safe from any remedy
which, under the old law, depended upon docketing ; hut it
was conceived to he doubtful whether a purchaser with
notice of an unregistered judgment was not still hound in
Equity to the same extent as he would have been bound
under the old law by notice of an undocketed judgment (o) •
for instance, whether, if purchasing from an owner in fee
simple, he would not be liable in Equity to have a moiety
of the land subjected to the claim of a creditor of whose
unregistered judgment he had notice at the time of ad-
vancing his money ; although if purchasing under a power
of appointment, he might altogether disregard unregistered
judgments against the vendor of a date subsequent to the
creation of the power ; inasmuch as, under the old law, the
exercise of the power defeated such judgments as well in
Equity as at Law. It was even made a question whether a
purchaser might not at Law be bound by a judgment, neither
docketed nor registered, in the same way as he would have
been bound by it before the Act of William and Mary (p) :

(in) S. 3; and see now 23 & 24 V. Chancery, 13 & 14V. c. 43, s. 24;

c. 38, s. 2. 23 & 24 V. c. 38, s. 2.

(mm) Draper v. Blaney, 2 Saund, (o) But see JBeere v. Head, 3 J. &

194. L. 340 ; Re Huthicaite, 2 Ir. Ch. R. 54.

(n) 3 & 4 V. c. 82; qucere, as to (p) Coote on Mortgages, 109, 110.

Palatinate judgments. See as to And see Jortin v. S. E. E, Co., 6

decrees of the Lancaster Court of D. M. & G. 275.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 555

but the point did not seem to be one of real difficulty : Chap. XI-

. Sect. 2.

except as respects Palatinate judgments which never required

docketing (q). Both these points are now disposed of in the
negative (r).

It was the opinion of Lord St. Leonards that where a Purchaser
judgment had been once docketed under the old Acts, but ^docketed0 '
had not been registered under the 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, or Judgment not

registered
where a judgment having been registered under that Act under 1 & 2

had not been re-registered at the end of five years, under how far liable,
the 2 & 3 Yict. c. 1 1 , a purchaser for value, although aware
of its previous docketing or registration, might presume that
it had been satisfied (s) : and this principle was carried out in
the 18 & 19 Yict. c. 15 (t).

It was held by Lord Cranworth, Y.-C., in a case under the Local regis-
West Biding Register Act (w), that a judgment creditor, duly affected,
registering under the 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, but omitting to
register under the Local Act, is not an incumbrancer upon
the land at Law or in Equity (x) : in a later case, under the
Middlesex Act (y), Y.-C. K. Bruce declined to follow this
decision (2) : but it is now clearly settled that the Local
Registry Acts have not been repealed by the judgment
Acts (a) .

The 23 & 24 Yict. c. 115 (&), has provided greater facilities Satisfaction of
for entering on the register satisfaction of a registered judg- how entered
rnent, Us pendens, decree, order, rule, annuity, rent-charge, up'

(q} See Williams' R,. P. 4th ed. p. (x) Johnson v. Ifoldstcorth, 1 Si.

68. N. S. 106.

(r) 18 & 19 V. c. 15, ss. 4, 5. (y) 7 Anne, c. 20.

(s) Beere v. Head, 3 J. & L. 340 ; (z) Robinson v. Woodward, 4 De G.

Bedford v. Forbes, 1 C. & K. 33 ; and, & S. 562.

upon the Irish Acts, Knox v. Kelly, (a) Benham v. Keane, 1 J. & H.

1 D. & Wai. 542 ; Ilickson v. Collis, 685 ; 3 D. F. & J. 318 ; in which the

1 J. & L. 94 ; Ex parte Belfast Har- prior decisions were fully reviewed ;

bour Commissioners, 5 Ir. Jur. 35. Neve v. Flood, 33 B. 666 ; Wcstbrook

(t} See s. 5. v. Blythe, 3 E. & B. 737.

(u) 6 Anne, c. 20 (Ruff. 5 Anne, (b) S. 2.
c. 18).

556 SEARCHES FOE INCUMBEANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI. or writ of execution, and for the issue of certificates of the

Sect 2

- entry of such satisfaction. Where the requirements of this
Statute cannot he complied with, a rule or order of a Court of
Common Law or Equity directing satisfaction to he entered
upon the record of the judgment, must he ohtained (c).

Judgments By the 31 & 32 Yict. c. 54, facilities have heen given for

one part of enforcing judgments ohtained in one part of the United
enforceable^ Kingdom in the Courts of another part. When judgment
other parts, j^g Deen obtained or entered up in any of the Courts of
Westminster (now the High Court), a certificate thereof
registered in Ireland is as from the date of such registration
to have the effect of a judgment ohtained or entered up
there, or vice versa ; and registers are provided for the entry
of such certificates (d) : so, also, judgments obtained or
entered up at Westminster (now in the High Court) or in
Ireland are in like manner to have the effect of a decreet of
the Court of Session in Scotland (c) ; and there is a similar
provision as to the registration at Westminster (now in the
High Court) and in Ireland of certified extracts of Scotch
decreets (/) ; but in all these cases the certificate cannot,
without special leave, be registered more than twelve months
after the date of the judgment or decreet ; the Courts in
which the certificates are registered are invested with the
same powers as they possess in respect of their own judg-
ments, but only so far as relates to execution under the
Act(<7).

We now return to the inquiry with which this digression
commenced, viz., how far the relation of vendor and purchaser
is affected by the present law of judgments, and, in particular,
what searches in respect of judgments ought to be made on
behalf of an intending purchaser.

General effect To sum up the above statement of the law, as to judgments

of recent

(c} 16 &17 V.c. 113,s. 144. Forthe Law Amendment Acts, pp. 31—34.
rules of the office as to entry of satis- (d] S.I. (e) S. 2.

faction, see Pask on the Judgments (/) S. 3. (y) S. 4.

SEARCHES FOR IXCUMBRANCES, ETC. 557

entered up before the 23rd July, 1860, these may be dis- Chap. XI.

f Qcct. 2,

regarded, unless they have been registered and re-registered

within five years prior to the search ; and these judgments, the law of
even if re-registered, carry with them, as against purchasers Jud£mei]
without notice, only the remedies and operation which
obtained under the old law. As to judgments entered up
between the above date and the 29th July, 1864, in order
to affect a purchaser, these must not only have been re-
registered within five years before the date of the search,
but execution must have been issued and registered before
the completion of the purchase, and put in force within three
calendar months of the date of registration. As to judg-
ments entered up since the 29th July, 1864 (i.e., under the
present law), these may be disregarded by the purchaser,
unless there has been actual delivery in execution, or equitable
execution by the appointment of a receiver has taken place.

The search for judgments should be made for a period of What

SG£i relics

five years. The register will disclose the date of entering up should bo
the judgment : if it was entered up before the 23rd July, 1860,
and has been duly re-registered, the purchaser will still be
bound by it, although no execution may have issued thereon,
or been registered. If it was entered up between the 23rd
July, 1860, and the 29th July, 1864, then a further search
must be made in the creditor's name for a registered writ of
execution ; if any be found, it must be ascertained whether
the writ has been executed ; if it has not, and if three
months have elapsed from the registration of the writ, both
the registered judgment and writ of execution may be dis-
regarded. If the judgment has been entered up since the
29th July, 1864, a search should be made in the debtor's
name in the list of registered executions, whether his in-
terest in the land can be reached by an clef/it or not.

But the purchaser's real difficulty begins where the proper Danger in
searches end; and behind them all lurks a most serious searches,
danger. That difficulty is to ascertain whether the land has
been delivered in execution under a writ of elegit, or by

558

Chap. XI.
Sect. 2.

Legal exe-
cution where
elegit has
been regis-
tered.

"Where it has
not.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

means of equitable execution. The test of delivery in execu-
tion is, in the case of a legal execution, the return by the
sheriff to the writ : in the case of an equitable execution, the
appointment of a receiver.

In the former case, if the judgment creditor wishes to
enforce his remedy of a sale under the 4th section of the
27 & 28 Yict. c. 112, he must register his writ of elegit (i).
In this case no difficulty to a purchaser arises, because the
existence of a writ of elegit on the registry constitutes a blot
on the title.

.But it may often happen that the judgment creditor is satis-
fied with having the lands delivered to him in execution, — as
he thereby gets an effectual legal charge, and is enabled to
apply the rents and profits towards the satisfaction of his
debt, — and does not proceed to register the writ ; the only
object of this latter proceeding being to enable him to peti-
tion for a sale under section 4 (k) . If he does not register his
writ, there is nothing to show that the judgment has been
executed by actual delivery of the lands. The intending
purchaser may not even find any judgment registered, be-
cause registration of the judgment is not necessary for the
purpose of obtaining execution. He then searches for writs
of ekgit, and finding none proceeds to make inquiry of the
sheriff whether he has executed any elegit relating to the
lands in question. But the sheriff is not bound to keep any
registry or record of the writs delivered to him, or to answer
any questions concerning them ; and he may reasonably
refuse to answer a question where an accidentally false
answer may involve him in a possible law suit. If after this
failure to elicit any material information the purchaser goes
to the land itself to make inquiries on the spot, he finds it in
the. occupation of the vendor who is not likely to inform him
that he is in occupation merely on sufferance, that the land
has been delivered in execution, and that the rents are the
property of his judgment creditor.

(0 S. 3.

(k) Re Pope, 17 Q. B. D. 743.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 559

In the case of an equitable execution, the danger is still cJjaP; -Jp-

m feect. -.

greater, because, as we have seen (/), a judgment creditor is

not bound to sue out a writ of clcyit as a preliminary to execution,
obtaining the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable
execution, and may obtain such an appointment on an inter-
locutory application. A search for clegits will in this case
show the intending purchaser nothing, nor has he any means
of ascertaining that a receiver has been appointed : and the
result of the most elaborate searches may very well be that
he discovers nothing at all against the vendor and his lands.
Even inquiry upon the spot need not disclose the existence
of a receiver, as he may not be personally in possession, and
the tenants even may have no knowledge of his existence.

The danger to a purchaser in the case of an equitable exe- Re Pope.
cution has lately been forcibly illustrated by a case in the
Court of Appeal (ni). There a judgment had been obtained
and registered against A. The judgment creditor, finding
that the only lands belonging to A. were subject to an
equitable mortgage, obtained the appointment of a receiver
upon an interlocutory application. Four months later, A.
conveyed the estate subject to the charge to B., who thereby
got the legal estate, and had no notice of the receiver's
appointment. It was held that the 27 & 28 Viet. c. 112,
requires only delivery in execution in order to make the
legal title effectual : that, the appointment of a receiver
being equivalent to delivery of the lands, there was no need
to register the appointment : and that B. was accordingly
postponed to the judgment creditor.

The result of this decision, — which, it is submitted, is a Effect of
correct construction of the 27 & 28 Viet. c. 112, — is to import Re Pope'
into every title an element of danger against which the most
jealous searches and the most careful scrutiny cannot protect
the purchaser. It only remains for the legislature to apply Suggestions
the simple remedy of making the registration of delivery in

(T) Ante, p. 542. (*») Re Pope, 17 Q. B. D. 743.

500

SEARCHES FOR IXCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI.
Sect. 2.

When to be
made in the
names of
prior owners.

Searches in
the Central
Office.

General
remarks on
the present
state of the
law.

execution, or of the appointment of a receiver, a condition
precedent to lands being affected by a judgment as against
purchasers.

Although, theoretically, a search ought to be made for five
years preceding the sale in the names of former owners, with
a view to the possibility of prior judgments having been
entered up against them, and kept alive by re-registration (//),
it is not usual in practice, even on purchases in the Chancery
Division, in the absence of special grounds for suspicion, to
go back further than the last mortgagee or purchaser for
value, it being assumed that proper searches were made on
behalf of such mortgagee or purchaser; or to extend the
searches to judgments against mortgagees or other incum-
brancers, or mere equitable claimants upon the property (///).
In fact, as a rule, subject, of course, as every rule is, to
occasional exceptions, the searches advised by counsel are
theoretically imperfect and practically useless.

As has been already (m) pointed out, the searches can now
be made by delivering in the Central Office of the Supreme
Court of Judicature a requisition for the searches required (n).

This short review of the existing law of judgments natu-
rally suggests the question, whether its benefits, as compared
with its inconveniences, are such as to justify its continuance.
The practice of entering up and registering a judgment as a
security for money advanced, which had long fallen into de-
suetude, was virtually abolished by the Acts of 1860 and 1864 ;
which, by depriving a judgment of its statutory force as a
charge, unless immediate steps were taken to enforce it, ren-
dered it impossible thus to create a continuing security on
the land. The question, therefore, lies between those creditors
who, in ordinary process of law, have recovered judgments

(U) Not as against the debtor, in
•whose favour the Statute of Limita-
tions runs ; Ex p. Tynte, 15 Ch. I).
125 ; Evans v. O'Donnell, 18 L. R. Ir.
170 ; see ante, p. 453.

(lit) See 18 & 19 V. c. 15, s. 11 ;
ante, p. 538.

(m) Ante, p. 521.

(») 45 & 46 V. c. 39, s. 2.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 561

against landowners, and the general body of vendors and Chap. XI.
purchasers, whose interest it is that there should be no unne-
cessary hindrance to the free circulation and transfer of land.

Now, as a matter of principle, it must be admitted that a
debtor's land ought to be within reach of his creditors, as
well during his lifetime as after his decease. There is, how-
ever, as regards the community at large, a wide difference in
the practical application of this principle to the two cases of
a creditor's suit instituted after the debtor's death, and the
course of action against him under the existing law of judg-
ments while he is living. In the former, the whole expense
of fixing and discharging the liability falls upon his estate ;
in the latter, a burdensome tax is thrown upon the general
body of vendors and purchasers, and, through them, upon the
entire community. If the total amount recovered for judg-
ment creditors in any one year, could be compared with the
aggregate expense occasioned to purchasers during the same
period, by the operation of the existing law, the latter, if we
mistake not, would be found largely to exceed the former ;
and such a comparison would not, in any adequate degree,
represent the hardship, uncertainty and inconvenience which
are the necessary results of the present system. If, therefore,
the uniform good of the community is to be preferred to the
casual benefit of the individual, there can be no doubt that,
as a matter of public policy, the existing law of judgments
ought to be swept away.

But even supposing this to be premature, there is at any
rate room for great and immediate improvement in the ex-
isting system, and the following suggestions are offered with
this view, viz., that as a preliminary step to a new and more
simple legislation, all the statutes now in force relating to
the law of judgments should be at once repealed, with a
saving for a limited period of the rights of judgment credi-
tors under the existing system — that all hereditaments of the
debtor, of whatever kind or tenure, and whatever may be the
nature of his estate or interest therein, should be rendered

I). VOL. I. O O

562 SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI. liable to his judgment debts — that the term judgment should
- be precisely denned — that it should no longer be necessary to
issue a writ of elcgit, or to take any proceedings before the
sheriff — that a judgment, if intended to operate as a charge
on the land, should be registered in the debtor's name within
a limited time (say fourteen days) from the date of its being
entered up — that the judgment creditor should be at liberty,
at any time within a limited period (say three months) from
the registration of the judgment, to apply to the Court, upon
petition in a summary way, for an order for the sale of his
debtor's interest, and the Court should have such powers as to
directing inquiries on, and service of, the petition, as are pro-
vided by the Act of 1864 — that the presentation of every such
petition should be registered in the debtor's name, and until
so registered should not in anywise affect any hereditaments
of the debtor, notwithstanding that any person dealing with
him may have actual notice of the entering up and registra-
tion of the judgment — and that purchasers and mortgagees,
without notice of a registered petition, should be protected in
the same way as under the existing law.

Crown debts. Wherever there is reason to suspect that the vendor may
be a debtor or accountant to the Crown, search should be
made (except in the case of copyholds) (0) for Crown debts
and accountantships (p). The lien of the Crown, it may be
observed, attaches as from the time when the owner of the
land becomes an accountant. All freehold lands may be
taken in execution by the Crown; and the lien extends
to trust estates and equities of redemption ; nor can it be
defeated by the execution of a power of appointment (q), or
by the assignment of an attendant term already held in trust
for the debtor or accountant (r) ; and the lands of an accoun-
tant are liable for moneys which become due from him even

(o) Aldrichv. Cooper, 8 V. 394. (q) Prid. J. 161; Reg. v. Ellis, 4

(p) As to who are liable as accoun- Ex. 652; 6 Ex. 921.

tants, see 33 H. VIII. c. 39 ; 13 Eliz. (r) Rex v. Smith, Sug. 543 ; Rex v.

c. 4; 6 a. IV. c. 105, s. 13 ; 6 G. Lamb, 13 Pr. 649; Reg. v. Ellis, ubi

IV. c. 104, s. 7; Prid. J. 159 et supra.

seq. ; Shelford R. P. 596.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 563

subsequently to alienation (s) : and a purchaser, evicted by Chap. XI.
the Crown, will have no allowance made him for repairs and —
improvements (t) ; and although copyholds are not extendible
on Crown process, the exemption does not extend to a lease
of copyholds granted by licence of the lord (M), or, it is con-
ceived, by special custom of the manor. But Crown debts do
not affect the debtor's terms for years in gross, whether his
estate be legal or equitable, until the teste of the extent (v) ;
so that an intermediate alienation binds the Crown.

Previously to the year 1839 a purchaser had no means of Registration
ascertaining whether his vendor was a debtor or accountant
to the Crown. By the 8th section of the 2 & 3 Yict. c. 11,
no bond given to the Crown is to affect the debtor's land
until it has been registered. This section is not retrospec-
tive, and it may still occasionally, but, it is conceived, very
rarely, be expedient to ascertain (if possible) by searches at
the Exchequer Office, and among the Receiver- General's
bonds at the Tax Office, that no such liability was subsisting
before the 4th June, 1839, when the 2 & 3 Viet. c. 11 came
into operation ; but in practice such an inquiry is seldom, if
ever, made.

He-registry of Crown debts was at first not required ; Re-registry
but by the 22 & 23 Viet. c. 35 (#), the provisions as to the debts,
re-registration of judgments were extended to Crown debts ;
so that in every case a search for five years will be suf-
ficient.

By the 28 & 29 Viet. c. 104 (?/), future Crown debts are Future
not to affect land as to a bond fide purchaser for value or a not t^affect
mortgagee, even with notice, until a writ of execution has lan.d u,ntl1

writ of exe-

been issued and registered ; and a new mode of registration cution issued
is provided similar to that for judgments. It is material to tered. °
observe, that Crown debts become a charge upon the land

(*) Coxhead's case, Moo. 126. (v) Rex v. Lamb, 13 Pr. 659.

(t) Rex v. Bailey, cited Mann. (x] S. 22.

Exch. P. 37, n. (y) S. 48 et seq.
(w) Prid. J. 150.

oo2

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI.
Sect. 2.

Searches now
to be made.

Entry of
satisfaction.

immediately upon the registration of the writ ; while, in the
case of judgments, the land must have been actually delivered
in execution before registration can be effected, or a charge
created. The 28 & 29 Yict. c. 104 is not retrospective ; and
it is therefore still necessary to search for Crown liabilities
of a date prior to the 1st November, 1865, and since re-
registered; since that date the search must also, in appro-
priate cases, extend to executions, which are entered in the
same register as executions under the 27 & 28 Yict. c. 112.
The search may now be made in the Central Office.

The 2 & 3 Yict. c. 11 provided for the registration of a
quietus, and for the discharge of part of the debtor's land, in
certain cases, without prejudice to the claim of the Crown on
the remainder; and now, under the 23 & 24 Yict. c. 115,
satisfaction of a registered Crown debt will be entered up by
the registrar, upon a certificate of the commissioners or
principal officer of the public department holding the bond
being filed at the office ; but, in the case of railway bonds,
it appears to be still necessary to obtain a judge's order
before satisfaction can be entered up. Since the Judicature
(Officers) Act, 1879 (s), satisfaction is entered at the Central
Office.

Lispendens. A registered Jis pendens, though not of itself an incum-
brance, apart from the equity on which the litigation is
founded, fixes an intending purchaser with notice of any
adverse claim or unsatisfied charge, which may be the sub-
ject of the suit ; and in every case the search ought to be
made in the Central Office. If upon inquiry the suit is
found not to involve any question of title or charge upon
the property about to be dealt with, it may be safely disre-
garded. The mere existence of a registered Us pendens,
apart from the question raised in it, is not a sufficient reason
for refusing to complete a purchase (a).

(z) 42 & 43 V. c. 78.
(a} Suit v. Hutchens, 32 B. 615.
On the doctrine of Us pendens in rela-

tion to notice, see Price v. Price, 35
Ch. D. 297 ; and post, p. 982 et seq.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 565

The 2 & 3 Viet. o. 11, which introduced the practice of Chap. XI.

. Sect. 2.

registering suits, provides that no KB pen dens shall bind

a purchaser or mortgagee without express notice thereof, Of— under
unless and until a memorandum or minute containing the jj ^ Vlct*
name and the usual or last known place of abode, and the
title, trade, or profession, of the person whoso estate is
intended to be affected thereby, and the title of the cause,
&c., shall have been left for registration with the senior
Master of the Common Pleas ; and by the same Act a KB
pcndcns becomes void against the lands, as to purchasers,
mortgagees, or creditors, unless re-registered every five
years (b) ; so that a search need only be made (now in the
Central Office) for that period. Whether it can be safely
confined to the name of the immediate vendor, must depend
upon the state of the title, and upon the purchaser being
satisfied that, on prior sale-transactions, the usual searches
have been made ; and the like remark applies to the other
searches now under consideration. In the case of a sale by
trustees who have full power to sell, and to give discharges
for the purchase-money, a search for Us pcndcns is often the
only search which is necessary.

Formerly the only mode of discharging the registry of Satisfaction of

7. 7* i i i • • j'jr Us pendens.

a hs pcndcns was by obtaining an order in the cause upon a

petition as of course presented at the Rolls ; and on this
being filed with the senior Master of the Common Pleas,
satisfaction was entered in the register (c) ; but now, as in
the case of registered judgments, the 23 & 24 Viet. c. 115,
empowers the senior Master to enter satisfaction as to any
registered pending suit, or Us pendens, upon the filing of an
acknowledgment by the plaintiff in the form or to the effect
therein mentioned (d).

And now, where the litigation is determined, or is not Vacating the
being bond fide prosecuted, the Court may make a summary ^e
order vacating the registration of the KB pendensy without the

(b) And see 18 & 19 V. c. 15, s. 6. (c) Pask. Pr. 117. (<*) S. 2.

566

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI.

Sect. 2.

Order tinder
Settled Land
Act, 1882, a
Us pendens.

Winding-up
petition.

Court Rolls
and local
registers.

consent of the party who registered it ; and, on an office copy
of such order being filed, a discharge of the Us pendens is to
be entered (d).

We may remark here, that an order giving leave to
exercise the powers conferred by sect. 63 of the Settled Land
Act, 1882, must be registered as a Us pendens, in order to
affect any person dealing with the trustees (e).

By the 114th section of the 25 & 26 Yict. c. 89, any
petition for winding up a company under the Act was, if
duly registered, made a lis pendens under the 2 & 3 Yict.
c. 11. It was a common practice in winding-up cases to
register the petition for the purpose of affecting the estate
of the individual contributory, although, at the date of regis-
tration, there might be no specific charge against it. But
the Court of Appeal, reversing a decision of the Master of the
Bolls, held that the section only authorized registration as
against the company (/) ; and now the section is repealed (g).
It must, however, be pointed out that sect. 153 — which
provides that, where any company is being wound up by
the Court, or s abject to the supervision of the Court, all
dispositions of the property of the company made between
the commencement of and the order for the winding up, shall,
unless the Court otherwise orders, be void — makes it necessary
to ascertain whether a winding-up petition has been presented.
Search should be made for advertisements of petitions in the
London Gazette in cases where doubt is entertained as to the
position of the company.

When the property is copyhold, the Court Bolls should be
searched for documents, incumbrances, &c., not appearing on
the abstract ; so, where the property lies in a district subject
to the Registry Acts, viz.t Middlesex, Yorkshire, Kingston-
upon-Hull, and the Bedford Level, searches should be made
in the local registers ; and searches in Yorkshire may now be

(d) 30 & 31 V. c. 47, s. 2 ; see
Glutton v. Lee, 7 Ch. D. 541, n.
(0 47 & 48 V. c. 18, s. 7.

(/) Ex p. Thornton, 2 Ch. 171.
(g) See 30 & 31 V. c. 47, s. 1.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 567

made by means of the official authorities at the registry by Cjjap- XI.

virtue of the Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884, which also -

contains provisions, analogous to those provided with regard

to searches in the Central Office, for the protection of solici-

tors and trustees (//). These searches, both in the Court

Bolls and in the County Register, should be extended over

the whole period covered by the abstract: copyholds, how-

ever, are excepted out of the Register Acts of Yorkshire,

Middlesex, and Kingston-upon-Hull : so also are leases at

rack-rent, and leases for a term not exceeding twenty-one

years, where the actual possession and occupation go along

with the lease ; but in practice, when such leases are assigned

by way of mortgage, it is usual to require them to be regis-

tered. It is considered doubtful whether the exception as to

copyholds extends to leases of copyhold estates (i). In prac-

tice such leases are frequently registered, where the land is

let for building purposes (k).

"Where land situate in the counties of York or Middlesex Local regis-

, , ,i « i T 1 1 • • <• i -i tries need not

has been put upon the register under the provisions 01 the be searched
25 & 26 Yict. c. 53, and while it remains thereon, the local wh?re ****

registered

registries are to cease to be applicable (/). under 25 & 26

Viet. c. 53.

In many cases the situation in life of the parties may Bankruptcy.
render it proper to search the Court of Bankruptcy (m).
Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1883, any payment or delivery
to the bankrupt, and any conveyance or assignment, and any
contract, dealing or transaction, by or with the bankrupt for
valuable consideration is not invalidated, provided that the
same takes place prior to the date of the receiving order, and
that the person dealing with the bankrupt had not at the
time notice of any available act of bankruptcy previously
committed (w). The search should, in strictness, be for

(A) 47 & 48 V. c. 54, ss. 20—23. (m) Cooper v. Stephemon, 16 Jur.

(i) Sug. 732. 424.

(k) Scriven, 461. («) 46 & 47 V. c. 52, s. 49. As to

(/) See s. 104. • the law prior to the Act of 1869, see

568

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC.

Chap. XI. twelve years, but a five years' search is commonly deemed

.

sufficient.

Notice of-
when im-
material.

Annuities.

Recovery
deeds and
acknowled^
ments by-
married
women.

Notice of an act of bankruptcy would seem to be imma-
terial, if three months have elapsed without a bankruptcy
petition having been presented (o). The search, when made,
should extend to deeds of assignment, composition or inspec-
torship, registered under the provisions of the Act of 1861.

By the 17 & 18 Yict. c. 90, which abolished the laws
against usury, the Act requiring the enrolment of grants of
life annuities was repealed ; but the 18 & 19 Yict. c. 15, s. 12,
established a new register of life annuities and rent- charges
not created by will or marriage-settlement (p). It is con-
ceived that the enactment would not be held to apply in
the case of a rent- charge for life reserved to a vendor as the
consideration, or as part of the consideration, for the sale of
property. The recent statutory provisions as to judgments
and Crown debts do not extend to annuities. In a recent
case it was held that, by analogy to the clauses in the Regis-
try Acts which had been decided not to render unregistered
conveyances void as against subsequent purchasers who had
notice of them, unregistered annuities were valid against
subsequent incumbrancers who took with notice of them, and
against the trustee in bankruptcy of the grantor (q) .

Where the estate has been entailed, or has belonged to
married women, it may be proper, in special cases, to search
for inrolled deeds and acknowledgments under the 3 & 4
Will. IY. c. 74 ; but such a search, it is conceived, is not
usual in practice, unless there be reason to suspect the exist-
ence of suppressed documents.

per Lord "Westbury in Nunes v.
Carter, L. R. 1 P. C. 349 ; under
the Act of 1869, 32 & 33 V. c. 71,
s. 95 ; and on the subject generally,
Yate-Lee, pp. 440 etseq.

(o) 46 & 47 V. c. 52, s. 6.

(p] The place of search is the same
as for judgments.

(q) Greaves v. Tofield, 14 Ch. D.
563.

SEARCHES FOR INCUMBRANCES, ETC. 569

In some cases it may be proper to search at the office of Chap. XI.

Sect. 2.

Land Registry for rent charges created in respect of loans

under the Land Improvement Acts (r). age loans.

(3.) Time for making searches and inquiries. Section 3.

Whatever searches and inquiries are deemed necessary, r-
should, of course, be brought down to a point as close as pos- searches and
sible to the time fixed for completion : some practitioners gearchef(' &c
make the search immediately after obtaining an opinion upon when to be
the abstract, and a supplemental search immediately before
completion ; but the more ordinary course, it is conceived, is
to make but one search, and that immediately before com-
pletion. By an early search, however, unnecessary expense
may often be saved ; and the vendor will have to bear the
cost of a very early search, if the purchase subsequently goes
off on a defect in title (s).

A. solicitor will not be allowed upon taxation, even as Unnecessary
between solicitor and client, the costs of searches directed by Snowed'. ^
counsel, but which have, to the knowledge of the solicitor,
been rendered unnecessary by subsequent events (t).

(r) See 27 & 28 V. c. 114, and the («) Hodges v. Earl of Lichjiehl, 1

former Acts there cited ; 33 & 34 V. Sc. 449 ; and see Elph. & C. 5.

c. 56 ; see also the Mortgage De- (t} Langford v. Mahony, 3 J. & L.

benture Act, 1856, 28 & 29 V. c. 78. 97.

( 570 )

Chap. XII.

CHAPTER XII.

AS TO THE PREPARATION OF THE CONVEYANCE.

1. General matters relating to, and to the form of.

2. As to the parties.

3. The recitals.

4. The consideration — icords of conveyance — and parcels.

5. The covenants.

6. The draft and engrossment.

(1.) UPON a sale in consideration of a gross sum, the pur-
chaser, having accepted the title, is bound, subject to any
special stipulation in the contract, to prepare the conveyance,
and tender it for execution to the vendor (a) ; and reason
seems to favour the same rule even where the consideration
is a rent- charge, although the practice in such cases appears
to be unsettled (b). In some provincial districts it seems to
be the practice to stipulate that the conveyance shall be pre-
pared by the vendor's solicitor at the expense of the purchaser.
Such a stipulation would no doubt be regarded with disfavour
by the Court (c). It is, however, not unusual, and is often a
matter of general convenience, upon a sale of property in
many small lots, for building or other similar purposes, to
have a model form of conveyance prepared, and to offer it to
purchasers at a moderate specified charge.

Custom, that A custom in a manor, that the steward shall prepare all
surrenders for a reasonable fee, appears to be valid (d).

Section 1.

General mat-
ters relating
to, and to the
form of.

Purchaser

prepares

conveyance.

renders.

(a] Sug. 240, 241.

(*) 9 Jarm. Conv. 518 («).

(c) See as an illustration of the
disfavour with which such a stipula-
tion is regarded, s. 22 of 37 & 38 V.

c. 94.

(d) Hex v. Rigge, 2 B. & Aid. 550 ;
Ecg. v. Bishop's Stoke (Lord of Manor
of], 8 Dowl. 608 ; Scriven, 24, 25.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 571

In the absence of special custom, the lord is not bound to Chap. XII.

Sect. 1.
admit to several tenements by one admittance.' Nor is a

purchaser under one disposition of several distinct copyhold renders, &c.

tenements held of a manor in which a fine is only payable on ggve
the first admittance entitled, in the absence of special custom, ments.
to compel the lord to admit him to any one or more of such
tenements, and to take admittance to the others at any sub-
sequent time ; and a special custom in a manor, that the
purchaser of several distinct copyhold tenements under one
disposition, must take admittance to all at the same time, and
pay one general fine in respect of all, is good (c). When the
admittances are several there must be several stamps and fees
to the lord : but the steward cannot, in the absence of special
custom, claim several fees as such, but merely a quantum
meruit : and the amount of the fees claimed by him as cus-
tomary may itself show that they could not have been
payable from the commencement of legal memory (/). For
the purpose of the above rules, fractional shares in a single
tenement, held by tenants in common, constitute separate
tenements so long as they are separate ; but not after they
are re-united on the Court Rolls ((/).

Even if a contract for purchase of an equitable interest can Conveyance
in itself amount to a conveyance (A), the purchaser is entitled interest.
to a formal assurance, if such appear by the contract to
be necessary, in order to carry the intention of the parties
into effect (*).

As we have already seen (A*), the preparation of the con- Preparation

., . „ , . ,. of conveyance

veyance is not, necessarily, a waiver ot objections to or no acceptance
requisitions upon the title, though, as a general rule, it °
ought not to be prepared until it is reasonably certain that
the title will be accepted ; and the draft, if submitted for

(e) Johnstone v. Earl Spencer, 30 (g] Reg. v. Eton College, 8 Q. B.

Ch. D. 581 ; and see and consider the 526, and cases cited.
cases there cited. (h) But see as to this, ante, p. 284.

(/) Traherne v. Gardner, 5 E. & (i) Fenner v. Hepburn, 2 Y. & C.

B. 213. C. C. 159.

(k) Ante, p. 497.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. approval on the vendor's behalf, should be sent expressly

OCCt5« L • 9 9

without prejudice to any pending requisitions on the title.

Whether pur- It has been held, that a purchaser cannot compel the

require out- vendor to get in an outstanding equitable interest by a deed

intereTtf and distinct from the general conveyance (I). It is, however,

incumbrances conceived that this doctrine must be applied with hesita-

to be got in

by separate tion (m), and that, subject to the question of expense (n), a
purchaser may generally object to have his conveyance in-
cumbered with matter arising from the complicated state of
the title (o) ; indeed it may often, especially when the pro-
perty is likely to be much subdivided, be most desirable to
avoid any reference upon the conveyance to a voluminous,

May require although apparently satisfactory, earlier title. And it is

confirmation .

of doubtful conceived that (subject to the question of expense) a pur-
separate deed, chaser may insist on taking his conveyance in the form
most convenient to himself, provided that the vendor is not
thereby prejudiced (p); and on keeping off the face of his
conveyance any matter which, although agreed to be waived
as an objection, yet tends to throw a doubt upon the title, or
any collateral matter which may hereafter embarrass the
proof of the title (g). If, for instance, trustees were to sell
under circumstances not necessarily appearing upon the face
of the conveyance, but amounting to a breach of trust, and the
cestici que trust agreed to confirm the sale, the purchaser
might, it is conceived, insist upon taking this confirmation by
a separate deed ; for to include it in the conveyance would
oblige him, upon a resale, to prove who were the parties
beneficially interested, and might give rise to questions which
would have been wholly immaterial to a sub-purchaser with-
out notice of the breach of trust.

Ailunneces- It may, in fact, be laid down as a general rule in pre-
auTpartiesto paring conveyances, that not only should all objectionable or

(/) Reeves v. Gill, 1 B. 375. S. 245 ; stated post, p. 814.

(m) Sug. 558. (p] Cooper v. Cartwright, John.

(n) As to which, vide post, p. 814. C85.

(o) See Jones v. Lewis, 1 De G-. & (?) Clarke v. May, 16 B. 273.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 573

doubtful matter be kept off the title, but that nothing should
be brought on to it, the introduction of which is not evidently

. . .he kept off

necessary or expedient : in proportion as additional matter is conveyance,
introduced into a deed, and additional persons are made
parties to it, the chances of some error or ambiguity existing
in it are increased.

And when the nature of the title to the property renders Purchaser's
it desirable so to do, as on a purchase of undivided parts of rate convey -
a freehold estate and of the entirety of a judgment debt (r), a
the purchaser may insist upon taking separate conveyances,
and upon apportioning the purchase-money as he thinks
fit : but this doctrine must, of course, be confined within
reasonable limits ; for a vendor of a compact estate, held
under one title, could hardly be required to convey it in
lots, by several assurances, merely to suit the convenience of
the purchaser; at any rate not without being paid all ad-
ditional costs thereby incurred: and it is obvious that the
excessive multiplication of conveyances might, apart from
the question of costs, be reasonably objected to by a vendor.
The proper rule would seem to be, that the purchaser's
right to separate conveyances depends not upon the question
of convenience, considered merely with reference to his own
private views in respect to future dealings with the estate,
but upon his being able to show that such a mode of carry-
ing out the contract is that which, in the absence of any
special instructions, would probably be recommended by
experienced conveyancers.

Previously to the Conveyancing Act, 1881, upon the Precautions

, . . i i i . i . to be observed

purchase of a property in mortgage, the purchaser, by taking on purchase

a mere conveyance of the equity of redemption, became

liable to be compelled to redeem not only the mortgage upon

the particular property, but all other subsisting mortgages of

other properties made by the same mortgagor, which before

his own purchase became united in the same mortgagee ; and

(r) Clarke v. May, 16 B. 273.

574 PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. this although he bought in ignorance of their existence (s).

o6Ct. 1 .

The tendency of recent decisions has been to restrict the
doctrine of consolidation (t) . And now by sect. 17 of the
Conveyancing Act, 1881, a mortgagor (which expression
includes any person from time to time deriving title under
the original mortgagor) seeking to redeem any one mortgage
is to be entitled to do so, without paying any money due
under any separate mortgage made by him, or by any
person through whom he claims on property other than that
comprised in the mortgage which he seeks to redeem ; but
inasmuch as this section applies only where the mortgages
or one of them are or is made after the commencement of the
Act, and only if and so far as a contrary intention is not
expressed in the mortgage deeds, or one of theni(^), the
purchaser of an equity of redemption, in a case where the
Act does not apply, if he would be safe from all risk,
ought to pay off the charges on the property purchased,
and take a clear conveyance of the legal and equitable
estates from the vendor and his mortgagees ; and then, if
such be the arrangement, execute fresh securities to the
latter for the amount which is to remain on the property.

His right to Under a contract for the purchase from a mortgagor of

keep mort-

gage debt on his mortgaged estate, free from incumbrances, the purchaser,
with the concurrence of the mortgagee, may so take his

(*) See Becvor v. Luck, 4 Eq. 537 ; for the first time in one person after

Tassell v. Smith, 2 D. & J. 713, in the mortgagor has assigned the

which it was held that the doctrine equity of redemption of one of them,

of consolidation applied where one the owner of the two mortgages

of the mortgages was created after cannot consolidate them as against

the mortgagor had conveyed the the assignee of the equity of redemp-

equity of redemption of other pro- tion, even though both the mortgages

perty to a purchaser ; but this de- were created before the assignment,
cision has recently been overruled (/) See Jennings v. Jordan, and

by the House of Lords in Jennings llarter v. Colman, supra ; Bird v.

v. Jordan, 6 Ap. Ca. 698, affirming Wcnn, 33 Ch. D. 215. See also Cum-

Mills v. Jennings, 13 Ch. D. 639. inins v. Fletcher, 14 Ch. D. 699 ; Re

See, too, llarter v. Colman, 19 Ch. D. Raggett, 16 Ch. D. 117 ; vide post,

630, in which it was held that when p. 1036 ct seq.

two mortgages made by the same («) As to which see Andrews v.

mortgagor to different mortgagees, City Benefit Building Society, 44 L. T.

on different estates, become united 641.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 575

conveyance as to keep the mortgage on foot ; but he must Chap. XII.
procure his vendor to be discharged from all liability, and -
pay any extra expense which may be occasioned by taking
the conveyance in that form (x).

So, a purchaser from a tenant in tail, may, it is submitted, Disentailing
insist upon the property being disentailed at his own expense
by a separate deed ; and may reasonably object to any un-
necessary exposure of his title in a public office.

The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the statutory
earlier railway and other similar Acts, contain statutory way convey-"
forms of conveyance to the several companies ; the use of ances-
these forms, in preference to the ordinary instruments of
assurance, is not obligatory: but inasmuch as an extra-
ordinary efficacy (y) is given to conveyances made according
to the statutory form, or as near thereto as the circumstances of
the case will admit, it seems to be desirable to frame the assur-
ances as much upon the model of the statutory form as may
conveniently be : in one case, where the deed was not in the
statutory form, it was held that the company were not bound
to register it under the provisions of their Act (z).

Upon a sale in many lots of an estate subject to an incum- Incumbrances
brance which is to be paid off out of the purchase-money, Sb^be got
expense may be saved by taking a release to the vendor, IQ by separate
instead of making the incumbrancer concur in the several
conveyances : and this, when the parties are on good terms,
is usually acceded to ; although it might probably be resisted,
either by a purchaser, or by the incumbrancer.

Where, as is often desirable, a subsisting incumbrance is incum-
to be kept on foot for the purchaser, the more prudent to

course appears to be not to rely on a mere declaration of footfor

A • purchaser s

intention, but to let the sum itself, and also the term of benefit.
years, if there be one for securing it, be assigned to a trustee

(x) Cooper v. Cartwrightj John. (z) Re General Cemetery Co., 2 Jur.

679. N. S. 972. See 2 & 3 W. IV.

(y) See 8 & 9 V. c. 18, s. 81. c. 110, s. 90.

576

PEEPAEATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII.
Sect. 1.

As to

restrictive

exceptions,

and reserva-
tions of ease-
ments.

for the purchaser : or to let a declaration of trust be executed
by the incumbrancer («), and the legal owner of the term.
But this is not absolutely necessary, since an express declara-
tion that the incumbrance is to be kept on foot will, of itself,
prevent a merger (b).

When land is sold subject to restrictive covenants as to
user, to be created de novo (c), it is desirable to except from
the granting part of the conveyance all rights, privileges, and
easements, the enjoyment of which would be inconsistent
with, or a breach of, the subsequent restrictive covenants.
And in such a case, as also when rights, privileges, or ease-
ments are under the agreement to be made the subject of
express reservation or exception, it is desirable to state in the
declaration of uses that the property shall remain to such
uses as shall give full effect to the subsequently contained
exceptions and reservations, and (subject thereto) to the uses
subsequently declared. An actual re-grant is sometimes re-
sorted to ; but this may give rise to difficulty, or at any rate
additional expense, if the estate is to be conveyed to uses in
settlement ; and the plan above suggested seems to be equally
efficacious.

Separate
deeds for
separate
matters, &c.

Act for
merger of
satisfied
terms.

And it may be remarked, that it is generally inexpedient,
and, eventually, false economy, to comprise several distinct
estates or matters in a single deed.

As a general rule, the assignment of satisfied terms is
rendered unnecessary or impracticable by the Act of 8 & 9
Yict. c. 112 : the Act, however, does not appear to extend to

(a) See Medley v. Horton, 14 Si.
226, 229; Watts v. Si/mes, 16 Si.
640 ; but see 8. 0., 1 D. M. & Gk
240. See, on the same subject,
Coote, 710 et seq.

(b) Jameson v. Stein, 21 B. 5, 13 ;
Adams v. Angell, 5 Ch. D. 634, at
p, 646.

(c) The vendor cannot require the

property to be subjected to " co-
venants, conditions, and restric-
tions," which do not appear upon
the abstract ; Re Monckton and Gilzean,
27 Ch. D. 555 ; nor to obligations
•which, though they do appear on
the abstract, were not noticed in the
particulars or conditions; Hardman
v. Child, 28 Ch. D. 712.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 577

copyholds, customary freeholds (d), or leaseholds (e) ; and it d»ap- XII.
seems doubtful whether either the 1st or 2nd section extends -
to any hereditaments other than " land " technically so
called (/). But a purchaser is entitled to- have an outstand-
ing unsatisfied term assigned or surrendered, even where hy
a decree of the Court provision has been made for satisfying

'

"Where, before the passing of the Act, A., who, although Doe v. Price.
not in fact, yet believed himself to be, the owner of a free-
hold estate, mortgaged it to B., and an old term for years
was at the same time assigned to a trustee, in trust for B.
and to attend the inheritance, it was held that this term
could not, after the 31st December, 1845, be used in eject-
ment on behalf of a person claiming the estate by a title
paramount to that of A. ; although it might, if requisite,
have been used as a defence by a party claiming under B. (h).

And it seems probable that a satisfied term, which retains Protection of
a quasi existence under the Statute, does by no means uni- term under
versally afford to a purchaser the same protection which it tlie 8tatute-
would have afforded to him under the old practice. If he be
in actual possession of the property, it may enable him to
resist the attack of an adversary ; but, if he be dispossessed,
it apparently gives him no facility for recovering possession :
considered as a legal weapon, it is, in fact, a mere shield, and
not a sword.

In one case, where, before the passing of the Act, a term Doe v. Jones.
was declared to be held in trust for securing a mortgage
debt, (part of which was money for securing which the
term had been originally created, and the entirety of which
was secured by, as was supposed, a mortgage of the reversion

(d) See Dav. Cone. P. 30. (g) Stronge v. Hatches, 2 Jur. N. S.

(e) That is, where a term is created 388.

by sub-demise: see and consider (h) Doe v. Price, 16 M. &"W. 603 ;

sect. 3 of Act. and see Doe v. Moukdale, ibid. 689 ;

(/) Dav. Cone. P. 30. Freer v. Hesse, 4 D. M. & G. 495.

D. VOL. I. P P

578

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. in fee,) and subject thereto in trust for A., and B., who were

Sect. 1.

— supposed to be entitled to the equity of redemption in fee,
but the reversion in fee, expectant on the term, was in fact
vested in X. under a prior concealed conveyance, and in
1847 A. paid of? the mortgage, and subsequently brought an
ejectment against X. on the demise of the trustee of the
term, the Court of Queen's Bench intimated a doubt
whether the payment of the sum due on the original
security, by a person supposed to be, but not in fact, the
owner of the equity of redemption, rendered the term a
satisfied term within the 2nd section of the Act (i) ; and held
that, at any rate, the term had not become attendant on the
inheritance, either by express declaration — there having been
no such declaration — or by construction of Law, — for the
trust was expressly declared to be for A. and B., who had
not the inheritance, although they were supposed to be
entitled thereto when the declaration of trust was executed, —
and that the term was therefore still in existence (/). This
decision, which was for some years doubted by the pro-
fession (A-), has been approved by the Court of Appeal (/) ; and
it may now be considered settled that a term does not
become satisfied, within the meaning of the Act, unless the
beneficial interest in the whole charge, secured by the term,
and the beneficial interest in the whole estate, are united and
merged in one person (m).

Cottreii v. In a case at Law, where a party for whose benefit a term

had been assigned before the passing of the 8 & 9 Yict.
claimed the protection of the term under that Act, the Court
held that the proper way of testing his right to such pro-
tection was to consider whether, if that Act had not been
passed, Equity would restrain him from setting up the
term (n) ; and where a satisfied term was assigned before
the passing of the Act as a security for money advanced to

(i) (( The term clearly was a satis- (I) Anderson v. Pignet, 8 Ch. ISO.

fied one." Sug. R. P. 280. (m) S. C. at p. 189, per James,

(j) Doe v. Jones, 13 Q. B. 774. L. J.

(Jfe) See Sug. R. P. 281. (n) Cottreii v. Hughes, 15 C. B. 532.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 579

a tenant for life, under a settlement of the fee, and to Chap xn.

Sect. 1.

attend the inheritance, the Court of Exchequer held, follow- —
ing the authority of Cottrett v. Hughes, that the term could
not be set up against the parties entitled in remainder, the
mortgagee having had clear notice of the settlement (o).
Where, before the passing of the Act, a mortgagee in fee, on
advancing his money, stipulated for an assignment of an
outstanding satisfied term held in trust for the mortgagor,
and this was agreed to, but no assignment was executed prior
to the passing of the Act, it was held that as the term,
although satisfied, was not simply attendant, it remained
unmerged by the Act (p). Of course, the same result
would follow in those frequent cases where the term has
been actually assigned in trust for the mortgagee, his
executors, administrators, and assigns, and subject thereto,
in trust to attend the inheritance. In such cases, the Act
would not operate until the satisfied term had also become
simply attendant, by the performance of the secondary
trusts to which it was subjected, prior to the passing of the
Statute. If, however, as is sometimes found to be the case
in titles, the term was assigned simply for the mortgagor, his
heirs and assigns, and to attend the inheritance, and was so
held when the Act came into operation, the term, it is
conceived, would probably be held to have merged.

Upon a sale of copyholds, it has been a frequent practice, As to surren-
with a view to saving or postponing payment of the fine on holds to uses,
alienation, and the expenses of admission (q), to take the
surrender to the use of the purchaser's appointment, and in
default of appointment, to the use of himself in fee : but
this, as it leaves the vendor liable as tenant, ought to be
resisted by him if the incidents of tenancy are onerous.
And it has been held that the lord of a manor need
not, in the absence of special custom, accept a surrender so

(o) Plant v. Taylor, 7 H. & N. 211. 412.

(p) Shaiv v. Johnson, 1 Dr. & S. (q) Rex v. Onndle, 1 A. & E. 283.

580

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII.
Sect. 1.

framed (r) ; although if he accept, he must subsequently act
upon it (s) ; and a copyholder has universally the right to
surrender to the use of his will (t) ; and may, therefore, now
that a surrender to the use of a will is unnecessary, devise
his copyhold hereditaments so as to create a valid power of
appointment.

Section 2.

As to the
parties.

Who to be
parties.

Judgment

creditors,

when.

(2.) As to the parties.

All persons whose concurrence is necessary in order to give
to the purchaser the full benefit of the contract, must, of
course, be parties to and execute the conveyance : and it is
often desirable that persons from whom nothing moves by
the deed should be parties to it, for the purpose of affecting
them with notice of its contents, and preserving indisputable
evidence of the fact of notice.

Previously to the 27 & 28 Yict. c. 112, by which, as we
have seen (u), a judgment does not affect land until it has
been actually delivered in execution, if the title were such
that judgment creditors could at Law take the property in
execution, this alone entitled the purchaser to require their
concurrence ; even though Equity might by injunction have
restrained the exercise of their legal right (x) ; so, also, where
the judgments were a charge upon a mere equitable owner-
ship, the purchaser might, in certain cases, be entitled to re-
quire the concurrence of the judgment creditors. Thus, where
A. agreed to sell to B., who accepted the title, paid part of
the purchase-money, and was let into possession, but took no
conveyance, and A., in a suit against B. to establish his lien,
obtained a decree for sale, a purchaser, under this decree,
objected to complete without the concurrence of the judg-

(r) Flack v. Downing College, 13

C. B. 945 ; see Glass v. Richardson, 2

D. M. & G-. 658 ; Meg. v. Garland,
L. R. 5 Q. B. 269 ; Garland v. Mead,
L. R. 6 Q. B. 441.

(s) Eddlestone v. Collins, 3 D. M. &
G. 1.

(t) flack v. Downing College, 13
C. B. 945.

(u) Ante, p. 544 et scq.

(x) CraddocJc v. Piper, 14 Si. 310.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 581

ment creditors of B., whose judgments were prior to the Chap. XII.
decree, but who were not parties to the suit ; and the objeo- -
tion was held to be valid (y). Under the present law, it is
conceived that unless there has been actual delivery in
execution, or what is tantamount to it, viz., a decree or order
of the Court establishing the lien (2), or appointing a re-
ceiver («), in either of which cases the concurrence of the
judgment creditor is clearly necessary, the purchaser cannot
require him to be a party to the conveyance merely because
he has an inchoate right, which, if enforced, might ripen into
a charge (b) ; but the purchaser should not part absolutely
with his purchase-money until satisfied that such inchoate
right has not ripened into a charge.

In the case of a re-sale before completion, where the con- Whether first
veyance is made direct to the sub-purchaser (B.) and there

is no increase of price, it seems to be better not to make the party to con"

veyance

original purchaser (A.) a party to the conveyance, but to let direct to sub-

him sign a memorandum authorizing the vendors to convey *

to B. in substitution for himself : a duplicate of such memo-

randum should be given to B. The practical objection to

making A. a party seems to be this, viz., that if he has

in any way dealt with or incumbered his interest under the

agreement, and the fact, although unknown to B., were to

come to the knowledge of any future purchaser or mortgagee

(C.), there would be a difficulty in making out a marketable

title ; for although B., taking the legal estate without notice

of such dealing or incumbrance, would acquire an indefea-

sible title, which he could transmit to C. although affected

with notice, yet it might be impossible to adduce evidence

which would be satisfactory to C., of the fact of the want of

notice on the part of B. (c).

And where it is a term of the contract that certain specified Stipulation

that unneces-
(y) Grey -Coat Hospital v. West- (b) Earl of Cork v. Russell, 13 Eq.

minster Commrs., 1 D. & J. 531. 210 ; cf. Mildredv. Austin, 8 Eq. 220.

(z) Ante, p. 544 et seq. (<?) Freer v. Hesse, 4 D. M. & G.

(a) Anglo-Italian Sank v. Davies, 495.

9 Ch. D. 275.

582

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. persons shall concur, the vendor cannot decline to procure
their concurrence on the ground that they are in fact unne-
cessary parties (d) : but it would appear that he cannot he
required to procure the concurrence of unnecessary parties,
upon the mere ground that he has it in his power so to do (e).

sary parties
shall concur,
is binding.

Vendor must,
in absence of
stipulation,
procure con-
currence of
necessary-
parties.

But the vendor will he compelled, even in the absence of
express stipulation, to procure the concurrence of parties
who are bound to convey at his request (/), e.g., trustees
of the legal estate ; and in one case a purchaser of copy-
holds, who had acquired the whole legal and beneficial
interest, was nevertheless held entitled, in a suit against his
vendor, to require the concurrence of mere nominal trustees
who had never been admitted under a voluntary covenant
to surrender (</). Of course, a vesting order would be equi-
valent to a conveyance. A direction in a decree for specific
performance that the vendor shall convey has the same
effect as a direction that the vendor " and all other necessary
parties " shall convey (h).

Sale by mort- Upon a sale by a mortgagee under a valid power of sale

power' ofn duly exercised, the purchaser cannot require the concurrence

mortgagor's o£ faQ mortgagor (i) ; although by the mortgage deed the

concurrence,

not necessary, latter agreed to join in any sale, if required (A-).

Mortgagor
selling free
from incum-
brances must
procure con-
currence of
mortgagee.

A mortgagor, selling as an unincurnbered owner, must, of
course, procure the concurrence of his mortgagee (/) : so, a
tenant in tail in remainder will be decreed to convey a base
fee, and to covenant to bar the remainders over upon
becoming tenant in tail in possession (m).

(d) Benson v. Lamb, 9 B. 502.

(e) Corder v. Morgan, 18 V. 344.
(/) See Howel v. George, 1 Mad.

11 ; Costigan v. Hastier, 2 Sch. & L.
160, 166.

(ff) Steelev. Waller, 28 B. 466 ; but
no costs were given ; sed qucere.

(h) Minton v. Kirwood, 3 Ch. 614.

(i} Clayv. Sharps, Sug. 396 ; Allen
v. Martin, 5 Jur. 239.

(£) Corder v. Morgan, 18 V. 344.

(?) As to the power of the legal
personal representative of a mort-
gagee to convey the mortgaged
estate, see Conv. Act, 1881, s. 30,
which repealed s. 4 of the 37 & 38 V.
c. 78 ; and vide ante, pp. 18, 294.

(m) Lord Bolingbroke* s case, 1 Sch.
& L. 19, n.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 583

Upon the sale of a bankrupt's estate, he is usually made ^JE;^11-
to convey and covenant for title (w) : his covenants, how-

ever, are obviously of little value ; and it would seem that when to be a
he cannot be compelled to execute the conveyance (o). party.

Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (;;), the bankrupt is to Under the
execute all such conveyances, deeds and instruments, and
generally to do all such acts and things in relation to his
property, and the distribution of the proceeds among his
creditors, as may reasonably be required by the trustee, or
may be prescribed by rules of Court, or be directed by special
order of the Court upon the application of the trustee or any
creditor. The joinder of the bankrupt in the conveyance
may, in most cases, be safely dispensed with ; his covenants
for title are obviously of little value, and the trustee, in whom
the bankrupt's estate is vested, can make a good title to it
without his concurrence (q).

As respects dower, in cases falling under the new law, Dowress,

,t e> , i • o • P A i when to be a

the concurrence ot the wite is, 01 course, unnecessary; tne party.

conveyance by the husband alone being a sufficient bar. In Assignment
cases falling under the old law, it has been held that the whether pur-
purchaser could not insist on the wife's concurrence if he chasermu8fc

•^ rciy on cis <*

could obtain an assignment of a legal term for years created bar-
previously to the right of dower attaching upon the estate,
and of sufficient duration (r) ; inasmuch as, if the wife pro-
ceeded for her dower at Law, she could recover it only with
a cesset executio during the term, and Equity would not
remove the bar. This, however, does not seem to be a satis-
factory reason for the doctrine ; as not only was the pur-
chaser obliged to incur the expense of keeping the term on
foot, but he would have had to pay at least his own costs at
Law in the event of the dowress availing herself of her

(n) Sug. 575. Young v. Tregear, 21 W. R. 215.

(o) 2, Dav. pt. 1, 619. (r) Sug. 623 ; Mole v. Smith, Jac.

(p} 46 & 47 V. c. 52, s. 24 (2). 490 ; Maundrcll v. Maundrell, 7 V.

(q) S. 66. On the subject gene- 567 ; 10 V. 246.
rally, see Yate-Lee, 466 — 470, and

584

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII.
Sect. 2.

Effect of
mortgage on
right to
dower.

Extent of
right to
dower.

legal remedy (s) : and it would appear that a purchaser can
at any rate require the vendor to ascertain, if practicable,
whether or no a liability to dower exists ; and is not bound
to be satisfied with a reply that if such liability exist he
may protect himself by means of a term (t). It was decided
by Y.-C. K. Bruce, that an old term for years which upon a
purchase prior to the 1st January, 1846 (when the 8 & 9
Yict. c. 112 (u) came into operation), was duly assigned to a
trustee for the purchaser, is a sufficient protection to a sub-
purchaser, purchasing on or after the 1st January, 1846,
against the dower of the wife of the original vendor (x) : but
such a term, it is conceived, would be no protection to the
sub-purchaser against any claim to dower by the wife of
such first purchaser, supposing him to have been seised in
fee on the 1st January, 1846. Where a legal jointure under
the 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 is relied on in bar of dower, the
vendor must produce a satisfactory title to the jointure
land (y) : but where the purchaser has agreed to rely upon
the equitable bar created by an equitable jointure, it need
only be shown that the husband or other contracting party
has performed that which the intended wife (being an adult)
agreed to accept in lieu of dower (2).

Where a wife, married before the Dower Act, joined, for
the purpose of releasing her right to dower, with her husband
in mortgaging his freehold estate, and the equity of redemp-
tion was reserved to him, it was held that her right to dower
was extinguished in Equity as well as at Law (a) .

The liability to dower has been held a fit subject for com-
pensation, where a wife, entitled to dower, refused to concur

(s) See note, 1 Jarm. Conv. 508.

(t) Major v. Ward, 12 Jur. 473.

(u) Rendering the assignment of
satisfied terms unnecessary.

(x) Bass v. Wellsted, 12 Jur. 347.

(y) See, however, Radclijfe v. War-
rington, 12 V. 326.

(z) See Dyke v. Kendall, 2 D. M. &
G. 209.

(a) Dawson v. Sank of Whitehaven,
6 Ch. D. 218 ; but cf. Meek v. Cham-
berlain, 8 Q. B. D. 31, where the
wife joined after her husband's death
with his heir-at-law in making the
mortgage.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 585

in her husband's conveyance, and the purchaser was willing Chap. XII.
to take the estate (b) : but a purchaser, it is conceived, -
would not be compelled to accept compensation ; the claim,
of the widow being not to a mere money payment, but
extending, if she so elects, to the actual possession of so
much of the land as may be set out in satisfaction of her
dower. Her claim, too, it must be remembered, in the case
of sales by her husband without her concurrence, is a sepa-
rate claim against each distinct purchaser, and extends to
buildings or other improvements : and in the case of house
property, the widow of a copyholder has, by special custom,
been held entitled as against a purchaser to a separate third
of each tenement (<?).

When the property stands limited to the common uses to Concurrence

of do\^Gr

bar dower in favour of the vendor, he should either exercise trustee,
his power of appointment, or the dower trustee should con-
cur in the conveyance. The omission to procure his con-
currence (the appointment being omitted for the sake of
conciseness) is, however, not very infrequent in practice,
and sometimes gives rise to a vexatious requisition on the
part of a sub-purchaser to get in the outstanding fraction
of a legal estate. Where the limitations to bar dower are
preceded by the usual power of appointment, the operative
words " grant and convey" would probably be held to be a
sufficient exercise of the power ; and in one case, where
there was no prior power of appointment, and the purchaser
insisted on the dower trustee joining in the conveyance, the
Court held that the objection, though frivolous, was well

(b) Wilson v. Williams, 3 Jur. N. S. settled to such uses as he and his

810 ; but cf. Bainbridge v. Kinnaird, wife should jointly appoint, and in

32 B. 346, where the property formed default of appointment to trustees

part of a large estate subject to a during the wife's life for her separate

charge for portions, and the pur- use, with remainder to the vendor in

chaser claiming specific performance fee ; and on the wife refusing to

was held to be not entitled either to concur, specific performance was

indemnity or compensation. See also decreed with compensation in respect

and cf . the analogous case of Barker of the wife's life interest.
v. Cox, 4 Ch. D. 464, where a vendor (c) Doe v. Gwinnell, 1 Q. B. 682 ;

agreed to sell an estate which was see Thompson v. Burra, 16 Eq. 592.

586

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. founded, but gave no costs to either party ; and on appeal

oect. 2.

this decision was affirmed (d).

Wife of

trustee or
mortgagee
not required
to concur.

We may remark that the legal right of the wife of a
trustee or mortgagee in fee to dower, as its attempted en-
forcement would be at once restrained in Equity (e), is never
made a ground for her concurring in the conveyance, and
there can be no doubt that such a requisition would not be
countenanced by the Court.

Dower out of
minerals.

A wife is not dowable out of mines unopened at her hus-
band's death ; but is so out of all mines which had been
previously opened (/).

Dower Act —
what it
extends to.

We may also remark that the Dower Act extends to
gavelkind lands (g) ; but not to copyholds or customary
freeholds (h) ; so that on a sale of copyholds, or customary
freeholds, held of a manor in which the custom is that the
widow shall claim her freebench of all lands of which her
husband was seised during the coverture, the wife must
concur. Even where such a custom exists, it is conceived
that the wife's inchoate or potential claim is destroyed by
an enfranchisement by the husband, even although effected
without her concurrence ; but in such a case the safer prac-
tice is to require her concurrence.

Effect of
divorce.

A decree for dissolution of marriage under the 20 & 21
Yict. c. 85, bars a right to dower, even though the dissolution
be decreed at the instance of the wife against a guilty
husband (i).

(d) Collard v. Eoe, 4 D. & J. 525.

(<?) Noel v. Jevon, Freem. 43 ; Sin-
ton v. Hinton, 2 V. sen. 634 ; Lloyd v.
Lloyd, 4 D. & War. 354, 370.

(/) Stoughton v. Leigh, 1 Taun.
402 ; Dickin v. Earner, 1 Dr. & S.
284. And see under Scotch Law,
Campbell v. Wardlaw, 8 Ap. Ca. 641.

(g) Farley v. Bonham, 2 J. & H.
177.

(h) Powdrell v. Jones, 2 S. & Gr.
407 ; Smith v. Adams, 5 D. M. & G-.
712.

(i) Frampton v. Stephens, 21 Ch. D.
164.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 587

It may sometimes be desirable to obtain the concurrence of Chap. XII.

Sect. 2.

a husband in the conveyance of his wife's separate estate, in

order that no question may be afterwards raised by him as husband's
to whether his marital rights have been effectually excluded ; concurrence

» ' m cases of

but, as a general rule, the husband is not a necessary party separate
to the deed, and his concurrence may be safely dispensed
with ; and the same rule applies where a married woman is
conveying as donee of a power exercisable by her as if she
were a feme sole, or under the statutory provisions of the
Settled Land Act (k), or is giving her separate consent to the
exercise of a power. We may observe -here that under
the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, the husband's
concurrence is unnecessary in all cases where the wife has
either been married since the 31st December, 1882 (/), or
although married prior to, has, subsequently to that date,
acquired the property with which she is dealing (m).

So in cases coming under sect. 6 of the 37 & 38 Viet. c. 78, or. where his

wife is a bare
where a married woman conveys or surrenders any freehold trustee.

or copyhold hereditament which is vested in her as a bare
trustee, the concurrence of her husband may also be dispensed
with. The Act does not define what is meant by " a bare
trustee " in this and the preceding section ; and the judicial
opinions on the point have been so conflicting as rather to
increase than diminish the ambiguity of the term. The
interpretation suggested in the last edition of this work —
viz., " a trustee to whose office no duties were originally
attached, or who, although such duties were originally
attached to his office, would, on the requisition of his cestuis
que trust, be compellable in Equity to convey the estate to
them or by their direction, and has been requested by them
so to convey it," — was adopted by Vice-Chancellor Hall (w), —
with the modification that the request to convey was no
necessary ingredient to the constitution of a bare trustee, —

(*) S. 61. 402.

(T) 45 & 46 V. c. 75, s. 2. (n) Christie v. Ovington, 1 Ch. D.

(m) Ib. s. 5 ; as to what this in- 279.
eludes see Reid v. Reid, 31 Ch. D.

588 PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. and was subsequently criticised by the late Master of the
- Eolls (o). The last-named judge, while refusing expressly to
decide whether trustees without any beneficial interest, but
who have active duties to perform, are or are not bare
trustees, expressed his decided opinion that no one with
a beneficial interest could come within the term, however
small his duties might be. But in a very recent case (p) it
has been held by Bacon, Y.-C., that two married women, who
were trustees for sale, and at the same time beneficially
interested in the proceeds, and who were selling under a
judgment in an action for the administration of then-
testator's estate, were bare trustees within the words of the
section, having no duty to perform except to obey the order
of the Court.

Construction Upon the wording of the Married Women's Property Act,
Women's 1882, doubts have been suggested as to whether, even now,
Property Act a marrie(i Woman can, without her husband's concurrence and

clS LO 311ill*l*lCCt

women an acknowledged deed, convey the legal estate in real estate

'

of which she is, either jointly with others or solely, seised
in trust. The 18th section expressly authorizes a married
woman, who is a trustee, to deal with certain trust property
of a personal nature, as if she were a feme sole ; and as this
section deals expressly with trust property, it has been
suggested that, in spite of the wide and general terms of the
2nd and 5th sections, they were intended to relate only to
property to which she is beneficially entitled, on the ground
that otherwise the 18th section is wholly unnecessary. If
this were the true construction, it would follow that the Act
does not enable a married woman to deal with trust property
of a real nature in any other way than she would formerly
have been able to deal with it. But, having regard to the
fact that the 2nd and 5th sections are wide enough to include
property of which the married woman is trustee, and that the
2nd sub-section of the 1st section and the 24th section
expressly authorize a married woman to accept a trust, and

(o) Morgan v. Swansea Urban (p) Re Docwra, 29 Ch. D. 693.
Authority, 9 Ch. D. 582.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 589

relieve her husband from all liability for her breaches of Chap

, , ooct. 4.

trust, it is conceived that the true view of the 18th section is -
that it is at once redundant and defective in its language,
and that its redundancy and defectiveness ought not to be
allowed to restrict the otherwise indubitable scope of the Act,

The arrangement of the parties is not a matter of any Arrangement

of parties.

essential importance ; but it is usual and convenient to
arrange them in the order in which they are to act in the
operative part of the conveyance.

It used to be a common practice to insert in the descrip- Description of
tion of the parties a short statement of the capacities in
which they concur in the deed ; but this is seldom desirable,
and has fallen into disuse. It may however still be desirable
to resort to it, where the same person concurs in different
capacities ; unless the nature of his several interests is
sufficiently disclosed in other parts of the deed(g). Of
course, where a deed is to be executed under a power of
attorney, the principal, and not the attorney, is named as a
party.

Where trustees purchase copyholds held of a manor, in Admittance of

. one trustee on

which the fines are arbitrary, it is not uncommon to let purchase of

only one trustee be admitted, so as to save the increased copy
fine which would be payable upon a joint admittance.
Trustees, however, can scarcely be advised to consent to
this, except under a sufficient indemnity or the order of the
Court, as in the event of the early death of the admitted
trustee, the result may be a loss, instead of a gain to the
trust estate.

(3.) As to the recitals. Section 3.

. . , v i •!• As to the re-

A difference exists among conveyancers as to the legiti- dtais.
mate use of recitals : some practitioners employing such Recitals to he

used, with
what object.
(q) See Fausset v. Carpenter, 2 Dow & C. 232 ; Sug. H. L. 76 ; Carter v.

Carter, 3 K. & J. 634.

590

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. only as will give an insight into the interests and objects of
- the parties to the deed, sufficient to render the subsequent
parts clear and intelligible ; while others introduce matter
which, although clearly irrelevant, e.g., the recital of the
probate of a will of real estate, or of the places of burials,
marriages, and baptisms, &c., is yet calculated to save
trouble upon future investigations of the title. It is
submitted, that, as a general rule, subject of course to
special exceptions, no recital should be admitted which
has not a logical connection with some operative part
of the draft, and that the purpose of the other class of
recitals may be well answered by a memorandum indorsed
on the deed, and signed by the parties conversant with
the facts (r).

Whether
desirable in
disentailing
assurances.

So, in disentailing deeds, the statutory effect of which is
independent, not only of the motives, but even of the ex-
pressed intention of the parties (s), recitals seem to be in
general useless, and therefore inexpedient; especially since
the enrolment of these conveyances in a public office is
open to all the objections, and is attended by few of the
benefits, incident to registration of titles under the protective
Statutes. A simple conveyance by A. of a specified estate,
or of all the lands held by him as tenant in tail under a
specified settlement or in a specified locality, and the mere
consent of B. as protector, either generally or under the limi-
tations of any specified instrument, are quite as effective, and
usually as intelligible, as they would be if preceded by the
most elaborate statement of the previous title, or of the motives
which induce the parties to do that which, when done, takes
effect without any regard to motive. In a recent case (t)
where a tenant in tail in possession of manors, lands, and
hereditaments devised by a will, and also of an advowson
appointed to substantially the same uses by a separate devise
in the same will, by a deed, which recited only the devise of

(r) As to the use of recitals, see
1 Dav. 44 et seq.
(s) See 3 & 4 W. IV. c. 74, s. 21.

(t) Crompton v. Jarratt, 30 Ch. D.
298.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 591

the manors, &c., and contained no reference to the advowson, Chap. XII.

Sect 3

disentailed and limited to himself in fee " all and singular —
the manors, lands, hereditaments and premises devised by the
said will, and also all other the lands, hereditaments and
premises whatsoever of which he was seised as tenant in tail
in possession in anywise howsoever," it was held that the ad-
vowson was included in the deed. In this case the imperfect
recital of the will created the difficulty.

Nevertheless, in particular cases, it may frequently, with Sometimes
a view to the present practice, in framing conditions of sale, creating evi-
of making recitals evidence (u), be expedient to introduce
into conveyances, statements of facts which may tend to vali-
date the title, although they may be inconsistent with the
strict logical unity of the draft.

A grantor, who is not an absolute owner, may and should. Should show

A ' V.4-

as a general rule, require such matters to be recited as will to'convey"8
be sufficient to show that he is justified in making the
assurance.

As a release of claims, however generally expressed, is Recitals in a
confined by a rule of Equity to matters of which the re- claims,
leasor is cognizant, it is very important, in a deed of this
description, that the origin of the several claims, and all the
circumstances connected with them, should be clearly stated
in the recitals (x). Where the conveyance or release of an
estate is part of a general arrangement, the recitals should
show that those acts or assurances which are to form the
consideration for such conveyance or release, have been
already done or perfected ; and should not, as often happens,
merely state an intention to do or perfect them. Such a
recital suggests an inquiry whether such intention was
carried out, and a demand for evidence of such being the
fact.

(u) As to recitals, &c. being evi- (x) This applies also to deeds of

dence, see 37 & 38 V. c. 78, s. 2. indemnity.

592 PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. The recitals, if considered with reference to the interests of

Sect. 3. '

• the purchaser, should, as a general rule, go back sufficiently

where to far to show a clear root of title ; and be thence continued,
in regular order, down to the date of the conveyance.
Occasionally, a strict adherence to this rule would bring
upon the face of the conveyance matters which are better
excluded: and not unfrequently, in small transactions, the
mere number of the documents to be recited may, on the
ground of expense, justify a departure from the more
regular course. In either case the draftsman may often
meet the difficulty, either by a recital stating what he
conceives to be the effect of the documents, e?/s., the actual
existing relative rights and interests of the conveying
parties in the property ; or even in some cases by a mere
recital of the contract for sale. Special recitals of this
description should, however, be employed with caution by
inexperienced draftsmen; and when they are employed,
extraordinary care will often be required in framing the
covenants for title. Generally there is less reason for recit-
ing, fully or at all, documents which will be handed over
to the purchaser on completion, than those which will be
retained by the vendors. Sometimes it may, with regard to
the present practice of conveyancing and the ordinary condi-
tions of sale, and recent statutory provisions throwing upon
purchasers the expense of attested copies and making recitals
evidence, be desirable to go back in the recitals even beyond
the last instrument which constitutes a good root of title : for
instance, on the purchase, with a view to a subdivision and
resale (say for building purposes) of land, part of a large
family estate, it may, when the title is voluminous, and also
free from all doubt, be desirable to go back in the recitals
sufficiently far to show such a title as would probably in
point of duration satisfy sub-purchasers.

Arrangement The chronological arrangement is generally the best : but
when separate estates or interests are to be dealt with, the
draftsman may often advantageously group together such re-
citals as relate exclusively to any particular estate or interest.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 593

In reciting a power, no more need be set out than is Chap. XII.

. ° \ Sect. 3.
sufficient to show that it authorizes what is proposed to be

accomplished: for instance, on a sale under the usual power citing powers.

of sale and exchange, it is unnecessary to recite any expres-

sions relating exclusively to exchanges; or, if there be a

sufficient power for the trustees to give receipts, to recite the

trusts of the purchase-money : so, if the power runs in the

usual form, and the sale is by all the original trustees, there

is obviously no purpose answered by showing that it extended

to " the survivors and survivor of them and the heirs of such

survivor; " if, on the other hand, there has been a change in

the trustees, it will be necessary to show that the will or

settlement authorized such change, and contained expressions

sufficient to enable the new trustees to exercise the same

powers as their predecessors in the trust. Of course, so much

of the instrument creating the power must be set out as may,

with the aid of subsequent recitals, be sufficient to show that

the power has become exerciseable and that all necessary

consents (if any) have been given : and parties whose consent

is requisite, should, if possible, express such consent on the

face of the assurance.

But when upon a sale under a power any parties who would Limitations
be interested in the property in case the power were not exercise of

exercised, agree to concur in the conveyance, the recitals, in g^T^hen to
addition to the power, should also show the nature of the be recited.
interests which, subject to its exercise, are vested in such
concurring parties.

It must always be remembered by the draftsman that Recitals are
recitals, although generally highly expedient, are not strictly convenience,
essential to the operation of an assurance ; every case resolves 2Jt
itself into a question of present or future convenience. Even
in the case of a release of a doubtful right, although it is in
the very highest degree expedient to show upon the face of
the assurance that the party executing it did so with a full
knowledge of facts, and of the questions arising upon them,
it would be sufficient, in order to sustain the instrument, to

D. VOL. I. Q Q

594 PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

show allunde that si
the releasing party.

Chap. XII. show allunde that such knowledge was actually possessed by

Sect. 3.

Their effect Recitals, although they may explain doubtful expressions,
part of deed, will not cut down the plain effect of (?/), nor ordinarily supply
a total omission in (z) , the operative part of a deed ; but, in
a late case, where a married woman was made a party to,
and executed and acknowledged, a conveyance by her hus-
band, and the recitals showed that she concurred in order to
bar her dower, but her name was omitted in the operative
part of the deed, and in the covenants for title, it was never-
theless held, even as between vendor and purchaser, that her
dower was barred (a) . And, as a general rule, where there
is a discrepancy between the recitals and the operative part,
the former being clear as to what is intended to be conveyed,
and the latter containing wide sweeping words of convey-
ance, the operation of the latter will be restricted (b). Thus,
where a settlement recited that by virtue of divers assurances,
certain specified properties, " and all other the freehold here-
ditaments in the county of York thereinafter expressed to be
appointed and released," were limited as the settlor should
appoint, and then to him in fee, and the settlor appointed
and released the specified properties, and all other his free-
hold hereditaments in the county of York, it was held that
an estate in that county of which the vendor was seised in
fee, but not under the specified instruments, did not pass (c) .

May be So, in the converse case, the generality of the recitals may

operative part be restricted by the form of the operative part of the deed.

of deed.

(y) Holliday v. Over ton, 14 B. 467 ; and see also Hani/penny v. Mony-

and see cases cited. penny, 9 H. L. C. 114; 3D. & J.

(z) Hammond v. Hammond, 19 B. 572 ; Barralt v. Wyatt, 30 B. 442 ;

29. but see as to covenant being con-

(a) Dent v. Clayton, 10 Jur. N. S. trolled by a recital or vice versa,

671. Maclurcan v. Lane, 5 Jur. N. S. 56,

(b} Rooke v. Lord Kensington, 2 K. 59, et qucere. See also Hoivard v.

& J. 753 ; Be NeaVs Trusts, 4 Jur. Lord Shrewsbury, 17 Eq. 378; Danly

N. S. 6 ; Hopkinson v. Lush, 34 v. Coutts, 29 Ch. D. 500 ; Crompton

B. 215 ; Young v. Smith, 1 Eq. 180 ; v. Jarratt, 30 Ch. D. 298 ; Earl Grey

Childers v. Eardley, 28 B. 648 ; Wil- v. Earl of Durham, 57 L. T. 164.

loughby v. Middleton, 2 J. & H. 344 ; (c) Jenner v. Jenner, 1 Eq. 361.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 595

Thus, where in a marriage settlement there was a recital of Chap. XII.

Sect. 3.

an agreement to settle the wife's after- acquired property, -
followed by a covenant which was binding on the husband
alone, it was held that the operation of the covenant was not
extended by the general form of the recital (d).

In one case, a question was raised and not decided, whether, Of vendor's
when a purchase deed contained a recital of the vendor's purchaser
title, the purchaser upon being evicted was not estopped from
questioning the accuracy of such recital in an action on the
covenants for title (e) : the question appears, however, to have
been decided in the negative in a later case (/), where the
Court held that where a recital is intended to be the statement
of one party only, the estoppel is confined to that party ; and
the intention is to be gathered from construing the instru-
ment (g) ; and this seems to be the reasonable doctrine.

Where the purchase deed contains a recital that the
vendor is seised or otherwise well entitled in fee free from
incumbrances, and at the date of conveyance he has only
an equitable interest, but subsequently acquires the legal
estate, it would seem that the recital, as it is not inconsistent
with the fact, creates no estoppel so as to pass the legal estate
to the purchaser (7^) ; on the same principle, a covenant for
title is no such precise statement, that the vendor has the
legal estate, as to create an estoppel (t).

Where a deed is executed pursuant to a written agree- Written
ment, it is generally inexpedient to recite that agreement, w^enT^
and so bring it upon the title, unless it be material to the reclted-

(ct) Young v. Smith, 1 Eq. 180 ; Morton v. Woods, L. R. 4 Q. B. 293.

Eamsdcn v. Smith, 2 Dr. 298. (g} Hills v. Laming, 9 Ex. 256 ;

(e) Young v. Eaincock, 1 C. B. 310. Saunders v. Merryweather, supra.

(/) Stroughill v. Suck, 14 Q. B. (h) Heath v. Crealock, 10 Ch. 22,

781. But the recital will bind the 30; but see and distinguish Re Ilor-

vendor and parties claiming under ton, 51 L. T. 420.

.him; Doe v. Stone, 3 C. B. 176; (i) General Finance, §c. Co. v. Libe-

Wiles v. Woodward, 5 Ex. 557. See rator Building Society, 10 Ch. D. 15,

as to estoppel by recitals, Saunders and see judgment of M. R.
v. Merryweather, 3 H. & C. 902 ;

QQ2

596

Chap. XII.
Sect. 3.

Recitals of
objections in
deed of con-
firmation.

PREPAKATION OF CONVEYANCE.

full operation or validity of the deed; as in the case of a
post-nuptial settlement, where it is generally proper to
recite prior articles, in order to show that the settlement is
not voluntary. So, where either party to a contract dies
before its completion, the contract itself, as a general rule,
becomes part of the title, and should be recited in the con-
veyance. The recital, very commonly introduced, of the
sale having been by auction under certain printed par-
ticulars and conditions, inasmuch as it may lead to future
inquiry respecting the nature of these particulars and con-
ditions, is generally worse than useless, save in those cases
(which, except on sales by the Court, are very rare) where
the recitals show that such a mode of sale was the only
proper one.

Where a person executes a deed for the purpose of remov-
ing objections to the title, and the deed merely mentions
their existence, without specifying them or showing that
objections have been withheld from him, and he asks no
questions, he will, as between himself and the purchaser, be
bound, although in fact unaware of their real nature (k) :
and it is presumed, that a person executing such a general
confirmation, even although in fact deceived as to the real
nature of the objections, would be bound, if the purchaser
had no notice of the deception. A general confirmation
would appear to be the most eligible for the purchaser ; but
the party confirming should ordinarily insist on the par-
ticular objections being specified, and in terms confine his
confirmation to their removal.

(4.) As to the consideration — words of conveyance —
and parcels.

taken in preparing the deed to state truly

Section 4.

As to the con-
sideration —

— °nd
parcels. the consideration paid by the purchaser, and upon which ad

^are mus^

(k) Lord BraylroJce v. Jnship, 8 V.
431. A mere voluntary confirmation
of a prior fraudulent sale, the con-

firming party being still under pres-
sure, cannot be relied on ; see Addis
v. Campbell, 4 B. 401.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 597

valorem duty will have to be paid ; as the omission to do Chap. XII.

C/OOv* 4*

so, although it will not affect the sufficiency of the stamp,

or the validity of the deed, will expose the parties who _to be truly
prepare the deed to severe penalties, and the vendor to an 8tated*
action by the purchaser for the return of the unexpressed
consideration (I). Where fixtures, standing timber, or any Duty payable

14L ' "u •* L- -i ^ fixtures,

other parts 01 the inheritance are taken at a valuation, its timber, &c.
amount must be included in the consideration; but move- Chattels
able chattels which pass by delivery may be handed over, deUvery. y
and receipts may be given for them and for their price ; if,
however, they be for any reason assigned by deed, the ad
valorem duty attaches, and their price must be stated ; and
it would appear that the recital in a deed of such sale and Recital of sale
delivery (which has been very frequent in practice) renders
the duty payable, unless the articles are of such a kind as
would come under the description of goods, wares, or mer-
chandise (/») .

Where the consideration consists wholly or in part of a On sale of
debt due to the purchaser, or where the property is conveyed ject to a
subject to the payment or transfer of any money or stock, r
whether charged on the property or not, such debt, money,
or stock is subject to duty, and its existence must therefore
appear upon the face of the deed (ri).

Where freeholds or leaseholds are purchased together Apportion-
with copyholds, or customary freeholds, at an entire price, sideration, on
and the copyholds, or customary freeholds, have to be assured copyholfoa

(I) See 48 Geo. III. c. 149, ss. 22 v. Henniker, 1 E. & B. 54.
to 26 ; 55 Geo. III. c. 184, s. 8 ; Gin- (m) Horsfall v. Hey, 2 Ex. 778.

gel v. Purkins, 4 Ex. 720 ; and see (n) 33 & 34 V. c. 97, s. 73 ; and

now 33 & 34 V. o. 97, s. 10. See see 16 & 17 V. c. 59, s. 10; it had

also 13 & 14 V. c. 97, s. 10, remitting been held (see the preamble) that,

penalties incurred prior to the 20th under the General Stamp Act, duty

March, 1850, in respect to the omis- was payable in respect of any such

sion from leases of the consideration sum or debt only where the purchaser

paid by the lessee to the party who was personally liable, or bound, or

held the original agreement for the undertook, or agreed to pay the same,

lease; see A. -G.v. Brown, 3 Ex. 662. or to indemnify the vendor against

The provision as to penalties does not the same,
apply to a partition deed ; Henniker

598

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII.
Sect. 4.

other pro-
perty.

What duty
payable on
conveyance
direct to sub-
purchaser.

On convey-
ance by a re-
tiring to a
continuing
partner.

by surrender, it is necessary, for the purposes of the Stamp
Act (0), to apportion the price between them and the other
property (p) ; and this may be done so as to reduce the
duty to a minimum, without any regard to the actual rela-
tive values of the estates : so, where estates are purchased
by two or more at an entire sum, and the purchasers take
separate conveyances, or where estates of different tenures or
held under different titles are purchased at an entire sum,
but are conveyed to the purchaser separately by separate
instruments, the purchase-money may, for the purpose of
diminishing the duty, be apportioned on the face of the
conveyances in such manner as the parties think fit ((/),
without regard to the actual value of the estates, or (in the
case of there being several purchasers) to the pecuniary
arrangements between the parties ; but under the new scale
of duties, a merely insignificant saving can be thus effected.

Where, after the contract but before conveyance, the
property is sold and conveyed direct to a sub-purchaser, ad
valorem duty is payable on the amount of his purchase*.
money (r) ; and this, it would seem, whether it be less or
more than the original purchase- money.

If a retiring partner conveys his share of the partnership
estate to his partner, in consideration of the payment of a
definite sum of money, or of an indemnity against an ascer-
tained amount of partnership liabilities, ad valorem duty
will be payable (s) ; but if the partnership assets are divided
between the partners, then the transaction is in the nature of
a partition, and the ordinary deed-stamp will be sufficient :

(o) Inasmuch as the duty upon the
copyholds is charged on the sur-
render; and see 33 & 34 V. c. 97,
s. 77 ; and s. 84 et seq.

(p) 55 Geo. III. c. 184, Sched.,
title "Conveyance."

(q) 33 & 34 V. c. 97, s. 74 ; and
see Clark v. May, 16 B. 273.

(r) 33 & 34 V. c. 97, s. 74, sub-ss.

3, 4, 5.

(s) See s. 78 of 33 & 34 V. c. 97,
which extends the liability to ad vaL
duty to every deed transferring pro-
perty, except a conveyance or trans-
fer on the appointment of a new
trustee. See, too, s. 70 as to what
is a "Conveyance on sale" ; 2 Lind-
ley, 866.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 599

except as respects any sum which may be paid by one partner
to another, in order to equalise the shares.

We may here remark, that goodwill is property within On sale of
the meaning of the Stamp Laws, and is liable to ad valorem
duty on conveyance (t). Whether a release, as distinguished
from an assignment by an outgoing to a continuing partner
of his interest in goodwill, is chargeable with the duty, has
been considered questionable; but, under the late Stamp
Act, it seems clear that it would be treated as a deed by
which property is vested in, if not transferred to, the con-
tinuing partner, and as such liable to duty (u).

Where the consideration for a conveyance on sale consists Sale in con-
wholly or in part of any stock or marketable security, the transfer of
conveyance is to be charged with ad valorem duty in respect 8
of the value of such stock or security ; where it consists
wholly or in part of a security which is not marketable, the
duty is chargeable on the amount then due for principal and
interest on the security (x). And the Act provides how the
duty is to be charged where the consideration consists of
periodical payments either for a definite period or in per-
petuity, or for an indefinite period not terminable with life,
or for life (y).

In the case of a conveyance under the Lands Clauses Con- Compensation

P -r, •• . . . . • • i money on sale

solidation Act, or any Act or .Parliament containing similar to railway
provisions, care should, of course, be ordinarily taken, that c
the sum expressed to be paid as the consideration for the
purchase of land, does not include money paid merely by
way of compensation for damage to adjacent property; as
the latter amount is not subject to duty.

(t) Potter v. Commrs. of I. R.y 10 (x) 33 & 34 V. c. 97, B. 71 ; and

Ex. 147, overruling Warren v. Howe, compare the Schedule to 13 & 14 V.

2 B. & C. 281 ; Christie v. Commrs. c. 97.

of I. .R., L. R. 2 Ex. 46 ; Phillips v. (y) See s. 72 ; and see further as

Commrs. of I. £., ibid. 399. to stamps, Ch. XIII., B. 9.

(u) Vide note (s) supra.

600 PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. Except in the case of a feoffment (a mode of conveyance
— now almost obsolete), it has become unusual to insert the
words used operative words of conveyance in the past as well as in the
Present tense.

Feoffments by A f eoffment was formerly a common form of assurance on
sales by corporations, in consequence of the doubt whether
such bodies, from their incapacity of being seised to uses,
could convey by lease and release, except in cases where the
lease was a common law demise, perfected by actual entry :
there can, however, be no question as to their competency to
convey by grant under the 8 & 9 Yict. c. 106. Feoffments
are now rarely used in this country, except in the convey-
ance, for valuable consideration, of an infant's land under
the custom of gavelkind (z).

As to expres- Many practitioners when settling a conveyance on behalf

sionsprotec- .......

tive of trus- of mortgagees or trustees are astute in introducing, in con-
nection with the words of conveyance by their own clients,
qualifying expressions such as " according to their estate and
interest, if any," and " if and so far as they lawfully can or
may, but not further or otherwise," &c., which are of little
practical importance ; except that when they are introduced
the parties should enter into a clear and direct covenant that
they have done nothing to encumber or affect the title to the
property ; for a covenant merely that they have done nothing
to prevent their conveying " in manner aforesaid," amounts,
in fact, to nothing. Where, however, a party concurs merely
in some particular capacity or capacities, this should plainly
appear on the face of the conveyance ; lest his other rights, if
any, not being reserved should be deemed to pass (a) .

Parcels, how In describing the parcels, a description by reference to a
scribed?" schedule, or to a schedule and map, has become very usual,

(z) As to this custom, and the re- (a) See and consider Fausset v.

strictions on this mode of alienation, Carpenter, 2 Dow & C. 232 ; Sug-.

see 2 Dav. 244 ; also Elton on the H. L. 76 ; Carter v. Carter, 3 K. & J.

Kentish Tenures, 85. 634.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 601

and is generally convenient (/;). Care, however, should be Chap. XII.

o6ot. 4.
taken in using a plan to have either a substantive descrip-

tion of the property in the body of the deed or in a sche- iithe'uso of
dule, so as to let the plan be merely in aid and explana- plans>
tion of this description, or else to insure perfect accuracy in
the plan itself. This is particularly requisite in convey-
ances or leases of mines or other subterraneous strata, or
where land is cut up for building purposes, or is otherwise
conveyed by reference to imaginary lines of demarcation.
In such a case, a slight error in the drawing of the plan
may be attended with very serious consequences. For
instance, where a piece of land was conveyed by the de- Effect of
scription of " a small piece marked in the plan as 153, £,"
containing 34 perches, and the plan was drawn to a scale,
and 153, b, being a piece marked off on the plan from a
close numbered 153, contained according to the scale only
27 perches, it was held that no more passed ; although there
was little doubt that the plan was incorrect, and that
153, b — which was a valuable strip of frontage — was in-
tended by both parties to extend to a point corresponding
with the extent of some adjoining back land, and to which
it would have extended had it in fact contained 34 perches
instead of 27 perches (c) ; the result being that part of the
back land, which was comprised in the sale, was left without
a frontage. The question of parcel or no parcel is a question
of fact for a jury to decide; but it is the province of the
judge to explain to the jury how the map, as any other
portion of the deed, is to be construed (d).

(b} See, as to the effect of a variance a General Register,
between a schedule to a conveyance (c) Llewellyn v. Earl of Jersey, 1 1

and an indorsed map, Lkwcllyn v. M. &W. 183; Barton v. Datces, IOC.

Earl of Jersey, 11 M. & W. 183 ; and B. 261 ; Harris v. Pepperell, 5 Eq. 1 ;

as to the schedule and map restrict- Davis v. Shepherd, 1 Ch. 410, where

ing the description in the body of the supposed direction of a fault

the deed, Barton v. Dawes, 10 C. B. which was to be the boundary of a

261 ; Walsh v. Trevanion, 15 Q. B. mine was shown upon a plan ; Lyle

733 ; Baker v. Richardson, 6 W. R. v. Richards, L. R. 1 H. L. 222, a

663. See, too, the First Report of case of disputed boundaries between

the late Registration Commissioners, grantees of conterminous mines,
recommending maps as the basis of (d] LyU v. Richards, supra.

602

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII.
Sect. 4.

Where the
land adjoins
an ancient
highway.

Reference to
occupancy.

Error of de-
scription.

Upon the sale of lands adjoining an ancient highway, the
ordinary rule is, that the road usque ad medium filum vice
passes by the conveyance ; and the fact of the parcels being
set forth by admeasurement, and being shown on a plan
which does not comprise any portion of the road, does not
exclude the operation of the rule (e) ; so, too, in the case of
land adjoining a non-navigable river or stream (/). The rule
only applies to existing roads, not to cases where the pro-
perty is described as bounded by an intended highway, which
at the time of the sale has not been made up or dedicated to
the public (rj).

So, where the occupancy of the property is referred to,
care should be taken to have a substantive and sufficient
independent description ; otherwise, the effect of the deed
will depend upon evidence of the fact of occupancy; and
nothing which cannot be strictly proved to have been so
occupied, will pass (Ji). Where, as is not unfrequently the
case, the reference to occupancy is in the following form :
" all that messuage, &c., as the same is now, or lately was, in
the occupation of A. B.," it might not unreasonably be con-
sidered as intended to restrict the purchaser's enjoyment of
the property, in the way in which it was enjoyed by A. B.
It has, however, been held, that the purpose of the reference,
as thus framed, is merely to identify the property, and not to
restrict its beneficial enjoyment (i).

But where the deed contains an adequate and sufficient
definition, with convenient certainty, of what is intended to

(c) Berridge v. Ward, 10 C. B. N.
S. 400 ; Simpson v. Dendy, 8 C. B.
N. S. 433, per Willes, J. at p. 472.

(/) Wright v. Howard, 1 S. & S.
190 ; Bickett v. Morris, L. R. 1 Sc.
& D. 47 ; MicJclcthwaite v. Ncwlay
Bridge Co., 33 Ch. D. 133. See, too,
Popple and BarratPs Contract, 25 W.
R. 248, a case of a public drain or
dyke in the fen district.

(ff) Leigh v. Jack, 5 Ex. D. 264.

Qutsre : Does the presumption apply
in case of a recent grant or convey-
ance ? See judgment of Cockburn,
C. J., at p. 270.

(h) Dyne v. Nutley, 14 C. B. 122.

(i) Martyr v. Lawrence, 2 D. J. &
S. 261, and cases there cited ; Polden
v. Bastard, L. R. 1 Q. B. 156 ; but
see Francis v. Hay ward, 22 Ch. D.
177.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 603

pass (£), any subsequent erroneous addition will not vitiate Chap. XII.
it ; according to the maxim falsa dcmomtratio non nocet. •
For instance, under a conveyance by A. of all his meadow
Blackacre, described as containing 10 acres, but which in
truth contains 20 acres, the whole 20 acres will pass (/) : so,
under a conveyance by A. of all his farms X., Y., and Z., in
the parish of M., in the occupation of B., farm X. would
pass, although in fact occupied by C. : but if the premises
are described in general terms, and then a particular de-
scription is added, the latter, it has been usually consi-
dered, controls the former (m) : e.g., if the conveyance were
simply of all A.'s farms in the parish of M., in the occupation
of B., no farm would pass which was not in fact so occupied :
but this was decided differently in a case arising under a will,
and upon principles which apparently apply as well to a
deed (n). It is seldom, however, that such a question could
arise upon a purchase-deed.

In a later case, where the parcels were described as " all
that messuage with the lands, &c., situate, &c., and now, or
late, in the occupation of E. B.," and then followed a par-
ticular, but not exhaustive, description of certain of the
closes of which R. B.'s farm consisted, the Court of Ex-
chequer held that only the closes expressly specified passed
by the deed (o). We have already seen that wide sweeping
words of conveyance may be restricted by recitals, clearly
showing what is intended to be conveyed (p).

The contract for purchase cannot, in general, be used as Contract not
evidence of what passed by the conveyance (17) ; but this does e
not preclude a purchaser from claiming, even after convey-

(£) Per Parke, B., Llewellyn v. (o) Griffiths v. Penson, 9 Jur. N. S.

Earl of Jersey, 11 M. & W. 189. 385.

(I) See Shep. T. 248. (p) See Rooke v. Lord Kensington,

(m) Doe v. Galloway, 5 B. & Ad. 2 K. & J. 753, and supra, p. 594.
51. (?) Williams v. Morgan, 15 Q. B.

(n) Doe v. Carpenter, 16 Q. B. 181 ; 782 ; and see Leggott v. Barrett, 15

Wood v. Rowclife, 6 Ex. 407. Ch. D. 306, 309 ; Teebay v. M. S. $

L. R. Co., 24 Ch. D. 572.

604

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII.

ance, compensation for misdescription or the like, where it is
a term of the contract that he may do so ; such a stipulation
is not reduced into, or superseded by, the conveyance, but re-
mains still operative (r).

Description It has been held that the steward of a manor may insist
•f i '

surrender of upon a surrender containing a substantive description of the
tenements, and may object to a mere reference to the des-
cription in a former surrender (s).

Mines, &c., if In a conveyance to a railway or waterworks company, if
7 within the provisions of the Consolidation Acts, care must
^e taken to specify the mines and minerals, if intended to
be included ; for, unless actually specified, they will not
pass (t) . The reservation in such a conveyance of a right
to work the minerals is subject to an implied obligation to
afford the requisite lateral and subjacent support to the
railway (u).

So, too, on an enfranchisement of copyholds if the grantee
is to have the minerals and the right to work them, they
should be expressly mentioned, since prima facie the object of
an enfranchisement deed is merely to enlarge the estate of
the grantee (#).

Mode of On the sale of a reversion, the better mode of description

versions"^ *' " *s ^° particularize the corpus of the property, and to convey

it subject to the particular precedent estates ; and not to

convey the reversion eo nomine : for instance, if A., entitled

waterworks

company

must be

(r) Palmer v. Johnson, 12 Q. B. D.
32 ; affd. 13 Q. B. D. 351 ; and see
cases there cited.

(s) Reg. v. Lord of the Manor of
Bishop's Stoke, 8 Dowl. 608.

(t) See 8 & 9 V. c. 20, s. 77 ; 10 &
11 V. c. 17, s. 18.

(u] See Cal. R. Co. v. Sprot, 2
Macq. 449 ; and see Rowbotham v.
Wilson, 8 H. L. C. 348 ; Metr. Board
of Works v. Metr. R. Co., L. R. 3

C. P. 612; Richards v. Jenkins, 17
W. R. 30, and cases cited ante, p.
421 et seq. See as to the rights of a
mineral owner as to working the
minerals under or adjoining a rail-
way, sects. 80 and 81 of the R. C. C.
Acts, and M. R. Co. v. Miles, 30 Ch.

D. 634; S. C., 33 Ch. D. 632.

(x) Upperton v. Nicholson, 6 Ch.
436.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 605

to Blackacre expectant on the decease and failure of issue Chap. XII.

. . Sect. 4.

of B., sells his estate, the preferable mode of descnbing it is -
to convey Blackacre itself, halendum, subject to the life
estate of B., and the estates limited to his issue : and not to
convey, in terms, all that the reversion of A. under an In-
denture dated, &c., expectant on the decease of B. and the
failure of his issue, of and in Blackacre : — for, under the
latter words of description, if a mistake be made either in
the instrument under which the reversion is claimable, or as
to the precise extent and nature of the precedent estates, it
is at least doubtful whether anything would pass.

The long enumeration formerly known in a conveyance as General
the " general words," is superseded in modern practice by
section 6 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, which enacts that
they are to be implied. The operation of general words, we
need hardly observe, is restricted to the estate and interest
which the grantor has at the date of the conveyance (y).

General words may occasionally, under the reference to Their use.
reputation, help out an omission in the parcels; but, with
this exception, they seem to be of little practical use (z) :
for all rights and easements which are, either by implication
of law or by express grant, annexed to the land, or con-
nected with its user or enjoyment, would, there can be no
reasonable doubt, pass with it to the assignee, although" not
enumerated or referred to ; and, on the other hand, rights
and easements which are not connected with the user or
enjoyment of the land, are merely personal to the original
grantee, and cannot be annexed to it, and would not pass to
the assignee even under express words of assurance (a).

(y) See Booth v. Alcock, 8 Ch. 663 ; to extinguish the copyhold tenure,

and see judgment of L. J. Mellish, were held not to re-create rights of

p. 667, as to the difference between common ; Hall v. Byron, 4 Ch. D.

a grant in general words, and an 667.

express grant of a specific right. (z) But see Wardle v. Brocklehurst,

General words in a conveyance by 1 E. & E. 1058.

the lord of the manor of a small (a) See Ackroyd v. Smith, 10 C. B.

piece of land, which had been copy- 164, 183.
hold and was afterwards surrendered

606

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. Where, however, general words are inserted, the omission of

OGCu, 4.

• any one of the particulars usually specified is to be attended

to in construing the deed (b).

"Where a lease contained a plan and a description by metes
and bounds of the parcels to be demised, the word " stables,"
in the general words, was held insufficient to pass a stable
which was not shown on the plan (c). The general words "all
other improvements and additions," which usually close the
enumeration of specified fixtures in a lessee's covenant to yield
up possession, have a wide signification, and are not neces-
sarily restricted to fixtures properly so called (d).

Fixtures. Under the 6th section of the Conveyancing Act, 1881,

fixtures of every kind, including personal chattels incident to
the freehold (as, e.g., the locks and keys of a house, or the
moveable parts of fixed machinery), pass, without being
specified, by a conveyance (e) of the land to which they are
affixed, or incident ; unless it can be inferred that there is an
intention to exclude them. In some parts of the country,
and especially in the manufacturing districts, fixtures and
machinery are often sold separately from the land to which
they are attached ; and in every case where it is intended to
include fixtures upon a sale or mortgage of buildings, general
words sufficient to comprise them ought to be inserted ; in
many cases it may also be desirable to add a specific enumera-
tion of particulars (/) . It may be observed that the doctrine
of trade fixtures does not apply as between mortgagor and
mortgagee ; and the latter is entitled to everything on the
premises (ff).

(V) Denison v. Holiday, 3 H. & N. or settlement of any property, or on

670. any other dealing with or for any

(c} Maitlandv. MacKinnon, 1 H. & property; 44 & 45 V. c. 41, s. 2 (5).

C. 607. (/) See Mather v. Fraser, 2 K. & J.

(d) Burt v. Haslett, 18 C. B. 162 ; 536 ; Fisher v. Dixon, 12 C. & F. 312 ;
Wilson v. Whatcky, 1 J. & H. 436. and compare the doubtful cases of

(e) The term "conveyance" in- Trappcs v. Harter, 2 C. & M. 153 ;
eludes an assignment, appointment, Hare v. Horton, 5 B. & Ad. 715.
lease, settlement, and other assur- (ff] Tottenham v. Swansea Zinc Co.,
ance, and covenant to surrender, 52 L.T. 738, a case of precious metals
made by deed, on a sale, mortgage, absorbed into smelting furnaces.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 607

It is often very difficult to determine what articles are Chap. XII.

Sect. 4.

fixtures, properly so called, and what are mere moveable
chattels (</). Trade fixtures, which have been annexed to the
freehold, not with the view of improving the inheritance (h),
but solely for the purposes of trade, will, unless expressly
excluded, pass by a mortgage of the freehold (i). Thus,
machines annexed in a quasi permanent manner by means of
bolts or screws for the mere purpose of steadying have been
held to pass as fixtures (/»*) ; so, too, leathern driving belts
for working machinery (/) ; so, also, tramways used in con-
nection with a colliery (m) ; so, also, looms fastened to the
floor of a mill by nails driven into plugs of wood (n) : but
there was a contrary decision where the legs of the looms
were merely dropped into holes made in the floor, without
any substantial annexation to the freehold (o) ; as, also,
where weighing machines were sunk into holes lined with
brickwork, so as to make the weighing plate level with the
surface of the ground, but were not fixed to the brick-
work (^;). Greenhouses constructed of wooden frames, and
affixed by mortar to a foundation of brickwork, have been
held to be fixtures (q) ; so, also, a plate-glass shop front, fixed
merely by wooden wedges, and capable of being removed with-
out injury to the freehold (r) ; so, tapestry stretched on wooden
frames affixed to the wall, but capable of being readily

(y} See Ex p. Barclay, 5 D. M. Huntley v. Russel, 13 Q. B. 572; Mar-

& G-. 403 ; Mather v. Fraser, supra, tin v. Roe, 7 E. & B. 237. As to

and cases there cited. fixtures in questions of assessment

(h) See on this point Wake v. Hall, for rates, see Tyne Boiler Co. v. Over-

8 Ap. Ca. 195, a case as to mining seers of Longbcnton, 18 Q. B. D. 81.
buildings in the Peak country. (I) Sheffield, $c., Building Society v.

(i} See Ex p. Cotton, 2 M. D. & D. Harrison, 15 Q. B. D. 358.
725 ; Culhvick v. Swindell, 3 Eq. 249 ; (m) Turner v. Cameron, L. R. 5 Q.

Climie v. Wood, L. R. 4 Ex. 328 ; B. 307.

Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. 328 ; (») Boyd v. Shorrock, 5 Eq. 72.

Fishery. Dixon, 12 C. & F. 312. (o) Hutchin&on v. Kay, 23 B. 413.

(k) Longbottom v. Berry, L. R. 5 (p) Ex p. Astbury, 4 Ch. 630.

Q. B. 123 ; and see comments on (q) Jenkins v. Gcthing, 2 J. & H.

Hellawcll v. Eastwood, 6 Ex. 295; 520.

Holland v. Hodgson, supra; and see (r) Burt v. Haslett, 18 C. B. 162;

further as to what is or is not a suffi- but this was an improvement within

cient annexation to the freehold, the terms of the lease.
Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. 115 ;

608

Sect. 4.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

removed, has been held to be a fixture (s). But not every
annexation to the freehold is a fixture ; nor, on the other
hand, is a fixture, or an article deemed to be such, necessarily
fastened to the freehold. Thus, statues, ornamental vases,
and stone garden-seats retaining their positions merely by
their own weight, but forming part of the architectural
design of the mansion and grounds, have been held to be
fixtures (t) : so, straightening plates, i. e., broad iron plates
embedded in the floor, and used for straightening iron, when
taken out of the furnace (u).

Implied grant
and reserva-

sary ease
ments.

We may here remark, that upon the conveyance of
tionoTneces- part of an estate, a grant of all such rights and easements
over the residue retained by the vendor as are essential to
the due enjoyment of the part conveyed, will, if there be
nothing in the conveyance to negative the presumption, be
presumed at Law : for instance, the grant of an absolutely
necessary right of way (.r), or of drainage (?/), or of the
right to the continued enjoyment of modern lights on the
sale of a house (s), or of any other easement, whether

(s) L'Eyncourt v. Gregory, 3 Eq.
382 ; but see Harvey v. Harvey, 2
Str. 1141.

(t) D'Eyncourtv. Gregory, 3Eq. 382.

(«) Ex p. Astbury, 4 Ch. 630, 638 ;
and as to rights of equitable mort-
gagee by deposit in respect of fix-
tures, see Williams v. Evans, 23 B.
239 ; but see Begbie v. Fenwick, 8
Ch. 1075, n. ; Ex p. Tweedy, 5 Ch. D.
559 ; and the remarks on those cases
in Amos & F., p. 299.

(x) Pinnington v. Galland, 9 Ex. 1 ;
Pearson v. Spencer, 3 B. & S. 761 ;
but nothing short of absolute neces-
sity for the user will be sufficient to
raise the presumption ; see, however,
Clancey v. Byrne, 11 I. R. C. L. 355,
where it was held that a way, which
at the commencement of the tenancy
had been commonly enjoyed as con-
venient, though not necessary, to the
enjoyment of the dominant tenement,
would pass under general words.
See as to ways of necessity, ante, p.

412 ; and see Gay ford v. Moffatt, 4
Ch. 133 ; Davies v. Sear, 7 Eq. 427.

(y) Pyer v. Carter, 1 H. & N. 916 ;
Ewartv. Cochrane, 4 Macq. 117. See
observations on Pycr v. Carter, in
Suffieldv. Brown, 4 D. J. & S. 185 ;
but see Watts v. Kelson, 6 Ch. 166,
where Pyer v. Carter was approved ;
and see especially Wheeldon v. Bur-
rows, 12 Ch. D. 31, 49, and Russell
v. Watts, 10 Ap. Ca. 590, which
does not impugn the authority of
the former case, but is a decision on
its own special circumstances. The
right of drainage must be of the
same kind as that formerly enjoyed ;
so that a right to drain surface water
implies no right to use the drain for
sewerage ; Watson v. Troughton, 48
L. T. 508.

(z) Ante, p. 404 et seq. And con-
sider Curriers' Company v. Corbett, 2
Dr. & S. 355 ; Ellis v. Manchester
Carriage Co., 2 C. P. D. 13 ; cf. Booth
v. Alcock, 8 Ch. 663.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

609

continuous (a) or discontinuous (i), necessary to the enjoy- Chap. XII.

Sect A

ment of the property, or of the right to that extraordinary -
support by the adjoining soil which is requisite in order to
support the buildings on the part conveyed (c) : and, con-
versely, in the absence of any thing in the conveyance to
negative the presumption, the Law will presume a reserva-
tion in the conveyance of all such rights and easements over
the part conveyed as are essential, in the sense of being
easements of necessity, to the due enjoyment of the part
retained by the vendor (d). In order to pass rights which
are not properly easements, c. g.y a right of way over another
tenement of the grantor (e), or a right to support for a house
from an adjoining plot of land, where both had been in the
possession of one common owner (/), the word " appur-
tenances " was formerly insufficient ; words amounting to an
express grant were necessary (g) ; but it has recently been
held (A), that a grant of land "together with all ways
now used or enjoyed therewith," will pass the right to
use a definite way, used for the convenience of the land
granted, even though the road was constructed during unity
of possession, and did not exist previously. And in a still
more recent case, the words "with all rights, members or

(a) Watts v. Kelson, 6 Ch. 166;
case of artificial underground water-
course.

(o) Kay v. Oxlcy, L. R. 10 Q. B.
369 ; Barkshire v. Grubb, 18 Ch. D.
616 ; Bayley v. G. W. R. Co., 26 Ch.

D. 434.

(c) See Smart v. Morton, 5 E. & B.
30 ; Dugdale v. Robertson, 3 K. & J.
695 ; Cal. R. Co. v. Sprot, 2 Macq.
449 ; Roberts v. Haines, 7 E. & B.
625 ; and see cases cited ante, p. 420.

(d) See Pinnington v. Galland. 9
Ex. 1 ; Pearson v. Spencer, 3 B. & S.
761 ; Worthington v. Gimson, 2 E. &

E. 618 ; and see Richards v. Rose,
9 Ex. 218 ; Murchicv. Black, 11 Jur.
N. S. 608; Davis v. Scar, 7 Eq.
427 ; ante, p. 412. Where there

D. VOL. I.

are two ways, to the use of one
of which a right is necessary to
the grantee, it lies with the grantor
to elect over which of the two the
right shall be enjoyed ; Pearson v.
Spencer, 1 B. & 3. 571, 585 ; Bolton
v. Bolton, 11 Ch. D. 968, and sec
ante, p. 413.

(e} Bolton v. Bolton, 11 Ch. D.
968.

(/) Sherbrook v. Tufnell, 46 L. T.
886 ; and see Watson v. Troughton,
48 L. T. 508.

(a) Barlow v. Rhodes, 1 Cr. & M.
439 ; Baird v. Fortune, 4 Macq. 127 ;
Grymcs v. Peacock, Bulst. 17.

(h) Barkshire v. Grubb, 18 Ch. D.
616 ; Kay v. Oxlcy, L. R. 10 Q. B.
360.

R R

610 PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XLI. appurtenances to the hereditaments belonging, or occupied,
-^ — or enjoyed as part, parcel, or member thereof," were held, by
the Court of Appeal, to pass a right to use a private road
made, during unity of possession, by the vendor for his own
convenience (i). These cases are clearly intended to overrule
the earlier decisions on this subject ; and it may be remarked
that, in the latter case, Lord Justice Fry went so far as to
express the opinion (&), that "if one person owns both White-
acre and Blackacre, and if there be a made and visible road
over Whiteacre, and that has been used for the purpose of
Blackacre in such a way that if two tenements belonged to
several owners there would have been an easement in favour
of Blackacre, and the owner aliened Blackacre to a purchaser,
retaining Whiteacre, then the grant of Blackacre either * with
all rights usually enjoyed with it,' or * with all rights apper-
taining to Blackacre/ or probably the mere grant of Blackacre
itself without general words, carries a right of way over
Whiteacre."

In a recent case (/), where A. having a long term of years
in tenement X., and a short sub-term in Y., an adjoining
tenement, demised X. with its " lights " and appurtenances
to B., and then, after the expiration of the sub-term, having
acquired the fee simple in Y., built thereon so as to obstruct
the lights in tenement X., the Court of Appeal held that the
grant being in general terms must be measured by the extent
of the interest which A. had in Y. at the date of the grant,
and dismissed B.'s bill for an injunction with costs.

No distinction On the severance of a tenement, a distinction was formerly
continuous considered to exist between a continuous easement, such as

a r^n^ °^ drainage, and a discontinuous easement, such
ment. as a right of way, as respects the enjoyment of the right

being continued to the owner of the dissevered tenement.
But the recent cases of Berkshire v. Grubb (m), and Bayley

(t) Bayley v. G. 17. R. Co., 26 Ch. (/) Booth v. AlcocJc, L. R. 8 Ch.

D. 434. 663.

(7r) At p. 457. (m) 18 Ch. D. 616.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.
v. G. W. P. Co. (;/), have destroyed any such distinction, and Chap. XII.

OCCtl* 7*

the result of the authorities (o) seems to be that easements,

whether continuous or discontinuous, and even rights or
modes of user which, though not strictly easements, are nearly
akin to them, and which have been visibly enjoyed by the
property sold over the property retained, will pass under the
customary general words ; nor does the fact that the right or
mode of user has only come into existence during unity of.
possession of the two tenements prevent such a construction
of the grant, and the general words employed in it.

The general words, implied in every conveyance by the General words
Conveyancing Act, 1881 (p), are wide enough to fall well Act, 1881.
within the principle of these authorities. And it will in
future be necessary expressly to exclude the operation of the
section, if it is intended to except from a grant any right or
quasi-right commonly enjoyed by the property prior to the
grant (q). Indeed, the above-cited (r) dictum of Lord Jus-
tice Fry would seem to imply that it is necessary not merely
to exclude the general words, but also the legal implication
of the grant of the apparent right or usage arising from the
mere grant of the property.

In every case, where a vendor is selling part of his land, Rights in-

J . tended to be

the nature and extent of the easements, or quasi-easements, retained
which he intends to retain, should not be left to mere pre- expressly
sumption. Unless the right to be reserved by implication is mentioned,
clearly essential to the enjoyment of the property retained,
the ordinary rule, that a grantor shall not derogate from his
absolute grant, will prevent its being claimed against the
purchaser. In one case, it was stated by Y.-C. Kindersley,
as well settled law, that if a person having a house on his

(n) 26 Ch. D. 434. v. Q. W. It. Co., supra.

(o) James v. Plant, 4 A. & E. 749; (p) S. 6.

Watts v. Kelson, 6 Ch. 166 ; Kay v. (q) Ibid, sub-s. 4.

Oxley, L. R. 10 Q. B. 369; Barkshire (r) Page 610.
v. Grubb, 18 Ch. D. 616 ; and Bayley

RR2

612 PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. land, the windows of which have existed for more than
— — twenty years, sells a portion of the land, the purchaser may
erect any buildings he pleases upon the land so sold to him,
however much they may interfere with the lights of the
vendor's house (t) ; and this case has recently been fol-
lowed (u).

What may be In the preceding remarks, the word "reservation" has

the subject of-, i • « i -IT • ^ L j

a reservation, been used in a general sense, as including any right and
easement, or quasi- easement, which a vendor, on selling part
of his property, may be desirous of retaining for his own
benefit over the land conveyed; but a reservation, in the
strict sense of the term, can only be in respect of something
issuing out of the thing granted, just as an exception must
be parcel of what would otherwise be the entirety of the
thing granted. Thus, a right of sporting, or the like, cannot
properly be made the subject of a reservation (#), and ought
to be expressly re-granted or provided for in the declaration
of uses, as above suggested (y) ; but in many cases, what
purports to be an exception or reservation will be held to
operate as a fresh grant (z).

As to the Upon the sale of land, it is not competent to the vendor to

oTntw^ase-' crea^e new rights, unconnected with its use or enjoyment,
ments. and annex them to it, so as to pass to assignees : c. g., a right

for the owners of close A. to walk over close B. for all pur-
poses (a) : nor to subject it to novel burdens (b), except,
indeed, in Equity by way of negative covenant (c).

(t) Curriers' Co. v. Corbett, 2 Dr. & 967; Corp. of London v. Riggs, 13

S. 355. Ch. D. 798, 802; ante, p. 412, n. (c).

(u) Ellis v. Manchester Carriage Co., (a) Ackroydv. Smith, 10 C. B. 164 ;

2 C. P. D. 13. Egertonv. Lord Srownlow, 4 H. L. C.

(x) Doe d. Douglas v. Lock, 2 A. & 1 ; and cf . Stockport Waterworks Co.

E. 715, 743; Ewartv. Graham, 7 H. v. Potter,' Z H. & C. 300 ; Nuttall v.

L. C. 331 ; Wickham v. Hawker, 1 Bracewell, L. R. 2 Ex. 1.
M. &W. 63; cf. Wilkinsons. Proud, (b) Ackroyd v. Smith, supra; and

11 M. & W. 33. see Keppell v. Bailey, 2 M. & K. 535.

(y} Vide ante, p. 576. (c) See L. $ S. W. It. Co. v. Gomm,

(z) See Wickham s. Hawker, supra; 20 Ch. D. 562.
Durham R. Co. v. Walker, 2 Q. B.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 613

The grant of deeds is now usually omitted : it seems in- ^P.;3^11'
operative if, as is usually the case, the deeds are delivered,
or if the right to them is annexed to the estate conveyed ;
and if not inoperative, it is practically useless, as being too
vague (d).

The clause beginning "and the reversion and reversions, Reversion
&c.," is also usually omitted in modern practice, and seems
to be useless.

The clause beginning " and all the estate, right, title, and Estate clause,
interest, &c.," is now implied by sect. 63 of the Conveyancing
Act, 1881, excepting where a contrary intention is expressed,
and may be occasionally of practical use. It does not, how-
ever, appear that it would, even at Law, pass any interest in the
property, which from a general consideration of the deed, it
may be collected, was not intended to pass (e) ; but in the case
of several vendors, who concur in assuring an estate, say in
fee simple, there can, it is conceived, be no doubt that under
the common clause the interests of all the conveying parties
will pass, even although such parties, as between themselves,
may in fact be entitled somewhat differently from what they
supposed to be the case.

It is still not uncommon practice, even when the pur- Dower uses-
chaser has no wife to whom he was married before the late inserted.
Dower Act came into operation, to convey the estate, if
freehold of inheritance, to the ordinary uses to bar dower,
in order to avoid the necessity, on future sales, of proving
the non-existence of any such wife ; and to add the common
clause negativing the right to dower. Where, however, the
draftsman is aware that no such wife exists, it seems to be
sufficient to recite the fact. It is also not uncommon for the
draftsman to exclude the wife's dower, although he may have
no special instructions to that effect. This, however, is

(d} See Sug. 440 et seq. 113 ; RooJce v. Lord Kensington, 2

(e) See Hunt v. Remnant, 9 Ex. K. & J. 753.
635 ; Rooper v. Harrison, 2 K. & J.

614

PREPARATION OF COOTEYANCE.

Chap. XII.

TT«

Whether pur-
require con-
dower trustee

scarcely defensible. The purchaser may, under the new law,
defeat his wife's dower by a conveyance, or even by a mere
general devise in his will (/) ; and, in the event of his
intestacy, the effect of a declaration in bar of dower may
often be to *prefer a remote heir to the wife. The common
limitations in a conveyance executed before the late Dower
Act came into operation, but without the express negative
of a right to dower, do not bar the dower of a woman mar-
ried subsequently to the commencement of the operation of
the Act (g) . It is not necessary that the purchaser should
execute the conveyance in order to give effect to the declara-
tion against dower (/*).

Under a limitation to uses to bar dower, not preceded by
any power of appointment, the purchaser may, as a matter
°^ strict right? require the concurrence of the dower trustee
in the conveyance : but an objection to the title on this
ground, though technically well founded, is considered
frivolous and vexatious (i).

Section 5.

As to the
covenants.

Covenants
for title.

Solicitor's
liability in
respect
thereof.

(5.) As to the covenants.

The covenants for title are that part of the draft upon
which disputes and questions of difficulty most frequently
arise : they are of considerable, although, perhaps, to a pur-
chaser, of rather over-estimated importance : to the solicitor
they are important, inasmuch as he will be responsible to his
client for permitting him unknowingly to enter into improper
covenants (/) ; or for not securing to him those to which he
is entitled from the other party.

(/) Lacey v. Hill, 19 Eq. 346 ; lie
Thomas, 34 Ch. D. 166.

(g} Fry v. Noble, 1 D. M. & G.
687 ; Clarke v. Fran/din, 4 K. & J. 266.

(h] lairleij v. Tuck, 3 Jur. N. S.
1089 ; and see further as to the
effect of a general devise on the
widow's right to dower, and as to
her being put to her election between
her dower and the devised estate,

Ellis v. Lewis, 3 Ha. 310 ; Sending v.
Sending, 3 K. & J. 257 ; Gibson v.
Gibson, 1 Dr. 42; Rowland v. Cuth-
bertson, 8 Eq. 466 ; Parker v. Sotverby,
4 D. M. & G. 321 ; Thompson v.
Burra, 16 Eq. 592.

(i) Collard v. Roe, 4 D. & J. 525.

(j] Stannardv. Ullithonie,IQI&n.g.
491. Probably he would be pro-
tected by an opinion of counsel.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE, 615

One of the results of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, has Chap. XII.

. « Sect. 6.

been (k) to imply covenants for title in certain statutory forms

, Effect of the

in conveyances in which the conveying parties are expressed Conv. Act,
to join in certain capacities, and to substitute acknowledg- l
ments, having the effect prescribed by the Act (/), for the old
covenants for production and safe custody. The learning
relative to covenants, is, however, as important to the con-
veyancer as ever, whether he is dealing with questions relating
to the implied statutory forms, or with cases in which the full
form of covenant is made use of.

No precise form of words is necessary to constitute a Covenants,
covenant, if only there is an agreement by deed (m) ; and if stituted, &c.
the covenantor adopts the deed in other respects, his non-
execution of it is not material for the purpose of binding him
by his covenant (n) . If the covenant is contained in a deed
poll, the covenantee should be named or defined therein ;
and if in an indenture he should be made a party : but as
respects hereditaments the benefit of a covenant contained
in an indenture executed after the 1st October, 1845, may be
taken, although the taker be not named a party (o). Cove-
nants may, of course, be entered into by reference to those in
another instrument (p).

A vendor, if the absolute beneficial owner, enters into the What cove-

. nants entered

usual covenants that he has good right to appoint and release, into by abso-

i / 1 1 i i • .M lute beneficial

assign, or surrender (as the case may be, according as the
estate is freehold, leasehold, or copyhold), for quiet enjoyment,
free from incumbrances, and for further assurance (q). And
by the 7th section of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, these
covenants are implied in every conveyance of freeholds, for

(k) See s. 7. (p) Re Strnf&n, 1 D. M. & G-. 576.

(/) S. 9. (?) See Church v. JJrown, 15 V.

(M) Carr v. Roberts, 5 B. & Ad. 82 ; 263, 264. See as to renewable lease-

Wood v. Copper Miners' Co., 7 C. B. holds, Vance v. Earl of Ranfurky,

906, 936; Rigby v. G. W. R. Co., 1 Ir. Ch. R. 321. See as to cove-

14 M. & "W". 816. nants for further assurance, Davis v.

(n) Archardv. Coulsting, 6 Man. & Tollemache, 2 Jur. N. S. 1181 ; and

G-. 75. post, p. 887 et seq.

(o) See 8 & 9 V. c. 106, s. 5.

owner.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

What usual
covenant by,
may be
omitted.

Chap. XII. valuable consideration by a person who conveys, and is ex-
Sect. 5. J • L J

- pressed to convey, as beneficial owner.

It is usual to insert in a conveyance by appointment a
covenant that the power was well created and is subsisting ;
and in an assignment of leaseholds, a covenant that the lease
was a valid demise and that the term is subsisting ; but these
covenants are, in effect, comprised in the covenants for right
to appoint and for right to assign ; and consequently are
often omitted. But on a conveyance of leaseholds for valu-
able consideration, by a person who conveys, and is expressed
to convey, as beneficial owner, a covenant that the lease is
valid and the term subsisting is, by the Conveyancing Act,
1881, implied ; and also that the rent has been paid up to the
last day of payment, and that all other the lessee's covenants
have been performed up to the date of the assignment (r).

The covenants of a vendor who is absolute beneficial
owner, if he have acquired the estate by purchase for money
or other valuable consideration, are extended to the acts of
himself (.§) and parties claiming under him : it is conceived
that marriage is for this, as it is for other purposes, a
valuable consideration, even as in favour of collaterals (t) ;
but, in practice, it is usual for a vendor claiming under a
marriage settlement to covenant against the acts of the
settlor and his representatives (u) ; and the necessity of such a
covenant is not removed by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, a
marriage settlement not being a conveyance for valuable
consideration within the meaning of the 7th section.

It appears to have been formerly held that the Court of
Chancery would not compel a vendor to enter into covenants
extending &*& further than the acts of the last owner (x) ;

To whose acts
his covenants
extend.

Difference
practice of

the Court.

(r) S. 7 (1) B, E.

(*) Browning v. Wright, 2 B. & P.
13, 22 ; Sug. 599, 605.

(t) Davenport v. Bishopp, ] Ph.
698.

(u) 9 Jarm. Conv. 375.

(*) Loyd v. Griffith, 3 Atk. 268 ;
Wakeman v. Duchess of Rutland, 3
V. 233, 236.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 617

but where such owner himself acquired the estate otherwise Chap. XII.

Sect. 5.

than by purchase for valuable consideration, the " universal -
and settled practice of conveyancers " (y) is, to make the
covenants extend to the acts of all prior owners up to and
inclusive of the last purchaser for value : and the Courts
would probably at the present day be inclined to sanction
such practice by decision. The covenants implied by virtue
of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, extend to the acts of all
persons through whom the vendor derives title otherwise than
by purchase for value.

The owner of an estate sold by order of the Court, or by AS to co?c-
a trustee to whom he has himself conveyed upon trusts for o^e^ on sale

sale without entering into covenants for title which will Jy pouyt or

by trustees.

run with the land, enters into the same covenants as if he
himself were selling (z) : but although it is the settled
practice of conveyancers to make all the beneficiaries, who
take a substantial interest in the proceeds of a sale by
trustees, covenant to the extent of that interest, the rule
has been held to be different in the case of a sale under the
Court, where the trustees are competent to give a valid
discharge for the purchase-money (a) . In one case, where a
sale of a term of years was ordered by the Court, but
instead of carrying out the sale as directed, a portion of
the fee was, at the request of the owner, a tenant for life,
sold by the trustees under a power contained in the settle-
ment, it was held that this was not the case of a sale under
the decree of the Court, and that the tenant for life must
covenant for title (b) : but no opinion seems to have been
expressed by the Court as to what should be the form or
extent of the covenants. These questions upon sales under
the decree, or by the direction of the Court, are, according
to the present practice, usually precluded by a special con-
dition. And, even in the case of private sales, it may be
doubted whether the practice of conveyancers could be

(y) Sug. 574. SeePickettv.JLogffon, (a) Cottrellv. Cottrell, 2 Eq. 330.

14 V. 215, 239 ; and 2 B. & P. 22. (b) Earl Poulettv. Hood, 5 Eq. 115.

(z) Sug. 574.

618 PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. altogether enforced ; and whether the rules laid down hy
- Lord St. Leonards — that " Where the money to arise by
sale of the estate is absolutely given to two or more persons,
they are substantially owners of the estate ; and must
accordingly covenant for title : " " so even where the money is
in the first place to be applied in payment of debts, yet if
they are all paid previously to the sale, the cestuis que trust
must, it is conceived, covenant for the title " — are not too
broadly stated. Suppose that a testator devises an estate
to trustees in trust to sell, and with power to give receipts,
and to divide the proceeds among his children, all of whom
are sui juris. Here the beneficiaries, if all wish so to do,
may elect that there shall be no sale, but to take the land
as real estate. Any of the beneficiaries may, however,
require the trustees to proceed to a sale, even against the
wishes of their co-beneficiaries. Admitting that those who
agree to a sale and join in the contract are bound to concur
in the conveyance, and to covenant for title to the extent of
their interests, it does not occur to the writer that there is
any mode by which the dissentients can be compelled so to
concur and covenant. Nor does he conceive that, if they
refuse so to do, their refusal would entitle the purchaser to
rescind the contract. If so, the inability of trustees for sale
to procure the concurrence of all the beneficiaries amounts, in
reality, to a defect in title.

As to land- It appears to be the general notion that landowners
agreeing to sell land to railway and other similar corn-

to railway panies must enter into the usual covenants for title : the

company. A

liability can hardly be questioned in respect of land which
the company has no power to take compulsorily ; such as
land required for extraordinary purposes (<?), or in respect of
land taken under an ordinary agreement with the owner;
but as respects land which the company has power to take
compulsorily, the landowner's contract, although apparently
voluntary, is scarcely so in fact; and his liability to enter

(c) 8 & 9 V. c. 18, ss. 12 and 13.

I'liEPAUATlON OF CONVEYANCE.

into covenants may be considered doubtful in principle, and
not supported by any satisfactory authority ; for in " Re the
London Bridge Acts" (d)t there was the important fact —
although not noticed in the judgment — of the enabling Act
having been obtained by the vendors pursuant to an agree-
ment with the purchaser ; it is, however, believed to be the
general practice for such owners to covenant ; and the prac-
tice would probably, if necessary, be supported by decision.
As respects landowners who have entered into no agreement,
but as against whom the entire proceedings of the company
have been compulsory, it is conceived that they are not
bound, and do not in ordinary practice consent, to enter into
any covenant (e) ; but as the interest of all parties are bound
by the statutory conveyance, the value of covenants for title
is extremely small (/).

It was decided by Shadwell, Y.-C., that the first and Liability of
second tenants for life of a settled estate, selling under a iffTto cove-
private Act of Parliament which they themselves, pursuant nant'
to an agreement with the purchaser, had obtained for the
purpose, were bound to enter into the usual covenants for
title; the Court assuming that upon a sale under a power
with the consent of the tenant for life his obligation so to
covenant was a matter of course (</).

In the above case the statutory vendors were tenants for TO whose acts
life under a will, and the covenants for title were extended
to acts of their testator : the question whether they were extend-
properly so extended, does not appear to have been much
considered ; and it is submitted, that, although a tenant for
life or other owner of a particular estate may be required so
to covenant in respect of his own beneficial interest, yet
that, as respects the reversion, (in which he has no beneficial
interest,) his liability under the covenants should be confined

(d) 13 Si. 176. (ff) Re London Bridge Acts, 13 Si.

(«) Trend and Ware, 127, 234. 176, 179 ; Earl Potdett v. Hood, 5 Eq.

(/) 2 Dav. pt. i. 558. 115 ; Re Sawyer and Baring's contract,

33 W. R. 26.

620 PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. to the acts of himself and parties claiming under him. The

' — '. — Settled Land Act has rendered sales by the tenant for life so

common that the point is one of practical importance : and it
is believed to be the universal practice of conveyancers on
such sales, so to restrict the covenant implied by the vendor
selling as beneficial owner (k).

In conformity with the above views, the writer of these
remarks, on settling a conveyance on behalf of a tenant for
life, inserted in one case, after covenants for title extending
to the acts and defaults of his ancestors, a clause to the
following effect, riz., " Provided always, that as respects
the reversion or remainder, expectant on the life estate of
the said A. B., of and in the hereditaments intended to be
hereby assured, and the title to and further assurance of the
said hereditaments after his decease, his covenants herein-
before contained shall not extend to the acts, deeds, or
defaults of any person or persons other than and besides
himself and his own heirs, and persons claiming or to claim
under or in trust for him, them, or any of them : " and this
being resisted by the purchaser's counsel, the question was
referred to Mr. Christie, who decided in favour of the pro-
posed restriction. A proviso or qualification to this effect is
now commonly introduced in practice (t).

Covenants on Upon a sale, by husband and wife, of the wife's unsettled
band and** freehold or copyhold estate, in cases which do not come
within the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, the hus-
band, since he either does or may receive the purchase-
money, covenants for title as upon the sale of his own estate :
and if there be any doubt as to the fact of marriage, the
woman should herself enter into usual covenants : and it is
submitted that a purchaser might require their introduction :
and in such a case, and also in a case even where no such
doubt exists, it is desirable to make the wife covenant, so as to

(h) As to the covenants by a per- Conv. Act, 1881, s. 7 (2).
son directing as beneficial owner, see (i) See 2 Dav. pt. i. 261.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 621

bind her separate estate, if any. And this, although it pro- Chap. XII.
bably could not be insisted upon, is commonly required and -
conceded in modern practice. In cases to which the Married
Women's Property Act, 1882, applies, it is plain that the
married woman is, as regards her covenants for title, in the
position of a, feme sole, to the extent of her separate estate.

On a sale of leaseholds in lots by way of underlease, the As to cove-
vendor, in addition to the covenant for quiet enjoyment, must vendor of
covenant with each sublessee to pay the rent in the original
lease, and to perform the covenants therein contained so far
as the same relate to the residue of the property (/).

An apparently simple point, which must be of common Whether
occurrence, but upon which the books or precedents were covenant
found to differ, arose in practice ; r/s., whether on a sale of senerally-
leaseholds by a vendor who claimed by purchase, he was
bound to covenant generally that the covenants in the lease
had been performed up to the time of completion, or whether
words should be introduced limiting his liability to breaches
of covenant which might have occurred during his own
period of ownership. The point being referred by both sides
to the writer, he considered that the covenant was in effect
merely a covenant for title, and therefore fell within the
ordinary rule, and must be restricted as contended for, on
behalf of the vendor ; and this opinion, although at first
questioned, was upon consideration, assented to by eminent
conveyancers. And although upon the sale of leaseholds by
a vendor who claims by purchase, a covenant that the lease
is valid is usually introduced, it is now well settled that the
covenant is qualified, extending only to his own acts and
omissions and those of any testator or intestate through
whom he claims (k).

It has been a common practice in cases where tenants As to limiting
in common, or other persons having partial interests in an 8everal cove?

(f) Brown v. Paull, 2 Jur. N. S. (k) See 2 Dav. pt. i. 215. Conv.

317. Act, 1881, H. 7(1) B.

622 PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. estate, concur in the conveyance and in the covenants for

Sect. 5.

- title, to limit the liability of each covenantor to the amount
their respec- of his share in the purchase-money. But the correctness of
- ^is practice, which seems to have been founded on the notion
that the amount of the purchase- money was the measure of
damages in case of eviction (/), appears to be open to question.

money.

As to cove-
vendors who

As a general rule, fiduciary vendors who sell as such (m),
only covenant that they have done no act to prevent their
seHing> or ^° incumber the property (n) ; a covenant for fur-
ther assurance would seem to be a reasonable addition, and is
often attempted to be introduced; but it was decided in
Work?/ v. Frampton (o), that trustees cannot, as defendants,
be compelled to enter into it : even although they were not
themselves the contracting parties, but represented the ori-
ginal vendor, who would himself have been bound to enter
into such a covenant. The Court, however, raised but ab-
stained from deciding the question whether as plaintiffs they
could have procured relief except on the terms of entering
into the covenant. It has been held, that the heir-at-law
and assignees in bankruptcy of an intended lessor are bound,
to the extent of their interests in the property, to enter into
special covenants which the intended lessor had contracted
to enter into (p) ; and the decision would apparently apply
to the case of an agreement for sale and for special covenants
by the vendor. So, it has been held by Shadwell, V.-C., and
by Wood V.-C., that the executors of a party who has agreed
to take a lease, may, if they admit assets, be compelled to
enter into the lessee's covenants, so qualified as to restrict
their liability to that which they would have incurred had the

(/) Vide post, p. 895.

(tn) If they omit to state in the
contract the capacity in which they
sell, it is conceived that they will be
subject to the usual liability of bene-
ficial owners. As to whether trustees
should give an undertaking for safe
custody, see an article in 29 Sol. J.
215.

(n) White v. Folj'ambe, 11 V. 345 ;

Stainesv. Morris, 1 V. &B. 8 ; Onslow
v. Lord Londesborough, 10 Ha. 74.

(o) 5 Ha. 560 ; and see Copper
Miners' Go. v. Beach, 13 B. 478;
Hodges v. Blagrave, 18 B. 404; and
see and consider Hare v. Surges, 4
K. & J. 45, 57.

(p) Page v. Broom, 3 B. 36. As
to making the bankrupt a party, vide
ante, p. 583,

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 623

lease, with corresponding covenants, been executed by their Chap. XII.

Sect. 5.

testator (q).

These decisions are perhaps difficult to be reconciled with
that in Worley v. Frampton ; and seem to consist better with
the general principle of Equity, that persons who agree to
stand in the place of another, represent his liabilities as well
as his rights. They also suggest a question whether the per-
sonal representatives of a deceased vendor or purchaser might
not be required to join in the conveyance, and, to the extent
of the assets, to enter into special covenants which the deceased
had agreed to enter into.

In one case where there was a lease for lives, with a cove- Observations

T7"

nant for renewal on the death of a ccstui quo vie at the same purges.
rent and subject to the same covenants, " including this
present covenant," it was held that this gave the lessee a
perpetual right of renewal ; and although, in effect, the rever-
sioner became a trustee for the lessee, yet the rule laid down
in The Copper Miners1 Co. v. Beach (qq} that the Court will not
under a decree for specific performance compel parties, who
are trustees, to enter into covenants into which under ordinary
circumstances they would not be called upon to enter, had no
application to a case where the person in whom the reversion is
vested is entitled to the beneficial interest (r). The decision
in this case was rested on the ground that the reversioner was
the beneficial owner ; but it is conceived that where a lessor
enters into a covenant for perpetual renewal, and the reversion
afterwards becomes vested in a mere trustee, the latter on
granting a renewal may properly be required to enter into a
similar covenant ; of course so framed as to bind the estate,
but not so as to render himself personally liable except in
respect of his own acts.

An incumbrancer who releases the estate, whether volun- Incumbrancer

releasing1.

(q) Phillips v. Everard, 5 Si. 102 ; (qq) 13 B. 478.

and Stephens v. Hotham, 4 K. & J. (r) Hare v. Surge*, supra. See and

571 ; Hare v. Burges, 4 K. & J. 45, 57. consider this case.

624

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. tarily or in consideration of payment, only covenants that he
— — has done no act to incumber.

Mortgagor Where a mortgagee sells under his power of sale, and the

sale by mortgagor concurs, the latter enters into the ordinary vendor's

covenants for title, which supersede the absolute covenants

contained in the mortgage deed.

Bankrupt When a bankrupt concurs with his trustee in selling, he

by"hisg ] B generally enters into covenants for title as an ordinary vendor,

trustee.

Tenants in

Crown gives
no covenants.

but if he refuses, he cannot be compelled to do so (s).

Covenants for title by tenants in common upon a sale, are
limited to their several shares ; joint tenants, who are seised
per mie ct per font, are sometimes made to covenant both
jointly and severally ; but it seems more reasonable to restrict
their covenants to the extent of such shares as they would be
entitled to on a severance (#). A mortgagee may require his
mortgagors, whether they are joint tenants or tenants in
common, to enter into joint and several covenants for title.

A purchaser from the Crown can require no covenants for
title (u) .

Covenants by Upon a sale by trustees under a will, for general purposes,
rested in pur- or by order of the Court, the purchaser is not entitled to
chase-money. any covenant for title but that against incumbrances ; ex-
cept, perhaps (in the case of a will), where the purposes to
which the purchase-money is primarily applicable have since
been satisfied, so that the substantial owners are in fact
ascertainable (#) ; and they have concurred in or confirmed

(s) As to the power of the Court
of Bankruptcy to order the bankrupt
to join in the conveyance, vide ante,
p. 583.

(t) Where joint tenants convey in
such a way as to imply a covenant
under the Conveyancing Act, a pro-
viso should be inserted in the deed

so restricting their liability ; see
Hood & C. 124; 1 K. & E. 368,
384, for form of proviso.

(«) Sug. 575.

(x) See Loyd v. Griffith, 3 Atk.
268 ; Wakeman v. Duchess of Rutland,
3 V. 504 ; 8 Br. P. C. 145.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 625

the contract. In practice, however, it is usual in every case
to insert covenants by the parties who are beneficially
entitled in any considerable amount to the residue of the
purchase-money (//) ; but according to a modern decision, this
cannot be insisted on where the sale is ordered by the Court,
and the trustees are competent to give a discharge for the
purchase-money (z) : and the soundness of the general prac-
tice seems open to question.

Any covenant intended to provide for a defect in title Covenant
which appears on the face of the conveyance, should be so known defect,
expressed (#). If the defect can be kept off the face of the
conveyance (which is generally the case) the covenant should
be entered into by a separate instrument which should refer
to the defect ; or there should be a contemporaneous agree-
ment signed by the covenantor admitting the existence of
the defect, and stating that the same is intended to be in-
cluded in the covenant (b) . Where the defect consists in the Covenants for
existence of incumbrances, it will be a matter for considera- a^alnsT y
tion whether a mere covenant to indemnify can be relied on, cnarses-
without a covenant to pay or procure payment of the charge :
this question particularly applies to interest upon charges,
and to annuities or other periodical payments : — under a mere
covenant to indemnify, the purchaser would have no remedy
until actual disturbance, although the interest or annuity
might be running heavily into arrear.

Where, upon the sale of an estate, a bond in double the As to con-
amount of the purchase-money was given by the vendor to bonds of
the purchaser, as an indemnity against the possible claims L
of a supposed equitable mortgagee, with a condition that if
at the end of a year there should be no action or suit pend-
ing whereby the purchaser's title might be prejudiced, or if
the vendor should then pay to the purchaser a sum equal in

(y) Sug. 574. (a) See Off il vie v. Foljambe, 3 Mer.

(z) Cottrell v. Cottrell, 2 Eq. 330 ; 53 ; Butler's note to Co. Litt. 384, a.

cf. Earl Poulctt v. Hood, 5 Eq. 330 ; (b} Vide post, p. 886.

and see Lewin, 447.

T). VOL. I. S S

626 PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chip. XII. amount to the purchase- money with interest, the bond should
- be void, the equitable mortgage having been established in a
suit commenced within the year, and the vendor having
failed to pay the stipulated amount by the time appointed,
and his subsequent offer to do so having been rejected, it was
held that the purchaser, who had paid off the incumbrancer
to an amount equal to that secured by the bond, was entitled
to retain the estate, and to enforce the bond to the full
extent (c). It was considered doubtful whether the liability
upon the bond was intended to be limited to the purchase-
money and interest, and the Court declined to interfere with
a legal right upon the assertion of a merely doubtful equity.

Covenant for A covenant or acknowledgment for production of title
deeds. deeds, if it extend to documents not noticed in the convey-

ance, should, as a general rule, be entered into by a separate
instrument : the question, however, to be considered is, whether
any document covenanted to be produced is of such a character
as to make it desirable that it should, so soon as practicable,
be taken off the title (d).

Purchaser's Under the old practice, a purchaser was entitled, as a
general rule, to a valid covenant for the production, and
probably for the right to take copies (e), of such documents
of title as were not delivered over to him (/) : commencing
with such as were necessary to show a marketable title (#),
and excepting such copies of court roll and inrolled deeds (if
inrolled under any Act which makes the inrolment evidence)
as were not in the possession or power of the vendor (h). The
want of such a covenant was, until recently, a ground of

(c) Osborne v. Hales, 12 W. R. 654 ; ought to bear a sixpenny stamp
a case in the Privy Council. simply, as being in the nature of an

(d) A separate deed of covenant is agreement not under seal,
chargeable with the same duty as the (e) Sug. 452.

conveyance or mortgage, if not ex- (/) Barclay v. Maine, 1 S. & S.

ceeding ten shillings, and in other 449.

cases with a duty of ten shillings ; (g) Dare v. Tucker, 6 V. 460 ;

33 & 34 V. c. 97, sched. ; and see Cooper v. Emery, 1 Ph. 388.

also 13 & 14 V. c. 97. It is con- (h) S. C.

ceived that an acknowledgment

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 627

objection to the title ; but now, under the 37 & 38 Viet. c. 78, Chap X [I.

. . StHrt' 5.

if the vendor is unable to furnish such a -covenant, the -

purchaser must, subject to the stipulations of his contract, be
satisfied with merely his equitable right to their produc-
tion (i). Under the Conveyancing Act the vendor has the
option (/»•) of giving a statutory acknowledgment and under-
taking for safe custody in satisfaction of his old liability to
give covenants for production, delivery of copies or extracts,
and safe custody. It is to the advantage of the vendor to
give such acknowledgment and undertaking, seeing that it
binds the individual possessor or person having control of the
documents only so long as he has possession or control
thereof (/). The covenant or acknowledgment upon a sale of
freeholds held of a manor subject to leases for lives granted
by copy of court roll, must extend to the court rolls up to the
date of the conveyance (rri).

The right to a covenant for production is, however, as a To what

general rule, confined to those documents which affirmatively
evidence the vendor's title (;?), and does not extend to those
not in his possession, and which are required to negative
mere possibilities. It appears, in fact, to have been decided
by Shadwell, V.-C. (0), that a purchaser from an heir-at-law,
whose ancestor left a will not affecting the property, can
require no covenant for its production : this decision seems,
however, to conflict in principle with that in a case (p)
where a purchaser from an heir under similar circumstances,
was, upon selling again, held bound to produce the will, if
in existence, for the inspection of the sub-purchasers ; and
Lord St. Leonards seems to think that where the negative

(i) S. 2. It is conceived that this 330. As to the right to an acknow-

section only applies to a case of ledgment from the lord on an

absolute inability, not to a case of enfranchisement, see Re Agg- Gardner,

mere difficulty or inconvenience ; see 26 Ch. D. 600.

ante, p. 160. (ri) Including of course deeds of

(A-) S. 9 (8). As to the stamp on covenant for production entered into

an acknowledgment, see ante, p. 626, by prior vendor ; Sug. 452.

note. (o) Cooper v. Emery, 1 Ph. 388 ; 2

(1} S. 9 (2). Dav. pt. i. 663.

(MI) Earl Poutett v. Hood, 5 Eq. (p) Stevens v. Guppy, 2 S. & S. 439.

ss2

628

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. evidence is necessary for the satisfaction of the purchaser,
— and is in the custody of the seller, there is no sufficient
reason why it should not be covenanted to be produced (q)
and this seems to be the sounder view.

With whom The vendor's covenants, if the estate be freehold, should

vendor's COVG~

nants should be entered into with the grantee, releasee, or feoffee to uses
into!1* (^ anj)- ^ the estate be copyhold, it appears to be the

preferable practice, instead of taking a covenant to surrender
with covenants for title and production in the same deed, to
let the surrender precede the execution of the deed con-
taining the covenant for title and production : as, if the
former course be adopted, it is not clear that the benefit of
the covenants will run with the land (;•)• This, however, is
often inconvenient, and therefore disregarded. Where the
property is conveyed to joint tenants, the covenants should
be with them jointly.

Mutual cove- Where a building estate is sold in lots under conditions

sale of build- which provide that each purchaser shall covenant with the

ing estate. vendor and with the other purchasers not to use his plot for

a specified purpose, a purchaser of one lot cannot refuse to

covenant with the vendor on the ground that, the other lots

being unsold, he does not get the advantage of covenants by

other purchasers (s) .

Purchaser's

On the other hand, the vendor may, in certain cases,
require covenants on his own account : for it may be laid
down, as a general rule, that whenever he is personally
subject to liabilities, either in respect of the estate, or for
the performance of which the estate stands as a security, the
purchaser, taking the estate, must undertake the liabilities,
and covenant to indemnify the vendor against them.

On purchase For instance, on the sale of an equity of redemption the

(q) Sug. 452.

(r) 2 Dav. pt. i. 205 ; 9 Jarm.
Conv. 188 n. ; vide post, p. 879.

(s) He Hordy and Cowman, 51 L.
T. 721.

I'KKl'AKATION OF CONVEYANCE. 629

purchaser, even in the absence of express stipulation, incurs Chap. XII.
a liability to pay the mortgage debt and future interest (t) :

and may, it is conceived, bo required to covenant so to do. redemption,

So, on the sale of a reversion, the purchaser, it is con- or a reversion,
ceived (w), must covenant to pay the succession duty, unless
compounded for (x) at the time of the sale.

So, on the sale of leaseholds, either by the original lessee or leaseholds.
or by an assignee who has entered into a similar covenant
with a prior owner, the purchaser must covenant (//) to pay
the rent and perform the covenants contained in the lease,
and to indemnify the vendor against the same (z) ; so, on a
sale of leaseholds in lots by way of underlease, each pur-
chaser must covenant to perform the covenants contained in
the original lease so far as the same relate to the property
comprised in his own underlease (a).

Under the present law the trustee of a bankrupt has power As to indem-
to disclaim his leasehold property (b) ; and such a disclaimer urchaser

operates to determine, as from its date, the rights, interest?, °n 8,ale °,f.

r ' bankrupt s

and liabilities of the bankrupt and his property in respect of leaseholds.
the property disclaimed, and also discharges the trustee from
all personal liability in respect of such property, as from the
date when the property vested in him (c). But as the lease-
holds of a bankrupt vest in his trustee on his appointment,
subject to his right to disclaim, the trustee becomes personally
liable, so long as the lease remains vested in him, for the rent

(t) Waring v. Ward, 7 V. 332, 52, 54 ; Staincs v. Morris, 1 V. & B.

337. 8; Close v. Wilberforcc, 1 B. 112;

(u) Vide pest, p. 668. Cochrane v. Robinson, 11 Si. 378;

(x) See 16 & 17 V. c. 51, ss. 41, Morky v. Wavering, 1 Jur. N. S.

44. 904. As to what can be recovered

(y) The usual words in the ha- in an action on the covenant, see

bendum, " subject to the payment of Smith v. Jlowell, 6 Ex. 730.

the rent and performance of the co- (a) Browne v. Paull, 2 Jur. N. S.

venants," have been held not to bo 317.

equivalent to such a covenant by the (b) 46 & 47 V. c. 52, s. 55 (1).

assignee, Woheridge v. Steward, 1 (c) S. 55 (2) ; Ex p. Allen, 20

Cr. & M. 644. Ch. D. 341 ; and see generally as to

(z) Pember v. Mathers, 1 Br. C. C. disclaimer, Yate Lee, 455 et seq.

630 PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII. and upon the covenants of the lease, if he do not disclaim

Sect. 5. r

- it (d). He can, however, rid himself, as from the date of the

assignment, of all liability under the lease by assigning it
even though the assignee be to his knowledge a pauper (e) .
There being, therefore, no continuing liability in the trustee
after assignment by him, it would seem that he cannot now,
any more than under the old law as it existed prior t
1869 (/), require from the assignee any covenant for pay-
ment of rent, performances of the covenants in the lease, or
indemnity. But the case is different where an equitable
mortgagee of the lease from the bankrupt opposes an appli-
cation by the trustee for leave to disclaim, and insists on an
assignment of the lease to himself. In such a case the
assignee must covenant to indemnify the trustee against all
liability under the lease (</) ; the principle of the decision
being that, as the assignee has himself prevented the trustee
from disclaiming, and so getting rid of all liability whatever
from the date of his appointment, he must indemnify the
trustee against any liability which he may have incurred, as
a continuing lessee up to the date of the assignment. The
Court has, under the Act of 1883, wide discretionary powers,
on the application of any person either claiming any interest
in any disclaimed property, or under any liability not dis-
charge'd by the Act in respect of any disclaimed property, to
make an order for the vesting of the property; but as to
leaseholds the Court is not to make a vesting order in favour
of any person claiming under the bankrupt, except upon the
terms of such person undertaking the liabilities of the
bankrupt in respect of the lease (/>).

On sale of Where an executor or administrator has satisfied all the

executors, &c. liabilities of a lease granted or assigned to his testator or

(d) Ex p. Dressier y 9 Ch. D. 251; (e) HopJcinson v. Lovering, 11 Q.

Wilson v. Wallani, 5 Ex. D. 155. B. D. 92 ; and see Fagg v. Dobie, 3

But he is not liable for any arrears Y. & C. 96.

of rent, or breaches of covenant (/) WiUcins v. Fry, 1 Mer. 244 ;

which accrued due, or took place Levi v. Ayres, 3 Ap. Ca. 852.

before his appointment; Titterton v. (g] Ex p. Buxton, 15 Ch. D. 289.

Cooper, 9 Q. B. D. 473. (A) S. 55 (6), and see Ex p.

Turquand, 14 Q. B. D. 405.

:

J'KKl'AK.VTION OF CONVEYANCE. 631

intestate, and has assigned the lease to a purchaser, he may Chap. XII.
now safely distribute the residuary estate, and, after such -
assignment, is no longer personally liable in respect of any
subsequent claim under the lease (?) : but the lessor may
follow the assets into the hands of the persons among whom
they have been distributed. On a sale by executors or ad-
ministrators it is still usual to indemnify them, as well as
the estate of the deceased, from all future liability in respect
of the rent and covenants of the lease.

Independently of contract, the legal or equitable assignee Indemnity by
of a lease is, as respects the time only during which he is in i&u£~
possession, bound to indemnify the lessee against liabilities
under the lease (k) ; and it has been held that where the
equitable assignee has actually parted with the possession
he is no longer liable to be sued by the landlord for breaches
of covenant, or non-payment of rent, during the period of
his possession (/).

The rule that a purchaser must undertake his vendor's or freehold
liabilities, would, it is conceived, apply to the sale of freehold quit!rent° or
land subject to quit-rent which the vendor has entered into covenants for

or upon which

a personal liability to pay. So, where in Moxliay v. Indcr- vendor is
irick (m), a vendor of freeholds had, on his own purchase,
covenanted to observe the covenants entered into by a former
owner, which prohibited building upon the land, it was held
that a purchaser, who bought with notice (n) of the restric-

(i) 22 & 23 V. c. 35, s. 27 ; and to indemnify against all claims in

see s. 28. respect of the covenants in a lease,

(7r) Staincs v. J/ 'orris, 1 V. & B. 8 ; costs properly incurred in reasonably

Burnett v. Lynch, 5 B. & C. 589, defending an action, brought for

602; Close v. inibcrforce, 1 B. 112; breach of one of them, are recover-

Sanders v. Benson, 4 B. 350 ; Moore v. able as damages ; Murrcll v. Fysh, 1

Greg, 2 Ph. 717 ; Rowky v. Adams, C. & E. 80.

4 M. & C. 534 ; and see Moule v. (/) Cox v. Bishop, 8 D. M. & G.

Garrett, L. R. 5 Ex. 132 ; 7 Ex. 101. 815 ; see and consider Wright v.

A railway company is for this pur- Pitt, 12 Eq. 408.

pose in the position of an ordinary (in) 1 De G. & S. 708.

purchaser, Harding v. Metrop. H. (n) From the printed particulars.
Co., 7 Ch. 154. Under a covenant

632

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

XII. ^on an(^ ^e(^ a kill ^or sPecifi° performance, must elect,

— either to rescind the contract, or to enter into a similar

covenant with the vendor : and a like decision was pro-
nounced in a later case of Liikey v. Higgs (0), where the bill
was filed by the vendor, but the purchaser had bought with-
out notice of the original covenant.

Moxhay v. Moxhay v. Inderwlck was a suit by a purchaser, who

Inderwick 'tot • * • •

and LuJcey v. bought with full notice of the original covenant, but had not
sideredT" expressly agreed to enter into a special covenant with the
vendor. The Court, in giving judgment, reserved the ques-
tion as to what the rights of the parties would have been in
respect to the insertion of the special covenant had the
vendor been the party insisting on specific performance : it
merely decided upon the case as it then stood, that the pur-
chaser claiming the estate must enter into the covenant. In
Luhey v. Higgs, a vendor's suit, the purchaser bought with-
out notice of the original covenant : and the Court, having
determined that he had waived this objection to the title
only upon condition that he should not be required to enter
into any special covenant, necessarily also held that, as this
condition was resisted, he had a right to elect either to
covenant or to rescind the contract. But the Court also is
represented to have used expressions intimating that Moxhay
v. Inder trick is an authority for holding that a vendor as
plaintiff cannot insist on the insertion of such a covenant,
even as against a purchaser who buys with notice. This
point seems to be, in fact, untouched by Moxhay v. Inder-
wick, as reported ; and the conclusion pointed at by the
Court in Lukey v. Higgs, seems open to considerable doubt.
A. and B. enter into a contract for sale and purchase which
clearly discloses the existence of the original liability ; it is
conceded that upon a bill filed by B., the Court will hold
that the proper instrument for carrying out this contract is
a conveyance containing a certain special covenant by B., —
the propriety of inserting such covenant depending not upon

(o) 1 Jur. N. S. 200, V.-C. K.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 633

any matter de/iors the contract, but upon matter disclosed Chap. XII.

... Sect. 5.

by the very contract itself. Upon what principle can it be -

held that the terms of the instrument which is intended to
define the rights and liabilities of the parties, as arising
under the contract, ought to depend upon the accident of its
being one party rather than the other who seeks to enforce
its performance ? Reasons may sometimes be supposed to
exist why a contract between A. and B. should be enforced
at the suit of A. but not of B. ; but it is difficult to find any
satisfactory reason for holding, that the contract — admitting
that it is to bo enforced — is to mean one thing if enforced at
the suit of A., and something else if enforced at the suit
ofB.

Upon similar principles, when the vendor has covenanted For produc-
with a former purchaser for the production of the deeds, a
purchaser of the residue of the estate, if he take the deed?,
must covenant for their production to the first purchaser (p),
or indemnify the vendor against his liability to produce
them.

Where land is conveyed to releasees to uses in strict On sale to
settlement, they are not, under a condition that the pur- settled
chasers shall take the deeds and " enter into or procure to €
be entered into a proper and sufficient covenant for their
production," bound personally to enter into such a covenant;
but it is sufficient if they procure the tenant for life so to
covenant (q).

Where the contract for sale provided that the conveyance Agreement
should be made subject to certain specified stipulations as to landinspeci-

the mode of building upon the land, and also to " a covenant

on the part of the purchaser, his heirs and assigns, and of> ^ow. *° be

secured in

proper provisions for securing the due observance and per- conveyance.
formance thereof," it was held that the conveyance should
contain, not only the covenant, but also a power for the

(p) Vide post, p. 763. (Q) Onslow v. Lord Londcsborough,

10 Ha. 67.

634

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Sect. 5.

vendor or his representatives to enter and remove any build-
ings erected in breach of such covenant, and to retain
possession until payment of the consequent expenses ; but
that he was not entitled to have a term for years, or a rent-
charge, limited to a trustee by way of security for the
performance of the covenant (r) .

Vendor of
minerals
entitled to

Under an agreement to purchase the minerals under a
given surface, the price to be payable by instalments, and the

power to enter ^ ^ i IJI*P JT • 1-1 o

and ascertain payments to be accelerated it more than a given quantity of
state of minerals be gotten from time to time, the vendor is entitled

workings.

to a covenant in the conveyance, reserving to him a right of
entry for the purpose of ascertaining the state of the work-
ings (*).

Under an agreement to purchase land in consideration of

Purchaser in
consideration

of annuity, a hie annuity, " to be charged on the land, the vendor is
payment.8 entitled to, not only the charge, but also the purchaser's
covenant for payment (t).

Purchaser,
when bound
in Equity by
covenants,
although he
do not exe-
cute.

And a purchaser who accepts the benefit of the convey-
ance, may sometimes be bound both at Law and in Equity
by the covenants on his part therein contained, although he
do not execute it (u) ; but it is conceived that this can only
be so on the principle explained by the Court of Appeal
in Aspdcn v. Seddon (v) ; and provisions restrictive of a pur-
chaser's prima facie rights will not be strained against
him (a?).

(r) Ex p. Ralph, De G. 219 ; see
the form given, p. 228. It seems to
make no provision for interest. It
may be observed, as being to some
extent in pari mater ia upon the point
of construction, that a clause in a
contract for sale binding the pur-
chaser to procure a supply of water
as good as the supply cut off by the
construction of the purchaser's
works, has been held merely to bind
him once for all to insure a sufficient
supply, and does not imply a cove-
nant on his part at all times to do

such acts as will effect that result,
Re Gray and Metr. JR. Co., 44 L. T.
567.

(s} Blakcsley v. Whieldon, 1 Ha.
176.

(0 fiou-er v. Cooper, 2 Ha. 408 ;
Remington v. Deverall, 2 Anst. 550 ;
Dixon v. Gay fere, 17 B. 421 ; 21 B.
118; 1 D. & J. 655.

(«) Shep. T. 177; Willson v.
Leonard, 3 B. 373.

(v) 1 Ex. D. 496.

(x) Warden of Lover v. S. E. R.
Co., 9 Ha. 489.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 635

a whether a certain covenant (and scmlk what
covenants) ought to be inserted in a conveyance, may now be

The question whether a certain covenant (and scmlle what Chap. XII.

oect. o.

decided on a summons (//) under the Vendor and Purchaser to proper

covenants,
how decided.

Lastly, we may remark, that under the 8 & 9 Yict. c. 106, The word

ff CT\\(\ O

s. 4, the word " give " or the word " grant " in any deedexe- «|rant" not

cuted after the 1st October, 1845, is not to imply any cove-

nant at Law, in respect of any tenements or hereditaments,

except so far as it may do EO by force of any act of parlia-

ment (s). The object of this enactment appears to have been

to prevent any general warranty of title from arising by the

use of the words "give " and "grant ;" and it probably would

not be held to interfere with the rule of Law that any words

of assurance operate as a covenant for quiet enjoyment of the

interest expressed to be assured as against the future acts of

the party making the assurance (a) . Under the 6 Anne, c. 62

(Ruff. c. 35), ss. 30 and 34, and 8 Geo. II. c. 6, s. 35, the words

" grant, bargain and sell " in bargains and sales of heredita-

ments in Yorkshire, inrolled according to those Acts, have

the effect of the usual covenants for title in favour of a pur-

chaser (b), and this of course falls within the exception in the

8 & 9 Yict. c. 106. So, in a conveyance under the Lands

Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (c), by the promoters of the

undertaking, the word " grant " is to operate as covenants for

title, unless limited by express words contained in the con-

veyance ; so, in a conveyance by a public company under the

Joint Stock Companies Act (d), the ordinary covenants for

title are to be implied, unless such implication is expressly

negatived.

(y) Re Gray and Metr. E. Co., 44 charge, see Mony penny v. Monypcnny,

L. T. 567 ; He Mordij and Cowman, 3 D. & J. 572 ; 9 H. L. C. 114.
51 L. T. 721. (a) See, as to the word " assign,"

(z) But it may amount to a cove- Scddon v. Senate, 13 Ea. 74.
nant to stand seised ; Doe v. Prince, (b) See Burt. Comp. 593.

15 Jur. 632. As to such words not (c) 8 & 9 V. c. 18, s. 132.
amounting to a personal covenant (d) 19 & 20 V. c. 47, s. 46.

when used in the grant of a rent-

636

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

Chap. XII.
Sect. 5.

The word
' ' demise ' '
implies a
covenant for
title.

Covenants

implied,

when.

Covenant for
title not an
estoppel.

The word " demise " in a lease for years still operates as an
implied covenant for title, but this implication is negatived if
an express covenant is inserted (e). If the lease is by parol,
a covenant for quiet enjoyment, but not a covenant for title,
is implied.

Where a deed contained a recital of an agreement to secure
an annuity, and the grantor, after granting the annuity, cove-
nanted that the grantee should have the usual powers of
entry and distress, and then granted and demised the estate
charged therewith for a term of years upon trusts for securing
the annuity, but did not expressly covenant for its payment,
it was held by Y.-C. Wood, and Barons Bramwell and Watson,
who assisted him (/), that neither the recital nor the grant
and power of distress, whether taken singly or collectively,
amounted to a covenant, so as to create a debt payable out
of the personal assets of the grantor ; but this decision was
reversed by the Court of Appeal in Chancery, and the decision
of the Appellate Court was affirmed by the House of Lords,
dissenticnte Lord St. Leonards (g). So, a mere recital, though
it does not necessarily imply a covenant, may be sufficient to
raise one, if such is the clear intention of the parties (1i) ; so,
on the assignment of a debt, there is an implied covenant by
the assignee that he will not release or compound it (i).

It may be here observed that a vendor's covenant for title,
whether express or implied, does not amount to a sufficiently
precise statement that he has the legal estate to create an
estoppel (£).

(e) Line v. Stephen son, 5 Bing.
N. C. 183 ; Shep. T. 165 ; and it
would seem that any words whioh
will create a good lease imply the
same covenants as the more tech-
nical word ; If art v. Windsor, 1 2
M. & "W. 68, 85 ; Mostyn v. West
Mostyn Coal Co., 1 C. P. D. 145. A
mere agreement to let implies a
covenant that the lessor has a good
title, Stranks v. St. John, L. B. 2

C. P. 376.

(/) 4K. & J. 174.

(g] Mony penny v. Mony penny , 3 D.
& J. 572; 9 H. L. C. 114, 135.

(h) See Iven v. Elwcs, 3 Dr. 25,
36, and cases there cited.

(i} Gerard v. Lewis, L. R. 2 C. P.
305.

(/>;) General Finance Co. v. Liberator
Society, 10 Ch. D. 15.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE. 637

Chap. XII.

(6.) As to the draft and engrossment.

As to the

The draft having been settled, a fair copy of it should be draft and en-
submitted to the vendor's advisers for perusal ; and, if *
practicable, within a reasonable time prior to the date fixed
for completion. The date of delivery is sometimes fixed by
the conditions.

It may possibly be useful to make some remarks as to As to the
what are, in the opinion of the writer, the duties of counsel drafts,
(and the observations apply equally to solicitors) in perusing
a draft drawn or settled by another practitioner ; a point upon
which, according to his observations, much misapprehension
prevails among many members of the profession. These
duties are, merely and exclusively to protect the interests of
the client on whose behalf such counsel is consulted. He is,
therefore, not justified in altering the structure or language
of a draft merely because such structure or language is not
such as he would himself have adopted, or approved of, if he
had been advising on the other side. When such a course is
adopted in respect to a draft settled by another practitioner
of equal or greater standing or reputation in the profession,
the proceeding is an impertinence : and when adopted in
respect of a draft settled by a junior, it may frequently be,
not merely an impertinence, but also a cruelty ; as amounting
to an implied professional censure by one whose censure
may be prejudicial. Sometimes, of course, in the case of a
very obvious slip, it may be allowable and proper to direct
attention to it ; but even then it is better, as a general rule,
to do so by a marginal note ; and not to undertake officiously
to alter another man's draft upon points with which the
critic's own client has no concern. And, on the other hand,
when the above rules have been violated by an opponent,
it is usually better to allow his alterations to pass — with or
without marginal comment — if they are not really preju-
dicial, but are merely officious, rather than to insist upon the
draft being restored to its original shape. Doubtless it is
very annoying to be seemingly instructed in conveyancing

638

Chap. XII.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE.

by another practitioner ; but where such discipline can only
be rejected at the client's expense, it should, as a general
rule, be submitted to ; unless a regard to the client's own
interests calls for its rejection, or unless it involves altera-
tions seriously inconsistent with the ordinary rules of con-
veyancing.

Alteration in When the draft has been approved, any alterations made
be communi- in it should be communicated to the other party before
cate * engrossment (/). Where the alterations merely consist in

omissions of passages introduced by such other party, or
can otherwise be easily pointed out, it is submitted, that the
opposite solicitor (who must be presumed to have retained a
copy of the draft) would not be entitled to a general re-
perusal : this is a question which sometimes arises in those
exceptional cases where the purchaser has to pay the vendor's
expenses. The draft, it may be remarked, belongs to the
purchaser, not to his solicitor (m) .

Engross-
ment—

belongs to
purchaser.

Executed,
and then
contract
rescinded.

The engrossment is made by and at the expense of the
purchaser. The practice, now frequently adopted, of engross-
ing a deed bookways, has much to recommend it ; and it is a
convenient plan to make up with the engrossment some blank
pages at the end, for the purpose of containing supplemental
instruments, which may refer to the principal deed in the
same way, mutatis mutandis, as if they were endorsed on it.

The engrossment is the property of the purchaser : when
executed the vendor has a lien upon it for unpaid purchase-
money (ri), but his solicitor has no lien on it for costs (0).

Where the engrossment was executed by the vendors, but
the purchase went off in consequence of other material

(?) Staines v. Morris, 1 V. & B. 15.
(M) Ex p. Horsfall, 7 B. & C. 528;
Doe v. Scaton, 2 A. & E. 171, 178.
(«) Sug. 564.

(o) Oxenham v. Esdaile, 2 Y. & J.
493 ; 3 ib. 262. As to deeds handed
over by mortgagee to mortgagor's
solicitor, in order to effect a sale, see
Young v. English, 7 B. 10.

PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCE

039

parties refusing to execute, and the vendors made no claim
to it as a deed, the purchaser was held entitled at Law to —
recover it from their solicitor, they being allowed to cancel
it (p) : this decision, however, as observed by Lord St.
Leonards, " depended upon the instrument having been im-
perfectly executed, and upon the sellers not interposing to
claim any interest in it " (q) : and where the deed has been
executed so as to vest the legal estate in the purchaser,
there would seem to be a difficulty in holding that he could
claim to retain it upon the contract going off, even although
he were willing to execute a reconveyance.

No particular form of words or acts is necessary to render What is good

delivery of &

an instrument the deed of the party sealing it (r). The mere deed,
affixing of the seal does not make it a deed ; but so soon
after sealing as there are acts or words sufficient to show that
it is intended by the party to be executed as his deed, pre-
sently binding upon him, that is sufficient ; and there is no
technical necessity for the grantee or his agent to take cor-
poreal possession of the instrument (s).

(p) Esdaile v. Oxenham, 3 B. & C. (s) Doe v. Knight, 5 B. & C. 692 ;

225. Xenos v. JTickham, L. R. 2 H. L.

(?) Sug. 564. 296 ; per Pigott, B., and Black-

(r) Co. Litt. 36a, 49J ; Shep. T. burn, J. As to an escrow, see

64, 58. Eowker v. Burdekin, 11 M. & W.

128 ; Watkins v. Nash, 20 Eq. 262.

LONDON :
FEINTED BY C. F. EOWOE.TH, GREAT NEW STREET, FETTER* LANK, E.G.

August, 189ic

.A.

OP

LAW WORKS

PUBLISHED BY

STEVENS AND SONS,

LIMITED,
119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON,

(And at 14, Bell Yard, Lincoln1 s Inn).
Telegraphic Address— " RHODRONS, London."

A Catalogue of Modern Law Works, together with a
complete Chronological List of all the English, Irish, and
Scotch Reports, an Alphabetical Table of Abbreviations
used in reference to Law Reports and Text Books, and
an Index of Subjects corrected to end of 1890. Demy &vo.
(114 pages), limp binding. Post free, 6d.
Acts of Parliament, — Public and Local Acts from an
early date may be had of the Publishers of this Catalogue,
who have also on sale the largest collection of Private Acts,
relating to Estates, Enclosures, Railways, Roads, fyc., fyc.
ACCOUNT STAMP DUTY.— Gosset.— Vide " Stamp Duty."
ACTION AT LAW, — Foulkes' Elementary View of the Proceed-
ings in an Action in the Supreme Court, with a Chapter on
Matters and Arbitrations. — (Founded on "SMITH'S ACTION AT
LAW.") By W. D. I. FOULKES, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Third
Edition. Demy 12mo. 1884. 7*. 6d.

ADMIRALTY. — Roscoe's Admiralty Practice. — A Treatise on the
Jurisdiction and Practice of the Admiralty Division of the High
Court of Justice, and on Appeals therefrom, with a chapter on the
Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Inferior and the Vice- Admiralty Courts.
With an Appendix containing Statutes, Rules as to Fees and Costs,
Forms, Precedents of Pleadings and Bills of Costs. By E. S. KOSCOE,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. 1882. 11. 4».
ADVOCACY. — Harris' Hints on Advocacy.— Conduct of Cases Civil
and Criminal. Classes of Witnesses and Suggestions for Cross-
examining them, «fec., &c. By RICHARD HARRIS, one of her Majesty's
Counsel. Ninth Edition (with a new chapter on "Tactics").
Royal 12mo. 1889. 7*. 6d.

" The work is not merely instructive, it is exceedingly interesting and amusing.
. . . . We know of no better mode at present of learning some at least of an
advocate's duties than in studying this book and the methods of the most dis-
tinguished advocates of the day." — The Jurist.

" Full of good sense and just observation. A very complete Manual of the Advo-
cate's art in Trial by Jury." — Solicitors' Journal.

" A book at once entertaining and really instructive. . . Deserves to be carefully
read by the young barrister whose career is yet before him." — Law Magazine.

" We welcome it as an old friend, and strongly recommend it to the would-be advo-
cate."— Law Student's Journal.

* *

,* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

AGRICULTURAL LAW.— Beaumont's Treatise on Agricultural
Holdings and the Law of Distress as regulated by the Agri-
cultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, with Appendix containing
Full Text of the Act, and Precedents of Notices and Awards. By
JOSEPH BEAUMONT, Esq., Solicitor. Royal 12mo. 1883. 10s. 6d.

Cooke's Treatise on the Law and Practice of Agricultural
Tenancies, — New edition, in great part re- written with especial
reference to Unexhausted Improvements, with Modern Forms and
Precedents. By G-. PRIOR G-OLDNEY and "W. RUSSELL GRIFFITHS,
Esqs., Barristers-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1882. II. Is.

Dixon. — Vide "Farm."

Griffiths' Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, containing
an Introduction ; a Summary of the Act, with Notes ; the complete
text of the Act, with Forms, and a specimen of an Award under
the Act. By "W. RUSSELL GRIFFITHS, Esq., of the Midland Circuit.
Demy 8vo. 1883. 5*.

Spencer's Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, with
Explanatory Notes and Forms ; together with the Ground Game Act,
1880. Forming a Supplement to "Dixon's Law of the Farm." By
AUBREY J. SPENCER, B. A., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1883. 6s.

ALLOTMENTS.— Hall's Allotments Acts, 1887, with the Regulations
issued by the Local Government Board, and Introductory Chapters,
Notes, and Forms. By T. HALL HALL, Barrister-at-Law. Author
of "The Law of Allotments." Royal 12mo. 1888. 7s. Qd.

ANNUAL DIGEST.— Mews'.— Vide "Digest."

ANNUAL PRACTICE (THE). — The Annual Practice for

1891-92. Edited by THOMAS SNOW, Barrister-at-Law; CHARLES

BURNEY, a Chief Clerk of the Hon. Mr. Justice Chitty, Editor of

" Darnell's Chancery Forms" ; and F. A. STRINGER, of the Central

Office. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 1891. (Nearly ready.} 25s.

tf A book which every practising English lawyer must have." — Law Quarterly Eeview.

"Every member of the bar, in practice, and every London solicitor, at all events, finds

the last edition of the Annual Practice a necessity." — Solicitors' Journal.

ANNUAL STATUTES.— Le\y.— Vide « Statutes."
ARBITRATION.— Russell's Treatise on the Power and Duty of

an Arbitrator, and the Law of Submissions and Awards; with

an Appendix of Forms, and of the Statutes relating to Arbitration.

By FRANCIS RUSSELL, Esq., M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Seventh Edition.

By the Author and HERBERT RUSSELL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

Royal 8vo. 1891. ' 30*.

" Comprehensive, accurate, and practical." — Solicitors' Journal.

ARCHITECTS.— Macassey and Strahan.— Vide " Civil Engineers."

ARTICLED CLERKS.— Rubinstein and Ward's Articled Clerks'
Handbook. — Being a Concise and Practical Guide to all the Steps
Necessary for Entering into Articles of Clerkship, passing the Pre-
liminary, Intermediate, Final, and Honours Examinations, obtaining
Admission and Certificate to Practise, with Notes of Cases Third
Edit. By J. S. RUBINSTEIN and S. WARD, Solicitors. 12mo. 1881. 4s.
" No articled clerk should be without it." — Law Times.

ASSETS, ADMINISTRATION OF.— Eddis' Principles of the
Administration of Assets in Payment of Debts, — By ARTHUB
SHELLY EDDIS, one of Her Majesty's Counsel. DemySvo. 1880. 6*.

AVERAGE. — Hopkins' Hand-Book of Average, to which is added a
Chapter on Arbitration. — Fourth Edition. By MANLEY HOPKINS,
Esq. Demy 8vo. 1884. H 1*.

%* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 3

AVE RAG E— confirmed.

Lowndes' Law of General Average. — English and Foreign.
Fourth Edition. By RICHABD LOWNDES, Average Adjuster. Author
of " The Law of Marine Insurance," &c. Royal 8vo. 1883. II. 10*.
" The book is one which shows a mastery of its subject." — Solicitors' Journal.
" It may be confidently asserted that, whether for the purposes of the adjuster oj
the lawyer, Mr. Lowndes' work presents (in a style which is a model of clear and grace-
ful English) the most complete store of materials relating to the subject in every par-
ticular, as well as an excellent exposition of its principles." — Law Quarterly Review.

BALLOT. — Fitzgerald's Ballot Act. — "With an Introduction. Forming
a Guide to the Procedure at Parliamentary and Municipal Elections.
Second Edition. By GEEALD A. R. FITZOEBALD, Esq., Barrister-
at-Law Fcap. 8vo. 1876. 5*. 6rf.

BANKING.— Walker's Treatise on Banking Law. — Second Edition.
By J. D. WALXEE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1885. 15*.

BANKRUPTCY.— Chitty's Index, Vol. \.-Vide "Digests."
Lawrance's Precedents of Deeds of Arrangement between
Debtors and their Creditors ; including Forms of Resolutions for
Compositions and Schemes of Arrangement under the Bankruptcy
Acts. Fourth Edition. By H. AETHTJE SMITH, Esq., Barrister-at-
Law. (In the press.}
" The new edition of Mr. Lawrance's work is as concise, practical, and reliable as its
predecessors."— Law Times.

Williams' Law and Practice in Bankruptcy.— Comprising the
Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 to 1890, the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, 1890,
the Debtors Acts, 1869, 1878, the Bankruptcy (Discharge and Closure)
Act, 1887, and the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887. By the Hon.
Sir ROLAND VAUOHAN WILLIAMS, one of the Justices of Her Majesty's
High Court of Justice. Fifth Edition. By EDWAED WM. HANSELL,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Roy. 8vo. 1891. 25*.

" Almost indispensable to the general practitioner." — Law Gazette, April 23, 1891.

"Mr. Hansell has done his editorial work with evident care and industry." — Law
Times, May 2, 1891.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE.— Chalmers' Digest of the Law of Bills

of Exchange, Promissory Notes, Cheques and Negotiable

Securities. Fourth Edition. By His Honour Judge CHALMEES,

Draughtsman of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, &c. Demy 8vo.

1891. 18*.

" As for the main part of the work, the intimate connection of the author with the

subject for so many years is a guarantee of its value and completeness." — Law Journal,

July 11, 1891.

•' A safe and convenient guide to the existing law." — Law Gazette, June 18, 1891.
" This excellent work is unique. As a statement and explanation of the law, it will
be found singularly useful." — Solicitors' Journal.

BILLS OF SALE.— Fithian's Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 and 1882,
With an Introduction and Explanatory Notes, together with an
Appendix of Precedents, Rules of Court, Forms, and Statutes.
Second Edition. By EDWAED WILLIAM FITHIAN, Esq., Barrister-at-
Law. Royal 12mo. 1884. 6*.

BOOK-KEEPING.— Matthew Male's System of Book-keeping for
Solicitors, containing a List of all Books necessary, with a compre-
hensive description of their objects and uses for the purpose of
Drawing Bills of Costs and the rendering of Cash Accounts to clients ;
also showing how to ascertain Profits derived from the business ; with
an Appendix. Demy 8vo. 1884. bs. 6d.

"We think this is by far the most sensible, useful, practical little work on solicitors'
book-keeping that we have seen." — Law Students' Journal.

*«* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

A 2

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

BUILDING SOCIETIES,— Wurtzburg on Building Societies.—
The Acts relating to Building Societies, comprising the Act of 1836
and the Building Societies Acts, 1874, 1875, 1877, and 1884, and the
Treasury Regulations, 1884 ; with an Introduction, copious Notes,
and Precedents of Rules and Assurances. By E. A. WTTETZBTTEG,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1886. 7*. 6d.

" The work presents in brief, dear, and convenient form the whole law relating to

Building Societies."

CANALS.— Webster's Law Relating to Canals : Comprising a Trea-
tise on Navigable Rivers and Canals, together with the Procedure
and Practice in Private Bill Legislation ; with a coloured Map of the
existing Canals and Navigations in England and Wales. By ROBEET
G. WBBSTEE, M.P., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1885. \l. \s.
Street. — Vide " Company Law."

CARRIERS. — Carver's Treatise on the Law relating to the Car-
riage of Goods by Sea. — Second Edition. By THOMAS GILBEET
CAEVEE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1891. 11. 12s.

" A. careful and accurate treatise." — Law Quarterly Review.
Macnamara's Law of Carriers. — A Digest of the Law of Carriers
of Goods and Passengers by Land and Internal Navigation, including
the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. — By WAI/TEE HENEY
MACNAMAEA, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Registrar to
the Railway Commission. Royal 8vo. 1888. II. 8s.

"Mr. Macnamara seems to have done his work soundly and industriously, and to
have produced a book which will be useful to practitioners in a large class of cases. "-
Saturday Review, June 15, 1889.

" 4- complete epitome of the law relating to carriers of every class." — Railway Press.

"We cordially approve of the general plan and execution of this work The

general arrangement of the book is good." — Solicitors' Journal, March 9, 1889.

" Should find a place in the library of all railway men. The work is written in a terse,
clear style, and is well arranged for speedy reference." — Railway News, Dec. 8, 1888.

CHAMBER PRACTICE.— Archibald's Practice at Judges' Cham-
bers and in the District Registries in the Queen's Bench
Division, High Court of Justice ; with Forms of Summonses and
Orders. Second Edition. By W. F. A. ABCHIBALD, Esq., Bar-
rister-at-Law, and P. E. VIZAED, of the Summons and Order De-
partment, Royal Courts of Justice. Royal 12mo. 1886. 15s.

CHANCERY, and Vide "Equity."

DanielPs Chancery Practice. — The Practice of the Chancery Division
of the High Court of Justice and on appeal therefrom. Sixth Edit.
By L. FIELD, E. C. DUNN, andT. RIBTON, assisted by W. H. UPJOHN,
Barristers-at-Law. 2 vols. in 3 parts. Demy 8vo. 1882-84. 61. 6s.

Daniell's Forms and Precedents of Proceedings in the Chancery
Division of the High Court of Justice and on Appeal there-
from. Fourth Edition. With Summaries of the Rules of the
Supreme Court, Practical Notes and References to the Sixth Edition of
"Daniell's Chancery Practice." By CHAELES BUENEY, B.A. Oxon., a
Chief Clerk of the Hon. Mr. Justice Chitty. Royal 8vo. 1885. 21. Ws.

Morgan's Chancery Acts and Orders. — The Statutes, Rules of
Court and General Orders relating to the Practice and Jurisdiction
of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice and the Court
of Appeal. With Copious Notes. Sixth Edition. By the Right
Hon. GEOEGE OSBOENE MOEGAN, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and
E. A. WUBTZBTJEG, Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1885. U. 10*.

Peel's Chancery Actions. — A Concise Treatise on the Practice and
Procedure in Chancery Actions under the Rules of the Supreme
Court, 1883. Third Edition. By SYDNEY PEEL, Esq., Barrister-
at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1883. 8*. 6d.
%* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 6

CHARITABLE TRUSTS.— Mitcheson's Charitable Trusts.— The
Jurisdiction of the Charity Commission ; being the Acts conferring
such jurisdiction, 1853 — 1883, with Introductory Essays and Notes
on the Sections. By RICHABD EDMUND MITCHESON, Esq., Barrister-
at-Law. Demy 8vo- 1887. 18*.
" A very neat and serviceable hand-book of the Law of the Charity Commissioners."

— Law Journal.

CHARTER PARTI ES.-Carver.— Fufo "Carriers." Wood,— Vide
" Mercantile Law."

CIVIL ENGINEERS.— Macassey and Strahan's Law relating to
Civil Engineers, Architects and Contractors. — Primarily in-
tended for their own use. By L. LIVINGSTON MACABSEY and J. A.
STEAHAN, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1890. 10*. 6d.

COAL MINES.— Chisholm's Manual of the Coal Mines Regulation
ACT, 1887. — With Introduction, Explanatory and Practical Notes
and References to Decisions in England and Scotland, Appendix of
Authorized Forms, Particulars as to Examinations for Certificates, &c..
and a copious Index. By JOHN C. CHISHOLM, Secretary to the Midland
and East Lothian Coalmasters' Association. DemySvo. 1888. Is. Gd.

COLLISIONS.— Marsden's Treatise on the Law of Collisions at
Sea. — With an Appendix containing Extracts from the Merchant
Shipping Acts, the International Regulations for preventing Col-
lisions at Sea ; and local Rules for the same purpose in force in the
Thames, the Mersey, and elsewhere. By REGINALD G. MABSDEN,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Third Edition. By the Author and the
Hon. J. W. MANSFIELD, Barrister-at-Law. DemySvo. 1891. II. 5*.
" Mr. Marsden's work has by this time taken its place as one of the standard book*
on its subject. It is clear in statement and careful in summarizing the results of deci-
sions."— Solicitors' Journal, May 16, 1891.

COMMERCIAL LAW.— The French Code of Commerce and
most usual Commercial Laws. — With a Theoretical and Practical
Commentary, and a Compendium of the Judicial Organization and
of the Course of Procedure before the Tribunals of Commerce ; to-
gether with the text of the law ; the most recent decisions, and a
glossary of French judicial terms. By L. GOIEAND, Licencie en
droit. Demy 8vo. 1880. 21. 2*.

COMMON LAW.— Ball's Short Digest of the Common Law; being
the Principles of Torts and Contracts. Chiefly founded upon the Works
of Addison, with Illustrative Cases, for the use of Students. By W.
EDMUND BALL, LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1880. 16*.

Chitty's Archbold's Practice of the Queen's Bench Division of
the High Court of Justice and on Appeal therefrom to the
Court of Appeal and House of Lords in Civil Proceedings,
Fourteenth Edition. By THOMAS WILLES CHITTY, assisted by J. ISr.
L. LESLIE, Barristers-at-Law. 2vols. DemySvo. 1885. 3/. 13*.6rf.

Napier's Concise Practice of the Queen's Bench and Chancery
Divisions and of the Court of Appeal, with an Appendix of
Questions on the Practice, and intended for the use of Students. By
T.BATEMAN NAPIEB, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. DemySvo. 1884. 10*.

Shirley. — Vide " Leading Cases."

Smith's Manual of Common Law. — For Practitioners and Students.
Comprising the Fundamental Principles, with useful Practical Rules
and Decisions. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C. Tenth Edition.
By J. TEUSTEAM, LL.M., Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1887. 14*.

Chitty's Forms.— Vide " Forms."
*„• All standard law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other binding ^

6

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

COMMON LAW— continued.

Fisher's Digest of Reported Decisions in all the Courts, with
a Selection from the Irish ; and references to the Statutes, Rules
and Orders of Courts from 1756 to 1883. Compiled and arranged by
JOHN MEWS, assisted by C. M. CHAPMAN, HABEY H. W. SPAEHAM and
A. H. TODD, Barristers-at-Law. In7vols. Royal 8vo. 1884. 121. 12s.
Mews' Consolidated Digest of all the Reports in all the Courts,
for the years 1884-88, inclusive. By JOHN MEWS, Barrister-at-
Law. Royal 8vo. 1889. 11. Us. 6d.
The Annual Digest for 1889 and 1890. By JOHN MEWS. Each,l5s.
%* The above works bring Fisher's Common Law and Chitty's Equity

Digests down to end of 1890.

COMMONS AND INCLOSURES.— Chambers' Digest of the Law
relating to Commons and Open Spaces, including Public Parks
and Recreation Grounds. By GEOEGE F. CHAMBEES, Esq., Barrister-
at-Law. Imperial 8vo. 1877. 6s. 6d.
COMPANY LAW.— Hamilton's Manual of Company Law: For
Directors and Promoters. Being a Treatise upon the nature of
Trading Corporations, the Rights, Duties, and Liabilities of Direc-
tors and Promoters (including their Liabilities under the Directors
Liability Act, 1890), the Appointment and Removal of Directors, the
Powers of Directors, and the Law of Ultra Vires. By WILLIAM
FEEDEEICK HAMILTON, LL.D. (Lond.), assisted by KENNAED GOLBOENE
METCALFE, M. A., Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. DemySvo. 1891. 12s. 6d.
" The work is executed throughout with great care and accuracy .... may be safely
recommended as a most useful manual of the law with which it deals." — Law Gazette.
Palmer's Private Companies and Syndicates, their Formation and
Advantages ; being a Concise Popular Statement of the Mode of Con-
verting a Business into a Private Company, and of establishing and
working Private Companies and Syndicates for Miscellaneous Pur-
poses. Ninth Edition. By F. B. PALMEE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
12mo. 1891. Net Is.
Palmer. — Fide "Conveyancing" and "Winding-up."
Palmer's Shareholders' and Directors' Legal Companion. — A
Manual of Every-day Law and Practice for Promoters, Shareholders,
Directors, Secretaries, Creditors and Solicitors of Companies under
the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890, with an Appendix on the Con-
version of Business Concerns into Private Companies, and on the
Directors Liability Act, 1890. llth edit. By F. B. PALMEE, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1890. Net, 2s. 6d.
Street's Law relating to Public Statutory Undertakings: com-
prising Railway Companies, Water, Gas, and Canal Companies, Har-
bours, Docks, &c., with special reference to Modern Decisions. By J.
BAMFIELD STEEET, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. DemySvo. 1890. 10s. 6d.
" This book contains in a small compass a large amount of useful information : its
style is clear and its arrangement good." — Solicitors' Journal, November 1, 1890.

Thring. — Vide "Joint Stocks."

COMPENSATION.— Cripps' Treatise on the Principles of the

Law of Compensation. Second Edition. By C. A. CEIPPS, Esq.,

Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1884. 16*.

COMPOSITION DEEDS.— Lawrance.— F^ "Bankruptcy."

CONTINGENT REMAINDERS.-An Epitome of Fearne on

Contingent Remainders and Executory Devises. Intended

for the Use of Students. By W. M. C. Post 8vo. 1878. 6s. 6d.

CONTRACTS.— Addison on Contracts. Being a Treatise on the

Law of Contracts. Eightn Edition. By HOEACE SMITH, Esq.,

Barrister-at-Law. Royal Svo. 1883. 21. 10s.

"A satisfactory guide to the vast storehouse of decisions on contract law." Sol. Jour.

%* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock , in law calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.O. 7

CO N T R ACTS— continued.

Fry. — Vide "Specific Performance."

Leake on Contracts. — An Elementary Digest of the Law of Con«

tracts. By STEPHEN MARTIN T^ATR, Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo.

1878. H. 188.

Pollock's Principles of Contract.— Being a Treatise on the General

Principles relatng to the Validity of Agreements in the Law of

England. Fifth Edition, with a new Chapter. By Sir FREDERICK

POLLOCK, Bart., Barrister- at -Law, Professor of Common Law in

the Inns of Court, &c. DemySvo. 1889. II. 8s.

" The reputation of the book stands so high that it is only necessary to announce the

publication of the fifth edition, adding that the work has been thoroughly revised."—

Law Journal, Dec, 14, 1889.

Smith's Law of Contracts.— Eighth Edition. By V. T. TUOHPSOX,
Esq., Barrister- at- Law. Demy 8vo. 1885. II. Is.

CONVEYANCI NG.— Dart.— Vide " Vendors and Purchasers."

Greenwood's Manual of Conveyancing. — A Manual of the
Practice of Conveyancing, showing the present Practice relating to
the daily routine of Conveyancing in Solicitors' Offices. To which
are added Concise Common Forms and Precedents in Conveyancing.
Eighth Edition. Edited by HARRY GREENWOOD, M.A., LL.D., Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1891. 1G*.

" That this work has reached its eighth edition is sufficient evidence of the fact that
it is one of those books which no lawyer's bookshelf should be without. Recent Acts
have necessitated several changes which have been carried out, and cases are cited up
to date. The book is a complete guide to Conveyancing, and, though the author saya
that it is intended for students and articled and other clerks, we can fearlessly assert
that those who would perhaps consider it an insult to be mistaken for- students will
find in it very much that is useful. The Table of Precedents could not, we imagine,
be made more complete than it is. Where and how the author obtained his inf ormati< >n
is a perfect puzzle to us, and no conceivable state of affairs seems to have been left
unprovided for." — Law Gazette, December 4, 1890.

" "We should like to see it placed by his principal in the hands of every articled clerk.
One of the most useful practical works we have ever seen." — Law Students' Journal.

Morris's Patents Conveyancing. — Being a Collection of Precedents
in Conveyancing in relation to Letters Patent for Inventions.
Arranged as follows: — Common Forms, Agreements, Assignments,
Mortgages, Special Clauses, Licences, Miscellaneous ; Statutes, Rules,
&c. With Dissertations and Copious Notes on the Law and Prac-
tice. By ROBERT MORRIS, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo.
1887. 11. o.v.

" Contains valuable dissertations, and useful notes on the subject with which it

deals We think it would be difficult to suggest a form which is not to be met

with or capable of being prepared from the book before us. To those whose business
lies in the direction of letters patent and inventions it will be found of great service. . . .
Mr. Morris' forms seem to us to be well selected, well arranged, and thoroughly prac-
tical."— Law Times.

Palmer's Company Precedents. — For use in relation to Companies
subject to the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890. Arranged as
follows : — Promoters, Prospectus, Agreements, Memoranda and
Articles of Association, Resolutions, Notices, Certificates, Private
Companies, Power of Attorney, Debentures and Debenture Stock,
Petitions, "Writs, Pleadings, Judgments and Orders, Reconstruc-
tion, Amalgamation, Arrangements, Special Acts, Provisional
Orders, "Winding-up. With Copious Notes and an Appendix con-
taining the Acts and Rules. Fifth Edition. By FRANCIS BEAUFORT
PALMER, assisted by CHARLES MACNAQHTEN, Esqrs., Barristers-at-
Law. Royal 8vo. 1891. I/. 16*.

" No company lawyer can afford to be without it." — Law Journal, April 25. 1891.
"*As regards company drafting — as we remarked on a former occasion— it is un-
rivalled."— Law Times.

%* All standard Law Works are "kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

8

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

CONVEYANCING— continued.

Prideaux's Precedents in Conveyancing — With Dissertations on
its Law and Practice. Fourteenth Edition. By FBEDEEICK PEI-
DEATJX, late Professor of the Law of Real and Personal Property to
the Inns of Court, and JOHN WHITCOMBE, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law.
2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1889. 31. 10s.

" The most useful work out on Conveyancing1." — Law Journal.
" This work is accurate, concise, clear, and comprehensive in scope, and we know of
no treatise upon conveyancing which is so generally useful to the practitioner." — Law
Times.

Turner's Duties of Solicitor to Client as to Partnership Agree-
ments, Leases, Settlements, and Wills. — By EDWARD F.
TURNER, Solicitor, Lecturer on Real Property and Conveyancing,
Author of " The Duties of Solicitor to Client as to Sales, Purchases,
and Mortgages of Land." (Published by permission of the Council
of the Incorporated Law Society.) Demy 8vo. 1884. 10s. 6d.

" The work has our full approval, and will, we think, be found a valuable addition

the student's library," — Law Students' Journal.

ONVICTIONS.— Paley's Law and Practice of Summary Con-
victions under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, 1848 and
1879; including Proceedings preliminary and subsequent to Con-
victions, and the responsibility of convicting Magistrates and their
Officers, with Forms. Sixth Edition. By W. H.MACNAMABA, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law . Demy 8vo. 1879. II 4s.

COPYRIGHT.— Slater's Law relating to Copyright and Trade
Marks, treated more particularly with Reference to Infringe-
ment ; forming a Digest of the more important English and Ameri-
can decisions, together with the Practice of the English Courts, &c.
By JOHN HEEBEET SLATEE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1884. 18s.

CORONERS.— Jervis on the Office and Duties of Coroners. —

The Coroners Act, 1887. With Forms and Precedents. By R. E.

MELSHEIMEE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Being the Fifth Edition of

" Jervis on Coroners." Post 8vo. 1888. 10s. 6^.

" The present edition will hold the place of that occupied by its predecessors, and

will continue to be the standard work on the subject." — Law Times.

COSTS. — Morgan and Wurtzburg's Treatise on the Law of Costs
in the Chancery Division. — Second Edition. With Forms and
Precedents. By the Rt. Hon. GEOEGE OSBOENE MOEGAN, Q.C., and
E. A. WUETZBUEG, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. DemySvo. 1882. 11. 10s.

Summerhays and Toogood's Precedents of Bills of Costs in
the Chancery, Queen's Bench, Probate, Divorce and Ad-
miralty Divisions of the High Court of Justice; in Conveyancing;
the Crown Office ; Bankruptcy ; Lunacy ; Arbitration under the
Lands Clauses Consolidation Act; the Mayor's Court, London ; the
County Courts ; the Privy Council ; and on Passing Residuary and
Succession Accounts ; with Scales of Allowances and Court Fees ;
Rules of Court relating to Costs ; Forms of Affidavits of Increase,
and of Objections to Taxation. By WM. FEANK StnotEEHAYS,
and THOENTON TOOGOOD, Solicitors. Sixth Edition. By THOENTON
TOOGOOD, Solicitor. Royal 8vo. 1889. II. 8s.

Summerhays and Toogood's Precedents of Bills of Costs in
the County Courts. Royal 8vo. 1889. 5s.

Scott's Costs in the High Court of Justice and other Courts,
Fourth Edition. By JOHN SCOTT, of the Inner Temple, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1880. II. 6s.

Webster's Parliamentary Costs. — Private Bills, Election Petitions,
Appeals, House of Lords. Fourth Edition. By C. CAVANAGH, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. 1881. 20*.

*tt* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.O. 9

COUNTY COUNCILS.— Bazalgette and Humphreys, Chambers.
— Vide "Local and Municipal Government."

COUNTY COURTS.— Pitt-Lewis' County Court Practice,— A
Complete Practice of the County Courts, including that in Admiral »y
and Bankruptcy, embodying the County Courts Act, 1888, and other
existing Acts, Rules, Forms and Costs, with Full Alphabetical Index
to Official Forms, Additional Forms and General Index. Fourth
Edition. With Supplementary Volume containing the NEW WINDINQ-
TTP PBACTICE. By G. PITT-LEWIS, Esq., Q.C., M.P., Recorder of
Poole. 3 vols. DemySvo. 1890-91. 21. 10*.

%* The Supplement sold separately. Is. Gd.

"A complete practice of the County Courte." — Law Journal, March 22, 1890.
" The present edition of this work fully maintains its reputation as the standard
County Court Practice." — Solicitors' Journal, March 29, 1890.

Pitt-Lewis' County Courts Act, 1888.— With Introduction, Tabular
Indices to consolidated Legislation, Notes, and an Index to the Act.
Second Edition. By GEORGE PITT-LEWIS, Esq., Q.C., Author of "A
Complete Practice of the County Courts." Imperial 8 vo. 1889. 5*.
%* The above, with THE COUNTY COUET RULES, 1889. Official
copy. Limp binding. 10s. Gd.

Summerhays and Toogood. — Vide11 Costs."

COVENANTS.— Hamilton's Law of Covenants.— A Concise Treatise

on the Law of Covenants. By G. BALDWIN HAMILTON, of the Inner

Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1888. Is. Gd.

" A handy volume -written with clearness, intelligence, and accuracy, and will be

useful to the profession." — Law Times.

CRIMINAL LAW. — Archbold's Pleading and Evidence in Criminal
Cases. — With the Statutes, Precedents of Indictments, &c., and the
Evidence necessary to support them. Twentieth Edition. By
WILLIAM BEUCE, Esq., Stipendiary Magistrate for the Borough of
Leeds. Royal I2mo. 1886. 11. Us. 6d.

Mews' Digest of Cases relating to Criminal Law from 1756 to
1883, inclusive. — By JOHN MEWS, assisted by C. M. CHAPMAN,
HABBY H. W. SPABHAM, and A. H. TODD, Barristers-at-Law. Royal
8vo. 1884. 11. Is.

Phillips' Comparative Criminal Jurisprudence. — Vol. I. Penal
Law. Vol. II. Criminal Procedure. By H. A. D. PHILLIPS, Bengal
Civil Service. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 1889. 11. 4*.

Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases. —
Eleventh Edition. By HORACE SMITH and GILBEET GEOBOE KEN-
NEDY, Esqrs., Metropolitan Magistrates. DemySvo. 1890. ll.lls.6d.
" To the criminal lawyer it is his guide, philosopher and friend. "What Roscoe says
moat judges will accept without question. . . . Every addition has been made necessary
to make the digest efficient, accurate, and complete." — Law Times.

Russell's Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors. —Fifth Edi-
tion. By SAMUEL PBENTICE, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel,
3 vols. Royal 8vo. 1877. bl. 15*. 6d.

" What better Digest of Criminal Law sould we possibly hope for than ' Kussell on
Crimes ' T" — Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Speech on Codification.

Shirley's Sketch of the Criminal Law. — By W. S. SHIBLEY, Esq.,

Barrister- at- Law. Second Edition. By CHARLES STEPHEN HUNTKE,

Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1889. 7s. 6d.

As a primary introduction to Criminal Law, it will be found very acceptable to

students.— Law Students' Journal.

Shirley, — Vide " Leading Cases." Thring, — Vifo "Navy."

*0* All ttandard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

B

10

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

bs.Qd.

7 0

6 6

8 0

7 6

DECISIONS OF SIR GEORGE JESS EL— Peter's Analysis and
Digest of the Decisions of Sir George Jessel ; with Notes, &cx
By APSLEY PETRE PETER, Solicitor. Demy 8vo. 1883. 16s.

DIARY.— Lawyer's Companion (The), Diary, and Law Directory
for 1892. — For the use of the Legal Profession, Public Companies,
Justices, Merchants, Estate Agents, Auctioneers, &c., &c. Edited
by EDWIN LAYMAN, B.A., of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-
Law ; and contains Tables of Costs in the High Court of Judica-
ture and County Court, &c. ; Monthly Diary of County, Local
Government, and Parish Business; Oaths in Supreme Court; List
of Statutes of 1891 ; Alphabetical Index to the Practical Statutes
since 1820; the New Schedule of Stamp Duties ; Legal Time,
Interest, Discount, Income, Wages and other Tables ; Probate,
Legacy and Succession Duties ; and a variety of matters of practical
utility : together with a complete List of the English Bar, and London
and Country Solicitors, with date of admission and appointments.
PUBLISHED ANNUALLY. Forty-sixth Issue. 1892. (Pub. about Nov. I.)
Issued in the following forms, octavo size, strongly bound in cloth :

1 . Two days on a page, plain .......

2. The above, INTERLEAVED for ATTENDANCES

3. Two days on a page, ruled, with or without money columns

4. The above, with money columns, INTERLEAVED for ATTENDANCES
6. Whole page for each day, plain .....

6. The above, INTERLEAVED for ATTENDANCES . . . .96

7. Whole page for each day, ruled, with or without money columns 8 6

8. The above, INTERLEAVED for ATTENDANCES . . . 10 &

9. Three days on a page, ruled blue lines, without money columns . 5 0

The Diary contains memoranda of Legal Business throughout the Year.
" Contains all the information which could be looked for in such a work, and gives it
in a most convenient form and very completely." — Solicitors' Journal.

" The ' Lawyer's Companion and Diary ' is a book that ought to be in the possession
of every lawyer, and of every man of business."

" The ' Lawyer's Companion ' is, indeed, what it is called, for it combines everything
required for reference in the lawyer's office." — Law Times.

" The practitioner will find in these pages, not only all that he might reasonably
expect to find, but a great deal more." — Law Journal, December 6, 1890.

"It should be in the hands of all members of both branches of the profession." —
Law Gazette, November 27, 1890.

" The thousand and one things that one needs constantly to know and yet can never
remember, will be found handily arranged for immediate reference." — Pump Court.

" This legal Whitaker is a noble work, and no lawyer has any right to want to know
anything — except law, which it would not tell him." — Saturday fieview.
DICTIONARY. — The Pocket Law Lexicon. — Explaining Technical
Words, Phrases and Maxims of the English, Scotch and Roman Law,
to which is added a complete List of Law Reports, with their Abbre-
' viations. Second Edition, Enlarged. By HENRY G. RAWSON, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. Fcap. 8vo. 1884. 6s. 6d.

"A wonderful little legal Dictionary." — Indermaur's Law Students' Journal.
" A very handy, complete, and useful little work." — Saturday Review.
Wharton's Law Lexicon. — Forming an Epitome of the Law of Eng-
land, and containing full Explanations of the Technical Terms and
Phrases thereof, both Ancient and Modern; including the various
Legal Terms used in Commercial Business. Together with a Trans-
lation of the Latin Law Maxims and selected Titles from the Civil,
Scotch and Indian Law. Ninth Edition. By J. M. LELY, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. Super-royal 8vo. (In preparation.)

" On almost every point both student and practitioner can gather information from
this invaluable book, which ought to be in every lawyer's office." — Gibson's Law Notes.
" One of the first books which every articled clerk and bar student should procure."
—Law Students' Journal.

" As it now stands the Lexicon contains all it need contain, and to those who value
•uch a work it is made more valuable still." — Law Times.
\* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 11

DIGESTS.— Chitty's Index to all the Reported Cases decided in the
several Courts of Equity in England, the Privy Council, and the
House of Lords, with a selection of Irish Cases, on or relating to the
Principles, Pleading, and Practice of Equity and Bankruptcy from
the earliest period. Fourth Edition. Wholly Revised, Re-classified,
and brought down to the End of 1883. By HENRY EDWARD HIHST,
Barrister-at-Law. Complete in 9 vols. Roy. 8vo. 1883-89. 12/. 12«.
V* The volumes sold separately; Vols. I., II., III., V., VI., VII. and
VIII. Each, 11. lit. 6d. Vol. IV., 21. 2s. Vol. IX., Names of
Cases, II, Is.

" A work indispensable to every bookcase in Lincoln's Inn." — Law Quarterly Review.
" The practitioner can hardly afford to do without such a weapon as Mr. Hirst
supplies, because if he does not use it probably his opponent will." — Law Journal.

'* We think that we owe it to Mr. Hirst to say that on each occasion when a volume
of his book comes before us we exert some diligence to try and find an omission in it,
and we apply tests which are generally successful with ordinary text-writers, but not so
with Mr. Hirst. At present we have not been able to find a flaw in his armour. We
conclude, therefore, that he is an unusually a ccurata and diligent compiler." — Law Times.

Dale and Lehmann's Digest cf Casas, Overruled, Not Followed,

Disapproved, Approved, Distinguished, Commented on and

specially considered in the English Courts from the Year

1 756 to 1 886 i ncl usive, arranged according to alphabetical order of

their subjects ; together with Extracts from the Judgments delivered

thereon, and a complete Index of the Cases, in which are included

all Cases reversed from the year 1856. By CHAS. WM. MITCAI, VB DALE,

and RUDOLF CHAMBERS LEHMANN, assisted by CHAS. H. L. NEISH, and

HERBEBT H. CHILD, Barristers-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1887. '21. 10s.

(Forms a Supplement to Chitty's Equity Index and Fisher* s Common Law Uig.)

" One of the best works of reference to be found in any library." — Law Times.

" The work has been carefully executed, and is likely to be of much service to the

practitioner." — Solicitors' Journal.

" The book is divided into two parts, the first consisting of an alphabetical index of
the cases contained in the Digest presented in a tabular form, showing at a glance how,
where, and by what judges they have been considered. The second portion of the book
comprises the Digest itself, and bears marks of the great labour and research bestowed
upon it by the compilers." — Law Journal.

Fisher's Digest of the Reported Decisions of the Courts of

Common Law, Bankruptcy, Probate, Admiralty, and Divorce,

together with a Selection from those of the Court of Chancery

and I rish Cou rts from 1756 to 1883 inclusive. Founded on Fisher's

Digest. By J. MEWS, assisted by C. M. CHAPMAN, H. H. W. SPARHAM,

and A. H. TODD, Barristers-at-Law. 7 vols. Roy. 8vo. 1884. 121. 12s.

" To the common lawyer it is, in our opinion, the most useful work he can possess.

—Law Times.

Mews' Consolidated Digest of all the Reports in all the Courts,
for the Years 1884-88 inclusive.— By JOHN MEWS, Barrister-at-
Law. Royal 8vo. 1889. II. Us. 6d.
" This work is an indispensable companion to the new edition of Chitty's Digest,

which ends with 1888, and also Fisher's Digest ending with the same year The

work appears to us to be exceedingly well done." — Solicitors' Journal.

The Annual Digest for1889 and 1890. By JOHN MEWS. Each, 15s.
*0* The above Works bring Fisher's Common Law and Chitty's Equity

Digests down to end of 1890.

Talbot and Fort's Index of Cases Judicially noticed (1865— 1890);

being a List of all Cases cited in Judgments reported in the " Law

Reports," "Law Journal," "Law Times," and "Weekly Re-

porter," from Michaelmas Term, 1865 to the end of 1890, with the

places where they are so cited. — By GEOBQE JOHN TAT/ROT and

HUGH FORT, Barristers-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1891. 25*.

" Talbot and Fort is forthwith established in our revolving bookcase side by side

with ' Dale and Lehinann.' " — Law Quarterly Review, July, 1891.

%* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

B2

12

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

DISCOVERY,— Hare's Treatise on the Discovery of Evidence. —
Second Edition. By SHERLOCK HAEE, Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo.
1877. 12«.

SicheJ and Chance's Discovery. — The Law relating to Interroga-
tories, Production, Inspection of Documents, and Discovery, as well
in the Superior as in the Inferior Courts, together with an Appendix
of the Acts, Forms and Orders. By WALTER S. SICHEL, and WILLIAM
CHANCE, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1883. 12*.

DISTRESS.— Oldham and Foster on the Law of Distress.— A
Treatise on the Law of Distress, with an Appendix of Forms, Table
of Statutes, &c. Second Edition. By ARTHUR OLDHAM and A. LA
TROBE FOSTER, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1889. 18s.
" This is a useful book, because it embraces the whole range of the remedy by dis-
tress, not merely distress for rent, but also for damage feasant, tithes, poor and highway
rates and taxes, and many other matters." — Solicitors' Journal.

DISTRICT REGISTRIES.— Archibald.— Vide " Chamber Practice."

DIVORCE. — Browne and Powles' Law and Practice in Divorce

and Matrimonial Causes. Fifth Edition. By L. D. POWLES, Esq.,

Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1889. II. 6s.

"The practitioner's standard work on divorce practice." — Law Quarterly Review.

" Mr. Powles' edition cites all the necessary information for bringing the book down

to date, supplies an excellent index, on which he has spent much pains, and maintains

the position which Browne's Divorce Treatise has held for many years." — Law Journal.

Winter's Manual of the Law and Practice of Divorce.— By
DUNCAN CLERK WINTER, Solicitor. (Reprinted from " The Jurist.")
Crown 8vo. 1889. Net, 2s. Gel.

DOGS. — Lupton's Law relating to Dogs.— By FREDERICK LUPTON,

Solicitor. Royal 12mo. 1888. 5s.

" Within the pages of this work the reader will find every subject connected with the

law relating to dogs touched upon, and the information given appears to be both

exhaustive and correct." — Law Times.

DOMICIL. — Dicey's Le Statut Personnel anglais ou la Loi du
Domicile. — Ouvrage traduit et complete d'apres les derniers arrets
des Cours de Justice de Londres, et par la comparaison avec le Code
Napoleon et les Diverses Legislations du Continent. Par EMILE
STOCQUART, Avocat a la Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles. 2 Tomes.
Demy 8vo. 1887-88. 11. 4s.

EASEMENTS.— Goddard's Treatise on the Law of Easements.—
BY JOHN LEYBOURN GODDARD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Fourth
Edition. Demy 8vo. 1891. 11, Is.

" An indispensable part of the lawyer's library." — Solicitors' Journal.
" The book is invaluable : where the cases are silent the author has taken pains to
ascertain what the law would be if brought into question." — Law Journal.

"Nowhere has the subject been treated so exhaustively, and, we may add, so
scientifically, as by Mr. Goddard. We recommend it to the most careful study of the
law student, as well as to the library of the practitioner." — Law Time-s.

Innes' Digest of the English Law of Easements. Third Edition.
By Mr. JUSTICE INNES, lately one of the Judges of Her Majesty's
High Court of Judicature, Madras. Royal 12mo. 1884. 6*.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.— Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law of the
Church of England. With Supplement. By the Right. Hon. Sir
ROBERT PHILLIMORE, D.C.L. 2 vols. 8vo. 1873-76. (Published
at 31. 7s. 6d.) Reduced to net, II. 10s.

ELECTION IN EQUITY.— Serrell's Equitable Doctrine of
Election. By GEORGE SERRELL, M.A., LL.D., Esq., Barrister-at-
Law. Royal 12mo. 1891. 7*. 6d.
" The work is well executed, and will be of service to all who desire to master the
doctrine of election." — Law Journal.

%* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 13

ELECTIONS.— Loader's The Candidate's and Election Agent's
Guide; for Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, with an Ap-
pendix of Forms and Statutes. By JOHN LOADEB, Esq., Barrister-
at-Law. Demy 12mo. 1885. 7*. 6d.

" The book is a thoroughly practical ono." — Solicitor? Journal.

Rogers on Elections. — In two parts.

Part I. REGISTRATION, including the Practice in Registration Appeals ;
Parliamentary, Municipal, and Local Government ; with Appendices
of Statutes, Orders in Council, and Forms. Fifteenth Edition. By
MAURICE POWELL, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister- at- Law.
Royal 12mo. 1890. II. la.

" The practitioner will find -within these covers everything which he can be expected
to know, well arranged and carefully stated." — Law Times, July 12, 1890.

Part II. ELECTIONS AND PETITIONS. Parliamentary and Municipal,
with an Appendix of Statutes and Forms. Fifteenth Edition. In-
corporating all the Decisions of the Election Judges, with Statutes to
June, 1886, and a new and exhaustive Index. By JOHN COKKIE
CARTER, and J. S. SANDARS, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Royal 12mo.
1886. 11. Is.

" A very satisfactory treatise on election law .... his chapters on election
expenses and illegal practices are well arranged, and tersely expressed. The com-
pleteness and peneral character of the book as regards the old law are too well known
to need description." — Solicitors' Journal.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING. — Bazalgette and Humphreys, — Vide

"Local and Municipal Government."

Cunynghame's Treatise on the Law of Electric Lighting, with
the Acts of Parliament, and Rules and Orders of the Board of Trade,
a Model Provisional Order, and a set of Forms, to which is added a
Description of the Principal Apparatus used in Electric Lighting,
with Illustrations. By HENRY CUNYNOHAME, Barrister-at-Law.
Royal 8vo. 1883. 12*. 6rf.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY.— Firth's Law relating to the Liability
of Employers for Injuries suffered by their Servants in the
course of their Employment.— By T. "W. STAPLEE FIRTH,
Solicitor (The Sir Henry James Prize Essay) . Demy 8vo. 1890.
EQUITY, and Vide CHANCERY. Net 2s. 6d.

Chitty's Index.— Vide "Digests."
Mews' Digest. — Vide " Digests."
Serrell. — Vide "Election in Equity."

Seton's Forms of Decrees, Judgments, and Orders in the High

Court of Justice and Courts of Appeal, having especial reference

to the Chancery Division, with Practical Notes. Fourth Edition.

2 vols. in 3. Royal 8vo. 1877—1879. Reduced to net 30*.

Shearwood's Introduction to the Principles of Equity. By

JOSEPH A. SHEARWOOD, Author of "A Concise Abridgment of Real

and Personal Property, " &c., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1885. 6*.

Smith's Manual of Equity Jurisprudence. — A Manual of Equity

Jurisprudence for Practitioners and Students, founded on the Works

of Story, Spence, and other writers, comprising the Fundamental

Principles and the points of Equity usually occurring in General

Practice. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, Q.C. Fourteenth Edition. By J.

TRUSTRAM, LL.M., Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1889. 12*. 6rf.

" Still holds its own as the most popular first book of equity jurisprudence, and one

•which every student must of necessity read." — Law Journal, September 21, 1889.

" It will be found as useful to the practitioner as to the student." — Solicitor? Journal.

"A book that must very nearly be learnt by heart." — The Jurist, September, 1889.

•' We still think that the student of Equity will do well to read the book of the late

Mr. Josiah Smith, especially now that a new edition has appeared." — Law Note*,

September, 1889.

%* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other binding 4.

14

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

EQ U I TY — continued.

Smith's Practical Exposition of the Principles of Equity, illus-
trated by the Leading Decisions thereon. For the use of Students
and Practitioners. Second Edition. By H. ARTHUR SMITH, M.A.,
LL.B., Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1888. lls.

" This excellent practical exposition of the principles of equity is a work one can
well recommend to students either for the bar or the examinations of the Incorporated
Law Society. It will also be found equally valuable to the busy practitioner. It con-
tains a mass of information well arranged, and is illustrated by all the leading deci-
sions. All the legislative changes that have occurred since the publication of the first
edition have been duly incorporated in the present issue." — Law Times.

ESTOPPEL. — Everest and Strode's Law of Estoppel. By LANCELOT
FIELDING EVEEKST, and EDMUND STEODE, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law.
Dimy Svo-. 1884. 185.

" A useful repository of the case law on the subject." — Law Journal.

EXAMINATI9N GUIDES.— Bedford's Digest of the Preliminary
Examination Questions in Latin Grammar, Arithmetic, French
Grammar, History and Geography, with the Answers. Second
Edition. Demy 8vo. 1882. 18s.

Bedford's Student's Guide to the Ninth Edition of Stephen's
New Commentaries on the Laws of England. — Third Edition.
Demy Svo. 1884. 7s. 6rf.

Haynes and N el ham's Honours Examination Digest, comprising
all the Questions in Conveyancing-, Equity, Common Law, Bank-
ruptcy, Probate, Divorce, Admiralty, and Ecclesiastical Law and
Practice asked at the Solicitors' Honours Examinations, with Answers
thereto. By JOHN F. HAYNES, LL.D., and THOMAS A. NELHAM,
Solicitor (Honours). Demy Svo. 1883. 15s.

" Students going in for honours will find this one to their advantage." — Law Times.
Napier's Modern Digest of the Final Examinations; a Modern
Digest of the Law necessary to be known for the Final Examination
of the Incorporated Law Society, done into Questions and Answers ;
and a Guide to a Course of Study for that Examination. By T.
BATEMAN NAPIEE, LL.D., London, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-
at-Law. Demy Svo. 1887. 18s.

" As far as we have tested them we have found the questions very well framed,
and the answers to them clear, concise and accurate. If used in the manner that
Dr. Napier recommends that it should be used, that is, together with the text-books,
there can be little doubt that it will prove of considerable value to students." — Th«
Jurist.

Napier & Stephenson's Digest of the Subjects of Probate,

Divorce, Bankruptcy, Admiralty, Ecclesiastical and Criminal

Law necessary to be known for the Final Examination, done into

Questions and Answers. With a Preliminary Chapter on a Course of

Study for the above Subjects. By T. BATEMAN NAPIEE and RICHAED

M. STEPHKNSON, Esqrs., Barristers- at-Law. Demy Svo. 1888. 12s.

" It is concise and clear in its answers, and the questions are based on points, for the

most part, material to be known." — Pump Court.

Napier & Stephenson's Digest of the Leading Points in the Sub-
ject of Criminal Law necessary to be knownfor Bar and University
Law Examinations. Done into Questions and Answers. By T.
BATEMAN NAPIEE and EICHAED M. STEPHENSON, Esqrs., Barristers-
at-Law. Demy Svo. 1888. 5s.

" "We commend the book to candidates for the Bar and University Legal Examina-
tions."— Pump Court.

Shearwood's Guide for Candidates for the Professions of
Barrister and Solicitor. — Second Edition. By JOSEPH A. SHEAB-
WOOD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1887. 6*.

" A practical little book for students." — Law Quarterly Review.

*#* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. IS

EXECUTIONS. — Edwards' Law of Execution upon Judgments
and Orders of the Chancery and Queen's Bench Divisions
of the High Court of Justice. — By C. JOHNSTON EDWABDS, of Lin-
coln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1888. 16*.
" Will be found very useful, especially to solicitors. ... In addition to the other
good points in this book, it contains a copious collection of forms and a good index."—
Solicitors' Journal.

" Mr. Edwards writes briefly and pointedly, and has the merit of beginning in each
case at the beginning, without assuming that the reader knows anything. He explain*
who the sheriff is ; what the Queen, in a writ EUgit, for example, orders him to do ;
how he does it : and what consequences ensue. The result is to make the whole treatise
satisfactorily clear and easy to apprehend. If the index is good — as it appears to be—-
practitioners will probably find the book a thoroughly useful one." — Law Quarterly
Review.

EXECUTORS. — Macaskie's Treatise on the Law of Executors
and Administrators, and of the Administration of the Estates of
Deceased Persons. "With an Appendix of Statutes and Forms. By
8. C. MACASKIE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1881. 10«. 6d.

Williams' Law of Executors and Administrators. — Ninth Edition.
By the Hon. Sir ROLAND VAUQHAN WILLIAMS, a Justice of the High
Court. 2 vols. Roy. 8vo. (In the prets.)

EXTRADITION.— Kirchner's L' Extradition.— Recueil Renfermant iu
Extenso tous les Traites conclus jusqu'au ler Janvier, 1883, entre les
Nations civilisees, et donnant la solution precise des difficulty's qui
peuvent surgir dans leur application. Avec une Preface de Me
GEOBGES LACHAUD, Avocat a la Cour d'Appel de Paris. Public sous
les auspices de M. C. E. HOWARD VINCENT, Directeur des Affaires
Criminelles de la Police Metropolitaine de Londres. Par F. J.
KIBCHNEB, Attache a la Direction des Affaires Criminelles. In 1
vol. (1150pp.). Royal 8vo. 1883. 11. 29.

FACTORS ACTS.— Boyd and Pearsons Factors Acts (1823 to
1877), With an Introduction and Explanatory Notes. By HUGH
FENWICK BOYD and ABTHTIB BKILBY PEABSON, Barristers-at-Law.
Royal 12mo. 1884. 6*.

Neish & Carter's Factors Act, 1889: with Commentary and
Notes ; designed particularly for the use and guidance of Mercantile
Men. By CHABLES H. L. NEISH and A. T. CABTEB, Esqrs., Barris-
ters-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1890. 4*.

FACTORY ACTS.— Notcutt's Law relating to Factories and Work-
shops. Second Edition. 12mo. 1879. 9*.

FARM, LAW OF.— Dixon's Law of the Farm.— A Digest of Cases

connected with the Law of the Farm, and including the Agricultural

Customs of England and Wales. Fourth Edition. By HENBY

PEBKTNS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1879. 11. 6s.

" It is impossible not to be struck with the extraordinary research that must have

been used in the compilation of such a book as this." — Law Journal.

FIXTURES. — Amos and Ferard on the Law of Fixtures and other
Property partaking both of a Real and Personal Nature. Third
Edition. By C. A. FEBABD and W. HOWLAND ROBERTS, Esqrs., Bar-
risters-at- Law. Demy 8vo. 1883. 18*.
" An accurate and well written work." — Saturday Review.

FORMS.— Allen.— Vide "Pleading."
Archibald. — Vide " Chamber Practice."
Bullen and Leake.— Fufc "Pleading."

Chitty's Forms of Practical Proceedings in the Queen's Bench

Division of the High Court of Justice. Twelfth Edition. ByT.

W. CHTTTY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1883. II. 18*.

" The forms themselves are brief and clear, and the notes accurate and to the point.

— Law Journal.

%* All standard Law Work* are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

FO R M S — continued.

Darnell's Forms and Precedents of Proceedings in the Chan-
cery Division of the High Court of Justice and on Appeal
therefrom. — Fourth Edition, with Summaries of the Rules of the
Supreme Court, Practical Notes and References to the Sixth Edition,
of "Daniell's Chancery Practice." ByCnABLEsBuBNEY, B.A. (Oxon.),
a Chief Clerk of the Hon. Mr. Justice Chitty. Royal 8vo. 1885. 21. 10s.
" Mr. Burney appears to have performed the laborious task before him with great
success." — Law Journal.
" The standard work on Chancery Procedure." — Law Quarterly Eeview.

FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION.— Moncreiffs Treatise

on the Law relating to Fraud and Misrepresentation. — By

the Hon. FBEDEEICK MONCEEIFF, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-

at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1891. 21s.

" The task which Mr. Moncreiff has undertaken has been handled carefully and

with considerable ability, and the work will well repay perusal." — Solicitors' Journal,

June 6, 1891.

"There is a very full and carefully edited Index, with a large Table of Cases.
Altogether the work is an admirable one."— Law Gazette, May 21, 1891.

GOODWILL.— Allan's Law relating to Goodwill.— By CHABLES E.
ALLAN,M.A.,LL.B.,Esq.,Barrister-at-Law. DemySvo. 1889. 7s. 6d.
" A work of much value upon a subject which is by no means easy." — Solicitors'
Journal.

HIGHWAYS.— Baker's Law of Highways in England and Wales,
including Bridges and Locomotives. Comprising a succinct Code of
the several Provisions under each Head, the Statutes at length in an
Appendix ; with Notes of Cases, Forms, and copious Index. By
THOMAS BAKEE, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1880. 15*.
Bazalgette and Humphreys. — Vide "Local and Municipal Govern-
ment."

Chambers' Law relating to Highways and Bridges, being the
Statutes in full and brief Notes of 700 Leading Cases. By GEOEOB
F. CHAMBEES, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. 1878. 7*. 6d.

HOUSE TAX.— Ellis' Guide to the House Tax Acts, for the use of

the Payer of Inhabited House Duty in England. — ByAETHUE

M. ELLIS, LL.B. (Lond.), Solicitor, Author of "A Guide to the

Income Tax Acts." Royal 12mo. 1885. 6*.

" We have found the information accurate, complete and very clearly expressed." —

Solicitors' Journal.

HUSBAND AND WIFE.— Lush's Law of Husband and Wife;

within the Jurisdiction of the Queen's Bench and Chancery Divisions.

By C. MONTAGUE LUSH, Esq., Barrister- at- Law. 8vo. 1884. 20*.

"Mr. Lush has one thing to recommend him most strongly, and that is his accuracy."

— Law Magazine.

INCOME TAX.— Ellis' Guide to the Income Tax Acts.— For the use

of the English Income Tax Payer. Second Edition. By AETHUB

M. ELLIS, LL.B. (Lond.), Solicitor. Royal 12mo. 1886. 7*. 6d.

" Centals in a convenient form the law bearing upon the Income Tax." — Law Times.

INLAND REVENUE CASES.— Highmore's Summary Proceed-
ings in Inland Revenue Cases in England and Wales. — Second
Edition. By N. J. HIGHMOEE, Esq., Barrister- at-Law, and of the
Solicitors' Department, Inland Revenue. Roy. 12mo. 1887. 7s. 6d.
" Is very complete. Every possible information is given." — Law Times.

INSURANCE. — Arnould on the Law of Marine Insurance. — Sixth

Edition. By DAVID MACLACHLAN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols.

Royal 8vo. 1887. 3J.

" As a text book, 'Arnould' is now all the practitioner can want." — Law Times.

Lowndes' Practical Treatise on the Law of Marine Insurance. —

By RICHAED LOWNDES. Author of "The Law of General Average,"

&c. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. 1885. 12*. 6d.

%* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.O. 17

I N S U R A N C E- continued.

McArthuron the Contract of Marine Insurance. — Second Edition.
By CHARLES MOAETHTJH, Average Adjuster. Demy 8vo. 1890. 16*.

INTERNATIONAL LAW.— Kent's International Law.— Kent's Com-

mentary on International Law. Edited by J. T. ABDY, J.L.I).,

Judge of County Courts. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 1878. 10*. 6d.

Nelson's Private International Law. — Selected Cases, Statutes, and

Orders illustrative of the Principles of Private International Law as

Administered in England, with Commentary. By HORACE NELSON,

M.A., B.C.L., Barrister-at-Law. Roy. 8vo. 1889. 21*.

" The notes are full of matter, and avoid the vice of discursiveness, cases being cited

for practically every proposition."'— Law Times.

Wheaton's Elements of International Law; Third English Edition.
Edited with Notes and Appendix of Statutes and Treaties. By
A. C. BOTD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1889. 11. 10*.
" A handsome and useful edition of a standard work." — Law Quarterly Review.
" Wheaton stands too high for criticism, whilst Mr. Boyd's merits as an editor are
almost as well established." — Law Times.

INTERROGATORIES— Sichel and Chance.— Vide "Discovery."

JOINT STOCKS.— Palmer.— Vide "Company Law," "Conveyanc-
ing," and " Winding-up."

Thring's Joint Stock Companies' Law.— The Law and Practice of
Joint Stock and other Companies, including the Companies Acts,
1862 to 1886, with Notes, Orders, and Rules in Chancery, a Collection
of Precedents of Memoranda and Articles of Association, and other
Forms required in Making and Administering a Company. Also
the Partnership Law Amendment Act, the Life Assurance Companies
Acts, and other Acts relating to Companies. By LOBD THEINO,
K.C.B., formerly the Parliamentary Counsel. Fifth Edition. By
J. M. RENDEL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1889. II. 106.
" The highest authority on the subject." — The Times.
" The hook has long taken its place among the authoritative expositions of the law

of companies. Its very useful forms are a special feature of the hook, which will be of

great value to practitioners." — Law Journal.

JUDGES' CHAMBER PRACTICE.-Archibald.— Vide "Chamber
Practice."

JUDICATURE ACTS.— Wilson's Practice of the Supreme Court
of Judicature : containing the Acts, Orders, Rules, andRegulations
relating to the Supreme Court. With Practical Notes. Seventh
Edition. By CHAELES BUENEY, a Chief Clerk of the Hon. Mr. Justice
Chitty, Editor of " Daniell' s Chancery Forms ;" M. MUIB MACKENZIE,
andC. A. WHITE, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Roy. 8vo. 1888. 11.
" A thoroughly reliable and most conveniently arranged practice guide. "—Law Times

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.— Stone's Practice for Justices of the
Peace, Justices' Clerks and Solicitors at Petty and Special Sessions,
in Summary matters, and Indictable Offences, with a list of Summary
Convictions, and matters not Criminal. With Forms. Ninth Edit.
By W. H. MACNAMABA, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. DemySvo. 1882. ll.5t.

Wigram's Justice's Note Book. — Containing a short account of the
Jurisdiction and Duties of Justices, and an Epitome of Criminal Law.
By the late W. KNOX WIORAM, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, J. P. Mid-
dlesex and Westminster. Fifth Edition. Revised by WALTEB S.
SHTBLET, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1888. 12*. 6d.
" The style is clear, and the expression always forcible, and sometimes humorous.
The book will repay perusal by many besides those who, as justices, will find it an
indispensable companion.*' — Law Quarterly Review.

" We can thoroughly recommend the volume to magistrates." — Law Times.

*»* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

18

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

LAND TAX. — Bourdin's Land Tax. — An Exposition of the Land Tax.
Third Edition. Including the Recent Judicial Decisions, and the
Incidental Changes in the Law effected by the Taxes Management
Act, with other Additional Matter. Thoroughly revised and cor-
rected. By SHIELEY BUNBURY, of the Inland Revenue Department,
Assistant Registrar of the Land Tax. Royal 12mo. 1885. 6*.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.— Woodfall's Law of Landlord and
Tenant. — With a full Collection of Precedents and Forms of Proce-
dure; containing also a collection of Leading Propositions. Fourteenth
Edit. By J. M. LELY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Editor of "Chitty's
Statutes," " Wharton's Law Lexicon, " &c. Roy. 8vo. 1889. U18s.
" The editor has expended elaborate industry and systematic ability in making the
work as perfect as possible." — Solicitors' Journal.
Lely and Peck. — Vide "Leases."

LANDS CLAUSES ACTS.— Jepson's Lands Clauses Consolida-
tion Acts ; with Decisions, Forms, and Table of Costs. By ABTHTTB
JEPSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1880. 18s.

LAW LIST. — Law List (The). — Comprising the Judges and Officers
of the different Courts of Justice, Counsel, Special Pleaders, Con-
veyancers, Solicitors, Proctors, Notaries, &c., in England and Wales;
the Circuits, Judges, Treasurers, Registrars, and High Bailiffs of
the County Courts ; Metropolitan and Stipendiary Magistrates,
Official Receivers under the Bankruptcy Act, Law and Public
Officers in England and the Colonies, Foreign Lawyers with their
English Agents, Clerks of the Peace, Town Clerks, Coroners, &c., &c.,
and Commissioners for taking Oaths, Conveyancers Practising in
England under Certificates obtained in Scotland. Compiled, so
far as relates to Special Pleaders, Conveyancers, Solicitors, Proctors
and Notaries, by JOHN SAMUEL PUECELL, C.B., Controller of
Stamps, and Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Somerset House,
and Published by the Authority of the Commissioners of Inland
Revenue. 1891. (Published about March I.} (Net cash, 9s.) 10s. Qd.
LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW— Edited by Sir FEEDEEICK POLLOCK,
Bart., M.A., LL.D., Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence in the Uni-
versity of Oxford. Vols. I., II., III., IV., V. and VI. Royal 8vo.
1885-90. Each, 12s.

l§g° Subscription 10s. per annum, post free. (Foreign postage Is. 6d. extra.)
The Review includes : — The discussion of current decisions of importance in the
Courts of this country, and (so far as practicable) of the Colonies, the United States,
British India, and other British Possessions where the Common Law is administered ;
the consideration of topics of proposed legislation before Parliament ; the treatment
of questions of immediate political and social interest in their legal aspect ; inquiries
into the history and antiquities of our own and other systems of law and legal institu-
tions. Endeavour is also made to take account of the legal science and legislation of
Continental States in so far as they bear on general jurisprudence, or may throw light
by comparison upon problems of English or American legislation. The current legal
literature of our own country receives careful attention ; and works of serious import-
ance, both English and foreign, are occasionally discussed at length.

LAWYER'S ANNUAL LIBRARY.— (1) The Annual Practice.— By
SNOW, BURNEY, andSTBiNQEE. (2) The Annual Digest. — By MEWS.
(3) The Annual Statutes.— By LELY. (4) The Annual County
Court Practice. — By His Honour JUDGE HEYWOOD.

The Complete Series, as above, delivered on the day of publication,
net, 21. Nos. 1, 2, and 3 only, net, II. 10s. Nos. 2, 3, and 4 only,
net, II. 10s. (Carriage extra, 2s.)

tjjgJT Subscriptions, payable on or before August 1st in each year.
Full prospectus forwarded on application.

LAWY E R'S CO M PA N I O N .— Vide ' ' Diary."

%* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock) in law calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.O. 10

LEADI NG CASES.— Ball's Leading Cases, V\d* " Torts."
Haynes' Student's Leading Cases. Being some of the Principal
Decisions of the Courts in Constitutional Law, Common Law, Con-
veyancing and Equity, Probate, Divorce, and Criminal Law. With
Notes for the use of Students. Second Edition. By JOHN F.
HAYNES, LL.D. Demy 8vo. 1884. 16«.

Shirley's Selection of Leading Cases in the Common Law.
"With Notes. By "W. SIUBLEY SHIELEY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
Fourth Edition. By RICHARD WATSON, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1891. (Nearly ready.) 16*.

" If any words of praise of ours can add to its well-deserved reputation, we give the
reader carte blanche to supply them on our behalf out of his own thrilling eloquence
and vivid imagination, and we will undertake to ratify them." — The Jurist.
Shirley's Selection of Leading Cases in the Criminal Law. With
Notes. By W. S. SHIELEY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1888. 6*.
" Will undoubtedly prove of value to students."— Law Notts.

LEASES.— Lely and Peck's Precedents of Leases for Years,
and other Contracts of Tenancy, and Contracts relating thereto;
mainly selected or adapted from existing Collections, including many
additional Forms, with a short Introduction and Notes. By J. M.
LELY and W. A. PECK, Barristers- at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1889. 10*. 6d.
" Varied, well considered, and thoroughly practical . . . while a useful addition to
the library of the conveyancing counsel, will be still more useful to conveyancing
solicitors and estate agents." — Law Times, November 9, 1889.
LEXICON.— J'ide "Dictionary."

LIBEL AND SLANDER.— Odgers on Libel and Slander.— A
Digest of the Law of Libel and Slander : the Evidence, Procedure
and Practice, both in Civil and Criminal Cases, and Precedents of
Pleadings. Second Edition, with a SUPPLEMENT, bringing the Law
down to June, 1890. By W. BLAKE ODGEBS, LL.D., Barrister-at-
Law. Royal 8vo. 1890. 11. 12s.
%* The Supplement, containing the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888, with

Notes and Addenda of Cases, separately. Net, la. Qd.
" The best modern book on the law of libel." — Daily News.
"A full, accurate, and satisfactory guide." — Solicitors' Journal.

LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS.— Chambers' Digest of the Law
relating to Public Libraries and Museums, and Literary and
Scientific Institutions: with much Practical Information useful to
Managers, Committees and Officers of all classes of Associations and
Clubs connected with Literature, Science and Art ; including Prece-
dents of By-Laws and Regulations, the Statutes in Full, and brief
Notes of Leading Cases. Third Edition. By GEO. F. CHAMBERS, Esq. ,
Barrister-at-Law. Roy. 8vo. 1889. 8*. 6d.

LICENSING.— Le]y and Foulkes' Licensing Acts, 1828, 1869,

and 1872 — 18/4 ; with Notes to the Acts, a Summary of the Law,

and an Appendix of Forms. Third Edit. By J. M. LELY and W. D. I.

FOULKES, Esqrs., Barristers -at -Law. Roy. 12mo. 1887. 10*. 6rf.

" We do not know of a more compact or useful treatise on the subject." — Sol. Jour.

LOCAL AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.— Bazalgette and
Humphreys' Law relating to County Councils : being the Local
Government Act, 1888, County Electors Act, 1888, the Incorporated
Clauses of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and a compendious
Introduction and Notes ; with Analysis of Statutes affecting the same,
Orders in Council, Circulars, and a Copious Index. By C. N. BAZAL-
GETTE and GEOBQE HUMPHBEYS, Barristers-at-Law, Joint Authors of
"The Law of Local and Municipal Government." Third Edition.
By GEORGE HUMPHBEYS, Esq. Royal 8vo. 1889. Is. 6d.

" The most stately as regards size, and the best in point of type of all the works.

There is a good introduction . . . the notes are careful and helpful. — Solicitors' Journal.

*#* Att standard Law Works are kept in Stock t in law calf and other binding $.

20

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

LOCAL AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT— continued.

Bazalgette and Humphreys' Law relating to Local and Muni-
cipal Government. Comprising- the Statutes relating to Public
Health, Municipal Corporations, Highways, Burial, Gas and Water,
Public Loans, Compulsory Taking of Lands, Tramways, Electric
Lighting, Artizans' Dwellings, &c., Rivers' Pollution, the Clauses
Consolidation Acts, and many others, fully annotated with cases up
to date, a selection of the Circulars of the Local Government Board,
•with a Table of upwards of 2,500 Cases, and full Index. With
Addenda containing the Judicial Decisions and Legislation relating
to Local and Municipal Government since 1885. By C. NOKMAN
BAZALGETTE and GEORGE HUMPHREYS, Esqrs., Barristers -at -Law.
Sup. royal 8vo. 1888. 31. 3s.

*** The Addenda may be had separately. Net, Is. 6d.

" The book is thoroughly comprehensive of the law on all points of which it
professes to treat." — Law Journal.

" The work is one that no local officer should be without; for nothing short of a
whole library of statutes, reports, and handbooks couldtake its place." — MunicipalEeview.

Chambers' Popular Summary of the Law relating to Local
Government, forming a complete Guide to the new Act of 1888.
Second Edition. By G. F. CHAMBERS, Barrister-at-Law. Imp. 8vo.
1888. (Or bound in Cloth with copy of Act, 5s. 6d.) Net, 2s. 6d.

MAGISTERIAL LAW.— Shirley's Elementary Treatise on Magis-
terial Law, and on the Practice of Magistrates' Courts. — By W.
S. SHIRLEY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Roy. 12mo. 1881. 6s. 6d.
Wigram. — Vide " Justice of the Peace."

MALICJOUS PROSECUTIONS. — Stephen's Law relating to

Actions for Malicious Prosecutions. — By HERBERT STEPHEN,

LL.M., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, part Author of "A

Digest of the Criminal Law Procedure." Royal 12mo. 1888. 6*.

"A reliable text-book upon the law of malicious prosecution." — Law Times.

MARITIME DECISIONS.— Douglas' Maritime Law Decisions.—
An Alphabetical Reference Index to Recent and Important Maritime
Decisions. Compiled by ROBT. R. DOUGLAS. DemySvo. 1888. 7s. 6d.
Marine Insurance. — Vide "Insurance."

MARRIAGE.— Kelly's French Law of Marriage, and the Conflict
of Laws that arises therefrom. By E. KELLY, M.A., of the New
York Bar, Licencie en Droit de la Faculte de Paris. Roy. 8vo. 1885. 6s.

MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS.— Banning's Concise Treatise on
the Law of Marriage Settlements; with an Appendix of Statutes.
By H. T. BANNING, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1884. 15s.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PRpPERTY.— Lush's Married Women's

Rights and Liabilities in relation to Contracts, Torts, and

Trusts. By MONTAGUE LUSH, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Author of

" The Law of Husband and Wife." Royal 12mo. 1887. 5*.

""Well arranged, clearly written, and has a good index." — Law Times.

Smith's Married Women's Property Acts, T 882 and 1884, with
an Introduction and Critical and Explanatory Notes, together with the
Married "Women's Property Acts, 1870 and 1874, &c. 2nd Edit. Re-
vised. By H. A. SMITH, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Roy. 12mo. 1884. 6s.
MASTER AND SERVANT.— Macdonell's Law of Master and
Servant, Part I. Common Law. Part II. Statute Law. By JOHN
MACDONELL, M. A., Esq., Barrister-at-Law. DemySvo. 1883. 11.5s.
" A work which will be of real value to the practitioner." — Law Times.

MAYOR'S COURT PRACTICE,— Pandy's Mayor's Court Prac-
tice.— The Jurisdiction, Process, Practice and Mode of Pleading in
Ordinary Actions in the Mayor's Court in London. By GEOEGB
CANDY, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. Demy 8vo. 1879. 14^.

*** All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 21

MERCANTILE LAW.— Russell's Treatise on Mercantile Agency,
Second Edition. 8vo. 1873. 14*.

Smith's Compendium of Mercantile Law.— Tenth Edition. By
JOHN MACDONELL, Esq., a Master of the Supreme Court of Judicature,
assisted by GEO. HUMPHREYS, Esq., Ban-inter- at-Law. 2 vols.
Royal 8vo. 1890. 21. 2*.

" Of the greatest value to the mercantile lawyer."— Laic Times, March 22, 1890.

" We have no hesitation in recommending the work before us to the profession and the
public as a reliable guide to the subjects included in it, and as constituting one of the
most scientific treatises extant on mercantile law." — Solicitors' Journal, May 10, 1800.

Tudor's Selection of Leading Cases on Mercantile and Maritime
Law. — With Notes. By O. D. TUDOB, Esq., Barrister- at- Law.
Third Edition. Royal 8vo. 1884. 21. 2t.

Wilson's Mercantile Handbook of the Liabilities of Merchant,
Shipowner, and Underwriter on Shipments by General Ves-
sels.— By A. WILSON, Solicitor and Notary. Royal 12mo. 1883. 6*.

Wood's Mercantile Agreements. — The Interpretation of Mercantile

Agreements: A Summary of the Decisions as to the Meaning of

Words and Provisions in Written Agreements for the Sale of Goods,

Charter-Parties, Bills of Lading-, and Marine Policies. With an

Appendix containing a List of Words and Expressions used in, or

in connection with, Mercantile Agreements, and a List of Mercantile

Usages. By JOHN DENNISTOUN WOOD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law

Royal 8vo. 1886. 18*.

"A book of great use in the interpretation of written mercantile agreements." —

Law Journal.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.— Payn's Merchandise Marks
Act, 1887. — With special reference to the Important Sections and
the Customs Regulations and Orders made thereunder, together
with the Conventions with Foreign States for Protection of Trade
Marks, and Orders in Council, &c. By HOWABD PAYN, Barrister-at-
Law, and of the Secretary's Department of the Board of Customs.
Royal 12mo. 1888. 3s. 6d.

" Mr. Payn'p lucid introduction places the subject very clearly before the reader, and

his book must be a safe guide to all who are interested in the act." — Law Times, Feb. 1888.

METRpPOLIS BUILDING ACTS. -Woolrych's Metropolitan
Building Acts, together with such clauses of the Metropolis
Management Acts as more particularly relate to the Building Acts,
with Notes and Forms. Third Edition. By W. H. MACNAMABA,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1882. 10*.

MINES.— Rogers' Law relating to Mines, Minerals and Quarries
in Great Britain and Ireland, with a Summary of the Laws of
Foreign States, &c. Second Edition Enlarged. By His Honor
Judge ROOEES. 8vo. 1876. 11. Us. 6d.

MORTGAGE.— Coote's Treatise on the Law of Mortgage.— Fifth

Edition. Thoroughly revised. By WILLIAM WYLLYS MACKESON,

Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and H. ABTHTTB SMITH, Esq.,

Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1884. 31.

" A complete, terse and practical treatise for the modern lawyer." — Solicitors' Journal.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.— Bazalgette and Humphreys,—
Vide " Local and Municipal Government."

Lely's Law of Municipal Corporations. — Containing the Municipal
Corporation Act, 1882, and the Enactments incorporated therewith.
With Notes. By J. M. LELY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo.
1882. 15i.

*0* All ttandard Law Works are "kept in Stock, in law calf and other binding*.

22

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

NAVY. — Thring's Criminal Law of the Navy, with, an Introductory
Chapter on the Early State and Discipline of the Navy, the Rules of
Evidence, and an Appendix comprising the Naval Discipline Act
and Practical Forms. Second Edition. By THEODOEE THEING, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law, and C. E. GIFFOED, Assistant -Paymaster, Royal
Navy. 12mo. 1877. 12*. 6d.

NEGLIGENCE.— Smith's Treatise on the Law of Negligence
Second Edition. By HOEACE SMITH, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Editor
of "Addison on Contracts, and Torts, " &c. 8vo. 1884. 12s. 6d.
" Of great value both to the practitioner and student of law." — Solicitors' Journal.

NISI PRIUS.— Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence on the
Trial of Actions at Nisi Prius.— Sixteenth Edition. By MATTBICB
POWELL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 1891. 21. 10s.

" Continues to be a vast and closely packed storehouse of information on practice at
Nisi Prius." — Law Journal.

NONCONFORMISTS.— Winslow's Law Relating to Protestant
Nonconformists and their Places of Worship; being a Legal
Handbook for Nonconformists. By REGINALD WINSLOW, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. 1886. 6s.

NOTARY. — Brooke's Treatise on the Office and Practice of a
Notary of England. — With a full collection of Precedents. FifthEd.
By G-.F. CHAMBEES, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. DemySvo. 1890. II. Is.

OATHS. — Stringer's Oaths and Affirmations in Great Britain and
Ireland; being a Collection of Statutes, Cases, and Forms, with
Notes and Practical Directions for the use of Commissioners for Oaths,
and of all Courts of Civil Procedure and Offices attached thereto. [In
succession to " Braithwaite's Oaths."] By FEANCIS A. STEINGEE, of
the Central Office, Supreme Court of Judicature, one of the Editors
of the "Annual Practice." Crown 8 vo. 1890. 3s. 6d.

" Indispensable to all commissioners." — Solicitors' Journal, Jan. 11, 1890.'
" A most excellent little handbook." — Law Times, Feb. 1, 1890.

PARISH LAW.— Steer's Parish Law; being a Digest of the Law
relating to the Civil and Ecclesiastical Government of Parishes and
the Relief of the Poor. Fifth Edition. By W. H. MACNAMAEA,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1887. 18*.

" An exceedingly useful compendium of Parish Law." — Law Times.

" A very complete and excellent guide to Parish Law." — Solicitors' Journal.

"Every subject that can be considered parochial is, we think, contained in this
volume, and the matter is brought down to date. It is a compendium which is really
compendious." — Law Journal, Jan. 21, 1888.

PARTNERSHIP.— Pollock's Digest of the Law of Partnership!
incorporating the Partnership Act, 1890. Fifth Edition. By Sir
FEEDEEICK POLLOCK, Bart., Barrister-at-Law. Author of "Principles
of Contract," "The Law of Torts," &c. Demy 8vo. 1890. 85. 6d.

"What Sir Frederick Pollock has done he has done well, and we are confident this
book will be most popular as well as extremely useful." — Law Times, Dec. 13, 1890.

Turner. — Vide "Conveyancing."

PATENTS.— Aston's (T.) Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act,
1883, with Notes and Index to the Act, Rules and Forms. By
THEODOEE ASTON, Q.C. Royal 12mo. 1884. 6*.

Edmunds' Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Acts, 1883 to
1888, Consolidated, with an Index. By LEWIS EDMUNDS, D.Sc.,
LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. Imp. 8vo. 1889. Net 2s. 6d.

V* -AM standard Law Works are "kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 23

PAT E N TS— continued.

Edmunds on Patents. — The Law and Practice of Letters Patent for
Inventions ; •with the Patents Acts and Rules annotated, and the
International Convention, a full collection of Statutes, Forms, and
Precedents, and an Outline of Foreign and Colonial Patent Laws, &o.
By LEWIS EDMUNDS, assisted by A. WOOD RENTON, Esqrs., Barria-
ters-at-Law. Royal 8vo. (992 pp.). 1890. 11. 12*.

" We have nothing but commendation for the book. Conceived in a large and com-
prehensive spirit, it is well and thoroughly carried out. . . . The statement of the
existing law is accurate and clear. . . . The book is one to be recommended."—
Solicitors' Journal, June 14, 1890.

" We have no hesitation in saying that the book ia a useful and exhaustive one, and
one which could not have been produced without much labour and considerable re-
search. It describes the law of letters pa tent and its history, including proceedings in
the Privy Council, international arrangements, and an abridgment of foreign laws on
the subject. It would be difficult to make it more complete, and it is printed on good
paper."— Law Time*, June 21, 1890.

" Taking the book as a whole, it is undoubtedly the most comprehensive book that
has yet been written upon the special branch of law, and, having examined it in some
detail, we can commend it as answering well to the many tests we have applied." —
Law Journal, June 21, 1890.

Johnson's Patentees' Manual. — A Treatise on the Law and
Practice of Patents for Inventions. With an Appendix of Statutes,
Rules, and Foreign and Colonial Patent Laws, International Con-
vention, and Protocol. Sixth Edition. By JAKES JOHNSON, Esq.,
Barrister- at -Law ; and J. HENEY JOHNSON, Solicitor and Patent
Agent. Demy 8vo. 1890. 10*. 6d.

Morris's Patents Conveyancing. — Being a Collection of Precedents
in Conveyancing in relation to Letters Patent for Inventions.
Arranged as follows : — Common Forms, Agreements, Assignments,
Mortgages, Special Clauses, Licences, Miscellaneous ; Statutes, Rules,
&c. With Dissertations and Copious Notes on the Law and Practice.
ByRoBEETMoEEis,Esq.,Barri8ter-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1887. II. 5*.
" Mr. Morris' forms seem to us to be well selected, well arranged, and thoroughly
practical." — Law Times.

" The dissertations contain a large amount of valuable and accurate information.
The Index is satisfactory." — Solicitors' Journal.

Munro's Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883, with the
Rules and Instructions, together with Pleadings, Orders and Prece-
dents. By J. E. CEAWFOED MUNEO, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
Royal 12mo. 1884. 10*. 6d.

Thompson's Handbook of Patent Law of all Countries. — By
WM. P. THOMPSON, Head of the International Patent Office, Liver-
pool. Eighth Edition. 12mo. 1889. Net, 2s. 6d.

PERPETUITIES.— Marsden's Rule against Perpetuities. — A
Treatise on Remoteness in Limitation ; with a chapter on Accumu-
lation and the Thelluson Act. By REGINALD G. MAESDEN, Esq.,
Barrister-at Law. Demy 8vo. 1883. 16*.

PERSONAL PROPERTY.— Shear-wood's Concise Abridgment of

the Law of Personal Property ; showing analytically its Branches

and the Titles by which it is held. By J. A. SHEAEWOOD, Esq.,

Barrister-at-Law. 1882. 5*. 6d.

" Will be acceptable to many students, as giving them, in fact, a ready-made not*

book." — Indermaur's Law Students' Journal.

Smith.— Vide " Real Property."

PLEADING. — Allen's Forms of Indorsements of Writs of Sum-
mons, Pleadings, and other Proceedings in the Queen's
Bench Division prior to Trial, pursuant to the Rules of the
Supreme Court, 1883; with Introduction, &c. By GEORGE
BAUQH ALLEN, Esq., Special Pleader, and WILFEED B. ALLEN,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1883. 18*.

%* All itandard Law Works are "kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

24

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

PLEADING —continued.

Bullen and Leake's Precedents of Pleadings, with Notes and
Rules relating to Pleading-. Fourth Edition. By THOMAS J.
BULLEN, Esq., Special Pleader, and CYRIL DODD, Esq., Barrister-at-
Law. Part I. Statements of Claim. Royal 12mo. 1882. II 4s.
Part II. Statements of Defence. By THOMAS J. BULLEN and
C.W. CLIFFORD, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1888. \L 4s.
" A very large number of precedents are collected together, and the notes are full
and clear." — Law Times.

POISONS. — Reports of Trials for Murder by Poisoning; by
Prussic Acid, Strychnia, Antimony, Arsenic and Aconitine;
including- the trials of Tawell, W. Palmer, Dove, Madeline Smith,
Dr. Pritchard, Smethurst, and Dr. Lamson. "With Chemical
Introductions and Notes. By G-. LATHAM BROWNE, Esq., Barrister -
at-Law, and C. G-. STEWART, Senior Assistant in the Laboratory of
St. Thomas's Hospital, &c. Demy 8vo. 1883. 12s. Qd.

POWERS. — Farwell on Powers. — A Concise Treatise on Powers. By
GEORGE FARWELL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1874. \l. Is.

PRINTERS, PUBLISHERS, &c.— Powell's Laws specially affect-
ing Printers, Publishers and Newspaper Proprietors. By
ARTHUR POWELL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1889. 4s.

PROBATE. — Browne's Probate Practice: A Treatise on the Prin-
ciples and Practice of the Court of Probate, in Contentious and Non-
Contentious Business. By L. D. POWLES, Barrister-at-Law. In-
cluding- Practical Directions to Solicitors for Proceedings in the
Registry. By T. W. H. OAKLEY, of the Principal Registry, Somerset
House. 8vo. 1881. 11. 10s.

PROFIT-SHARING PRECEDENTS.— Rawson's Profit- Sharing

Precedents, with Notes. — By HENRY G. RAWSON, of the Inner

Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1891. 6s.

" A most interesting and a thoroughly workmanlike book upon a subject which is

every day becoming more important, ... A collection of very serviceable precedents,

•which employers introducing a system of profit-sharing will do well to study. . . . No

collection of precedents has ever been published which is more readable and more

interesting than Mr. Rawson's." — Law Times, July 18, 1891.

PUBLIC HEALTH.— Bazalgette and Humphreys,— Vide "Local

and Municipal Government."

Chambers' Digest of the Law relating to Public Health and
Local Government. — With Notes of 1,260 leading Cases. The
Statutes in full. A Table of Offences and Punishments, and a
Copious Index. Eighth Edition (with Supplement corrected to
May 21, 1887). Imperial 8 vo. 1881. 16s.

Or, the above with the Law relating to Highways and Bridges. II.
Smith's Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890. — With Intro-
duction, Notes, and References to Cases; also an Appendix, containing
all the Material Sections of the Public Health Act, 1875 ; The Public
Health (Rating of Orchards) Act, 1890 ; and The Infectious Diseases
(Prevention) Act, 1890 : and a Copious Index. By BOVILL SMITH, M. A. ,
of the Inner Temple and Western Circuit, Barrister-at-Law. Royal
12mo. 1891. 6s.

PUBLIC MEETINGS.— Chambers' Handbook for Public Meet-
ings, including Hints as to the Summoning and Management of
them. Second Edition. By GEOBGKE F. CHAMBERS, Esq., Barrister-
at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1886. Net, 2s. Qd.

QUARTER SESSIONS.— Archbold,— Fwfe "Criminal Law."

Leeming& Cross's General and Quarter Sessions of the Peace.
— Their Jurisdiction and Practice in other than Criminal matters.
Second Edition. By HOBATIO LLOYD, Esq., Judge of County Courts,
and H.F. THITELOW, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1876. II. Is.

*»* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other binding*.

1 19 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 25

QUARTER SESSIONS— continued.

Pritchard's Quarter Sessions. — The Jurisdiction, Practice and Pro-
cedure of the Quarter Sessions in Criminal, Civil, and Appellate
Matters. By Tuos. SIRRELL PRITCHARD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
8vo. 1875. (Published at 21. 2«.) Reduced to net 12«.

RAILWAYS.— Browne and Theobald's Law of Railway Com-
panies. — Being1 a Collection of the Acts and Orders relating to
Railway Companies in England and Ireland, with Notes of all the
Cases decided thereon, and Appendix of Bye -Laws and Standing
Orders of the House of Commons. Second Edition. By J. H.
BALFOUR BROWNE, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and H. S.
THEOBALD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1888. 11. 15*.
" Contains in a very concise form the whole law of railways." — The Time*.
" The learned authors seem to have presented the profession and the public with the
most ample information to be found whether they want to know how to start a rail-
way, how to frame its bye-laws, how to work it, how to attack it for injury to person
or property, or how to wind it up." — Law Times.
Macnamara. — Vide " Carriers."
Street. — Vide "Company Law."

RATES AND RATING.— Castle's Practical Treatise on the Law
of Rating. — Second Edition. By EDWARD JAKES CASTLE, Esq.,
one of Her Majesty's Counsel. Demy 8vo. 1886. 25*.

" A correct, exhaustive, clear and concise view of the law." — Law Times.
Chambers' Law relating to Local Rates; with especial reference
to the Powers and Duties of Rate-levying Local Authorities, and
their Officers ; comprising the Statutes in full and a Digest of 718
Cases. Second Edition. By G. F. CHAMBERS, Esq., Barrister-at-
Law. Royal 8vo. 1889. 10*. 6d.
"A complete repertory of the statutes and case law of the subject." — Law Journal.
REAL ESTATE.— Foster's Law of Joint Ownership and Partition
of Real Estate. — By EDWARD JOHN FOSTER, M.A., late of Lincoln's
Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1878. 10*. 6d.
REAL PROPERTY.— Greenwood's Real Property Statutes; com-
prising those passed during the years 1874 — 1884, inclusive,
consolidated with the earlier statutes thereby amended. With
copious notes. Second Edition. By HARRY GREENWOOD, assisted by
LEESKNOWLES, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. DemySvo. 1884. 11.5s.
Leake's Elementary Digest of the Law of Property in Land. —
Containing : Introduction. Part I. The Sources of the Law. —
Part II. Estates in Land. By STEPHEN MARTIN LEAKE, Barrister-
at-Law. Demy 8vo. 8vo. 1874. 11. 2*.
Leake's Digest of the Law of Property in Land. — Part III. The
Law of Uses and Profits of Land. By STEPHEN MARTIN LEAKE,
Barrister-at-Law, Author of " A Digest of the Law of Contracts."
DemySvo. 1888. 11. 2s.
Shearwood's Real Property. — A Concise Abridgment of the Law of
Real Property and an Introduction to Conveyancing. Designed to
facilitate the subject for Students preparing for examination. By
JOSEPH A. SHEARWOOD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Third Edition.
Demy 8vo. 1886. 8*. 6d.
" "We heartily recommend the work to student's for any examination on real property
and conveyancing, advising them to read it after a perusal of other works and shortly
before going in for the examination."— Law Student's Journal.

" A very useful little work, particularly to students just before their examination."
— Gibson's Law Notes.

" One of the most obvious merits of the book is its good arrangement. The author
evidently understands 'the art of putting things.' All important points are so
printed as to readily catch the eye." — Law Times.

Shelford's Real Property Statutes.— Ninth Edition. By T. H.
CARSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In preparation.)

*%* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in late calf and other binding*.

26

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

REAL PROPERTY— continued.

Smith's Real and Personal Property. — A Compendium of the Law
of Heal and Personal Property, primarily connected with Con-
veyancing. Designed as a second book for Students, and as a
digest of the most useful learning for practitioners. By JOSIAH "W.
SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C. Sixth Edition. By the AUTHOR and J. TEUS-
TBAM, LL.M., Barrister -at -Law. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 1884. 21. 2s.
" A book which he (the student) may read over and over again with profit and plea-
sure."— Law Times.

" "Will be found of very great service to the practitioner." — Solicitors' Journal.
" The book will be found very handy for reference purposes to practitioners, and
very useful to the industrious student as covering a great deal of ground." — Law Notes.
" A reaDv useful and valuable work on our system of Conveyancing. We think this
edition excellently done." — Law Student's Journal.

REG 1ST RATION.— Rogers.— Vide "Elections."
Coltman's Registration Cases.— Vol. I. (1879—1885). Eoyal 8vo.
Calf. Net, 21. 8s.

Fox's Registration Cases.— Vol. I., Part I. (1886), net, 4s. Part II.
(1887), net, 6s. 6d. Part III. (1888), nett 4s. Part IV. (1889),
net, 4s. Part V. (1890), net, 5s. 6d. (In continuation of Coltman.)

RENTS. — Harrison's Law Relating to Chief Rents and other
Rentcharges and Lands as affected thereby, with a chapter on
Restrictive Covenants and a selection of Precedents. By WILLIAM
HAEEISON, Solicitor. Demy 12mo. 1884. 6s.

ROMAN LAW.— Goodwin's XII. Tables. — By FREDERICK GOODWIN,

LL.D. London. Royal 12mo. 1886. 3*. 6d.

Greene's Outlines of Roman Law. — Consisting chiefly of an

Analysis and Summary of the Institutes. For the use of Students.

By T. WHITCOMBE GREENE, Barrister-at-law. Fourth Edition.

Foolscap 8vo. 1884. 7s. 6d.

Ruegg's Student's " Auxilium " to the Institutes of Justinian. —

Being a complete synopsis thereof in the form of Question and

Answer. By ALFRED HENRY RUEGG, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Post

8vo. 1879. 5s.

SALES. — Blackburn on Sales. A Treatise on the Effect of the Con-
tract of Sale on the Legal Rights of Property and Possession in
Goods, Wares, and Merchandise. By Lord BLACZBUEN. Second
Edition. By J. C. GRAHAM, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo.
1885. 11. Is.

" We have no hesitation in saying that the work has been edited with, remarkable

ability and success, and if we may hazard a speculation on the cause, we should say

that the editor has so diligently studied the excellent methods and work of his author

as to have made himself a highly competent workman in the same kind." — Law

Quarterly Review.

SALES OF LAND. — Clerke and Humphry's Concise Treatise

on the Law relating to Sales of Land. By AUBREY ST. JOHN

CLEEKE, and HUGH M. HUMPHEY, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Royal

8vo. 1885. II. 5s.

Webster's Particulars and Conditions of Sale. — The Law relating

to Particulars and Conditions of Sale on a Sale of Land. By WM.

FEEDS. WEBSTEE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8 vo. 1889. II. Is.

" Characterized by clearness of arrangement and careful and concise statement ;

and we think it will be found of much service to the practitioner." — Solicitors' Journal.

"A full account of case law, well arranged under convenient headings, together with

a few precedents. The book is fit to be of practical service to a practical man." — Law

Quarterly Iteview.

" It forms an admirable digest, evidently prepared with great care, and selected and
arranged in a manner likely to be of great practical value. Its treatment has the air
of thoroughness, and, although it hardly claims originality, it may be ci edited with
utility." — Law Journal.

" A complete and accurate representation of the law. Nothing is shirked or slurred
over." — Law Times.

%* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in laiv calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.O. 27

SALVAGE. — Kennedy's Treatise on the Law of Civil Salvage.— By
WILLIAM R. KENNEDY, Esq., one of II n- Majesty's Counsel. Royal
8vo. 1891. 12*.

" The beet work on the law of salvage that has yet appeared. It ia a complete ex-
position of the subject, and as such is accurate and exhaustive, without being prolix,
and contain* copious reference to the authorities applicable to this branch of law." —
Law Times, August 8, '

"Mr. Kennedy's work is certainly a valuable contribution to the literature of the
subject."—/^// \iiL'ust 6, 1891.

SETTLED ESTATES STATUTES.— Middleton's Settled Estates
Statutes, including the Settled Estates Act, 1877, Settled Land
Act, 1882, Improvement of Land Act, 1864, and the Settled
Estates Act Orders, 1878, with Introduction, Notes and Forms.
Third Edition. By JAMES W. MIDDLETON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
Royal 12mo. 1882. 7*. 6d.

SHERIFF LAW.— Churchill's Law of the Office and Duties of the
Sheriff, with the Writs and Forms relating to the Office. 2nd Edit.
By CAMERON CHURCHILL, Esq. Demy 8vo. 1882. I/. 4*.

"A very complete treatise." — Solicitors' Journal.
tl Under-sheriffs, and lawyers generally, will find this a useful book." — Law Nag.

SHIPPING. — Boyd's Merchant Shipping Laws ; being a Consolida-
tion of all the Merchant Shipping and Passenger Acts from 1854 to
1876, inclusive , with Notes of all the leading English and American
Cases, and an Appendix. By A. C. BOYD, LL.B., Esq., Barrister-
at-Law. 8vo. 1876. 11. 5*.
Foard's Treatise on the Law of Merchant Shipping and Freight,
—By J. T. FOARD, Barrister-at-Law. Roy. 8vo. 1880. Hf. cf. 11. Is.

SLAN DER.— Odgers.— ride " Libel and Slander."

SOLICITORS.— Cordery's Law relating to Solicitors .of the
Supreme Court of Judicature. With an Appendix of Statutes
and Rules, and Notes on Appointments open to Solicitors, and the
Right to Admission to the Colonies. Second Edition. By A. COEDEEY,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1888. 16*.

" The book is very clear, accurate, and practical, and will be found of much valus.

Without beinfj bulky, it contains in a concise and intelligible form all the matters

usually occurring in a solicitor's practice." — Solicitors' Journal.

Turner. — Vide "Conveyancing" and " Vendors and Purchasers."
Whiteway's Hints to Solicitors. — Being a Treatise on the Law re-
lating to their Duties as Officers of the High Court of Justice. By
A. R. WHTTEWAY, M.A., of the Equity Bar and Midland Circuit.
Royal 12mo. 1883. 6*.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.— Fry's Treatise on. the Specific
Performance of Contracts. By the Hon. Sir EDWARD FRY, a
Lord Justice of Appeal. Second Edition. By the Author and W.
DONALDSON RAWLINS, Esq. Royal 8vo. 1881. 11. 16*.

STAMP DUTY.— Gosset's Practical Guide to Account Stamp

Duty, Customs, and Inland Revenue Act, 1881 (44 Viet. c. 12,

s. 38). By J. A. GOSSET, of the Legacy and Succession Duty

Office. Post8vo. 1887. 5*.

"The author, by reason of his official position and the experience of six years'

working of this section of the Act of 1881 (which imposed an entirely new duty), has

been enabled to produce an exceptionally valuable guide." — Law Times.

Highmorefs Stamp Act, 1891, and the Stamp Duties Manage-
ment Act, 1891. With an Introduction and Notes, and a copious
Index. By NATHANIEL JOSEPH HIQHMORE, of the Middle Temple,
Esq., Barrister- at-Law, Assistant -Solicitor of the Inland Revenue.
Demy 8vo. 1891. (Nearly ready.) 6«.

STATUTE LAW.— Wilberforce on Statute Law. The Principles
which govern the Construction and Operation of Statutes. By E.
WELBBRFORCE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1881. 18«.

%* A II standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other binding*.

28

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

STATUTES, and vide " Acts of Parliament."

Chitty's Collection of Statutes from Magna Charta to 1890. — A
Collection of Statutes of Practical Utility, arranged in Alphabetical
and Chronological order, with Notes thereon. The Fourth Edition,
with Supplement. By J. M. LELY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. In
8 vols. Royal 8vo. 1880-90. Published at 111. 11s. 6d.,

reduced to Net 101. 10s.
The following may still be had separately —

6 vols. To end of the year 1880. Net 61 6s.

60 & 51 Viet. 1887. 10*. 6d.

51 & 52 Viet. 1888. 12s. 6d.

51 & 52 Viet. 1888. (Second Session.) Net 2s. 6d.

52 & 53 Viet. 1889. 10s.

53 & 54 Viet. 1890. 15*.
" It is needless to enlarge on the value of ' Chitty's Statutes ' to both the Bar and

to Solicitors, for it is attested by the experience of many years." — The Times.

" A very satisfactory edition of a time-honoured and most valuable work, the trusty
guide of present, as of former, judges, jurists, and of all others connected with the
administration or practice of the law." — Justice of the Peace.

" 'Chitty ' is pre-eminently a friend in need. Those who do not possess a complete
set of the Statutes turn to its chronological index when they wish to consult a
particular Act of Parliament. Those who wish to know what Acts are in force with
reference to a particular subject turn to that head in ' Chitty,' and at once find all the
material of which they are in quest. Moreover, they are, at the same time, referred
to the most important cases which throw light on the subject." — Law Journal.

SUCCESSION.— Potts' Principles of the Law of Succession to
Deceased Persons. — By T. RADFOED POTTS, B.C.L., M.A., Bar-
rister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1888. 7s. 6d.
" We should have no hesitation in recommending it to a student who was to have a
paper set on Succession generally." — Saturday Review.

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS.— Paley's Law and Practice of Sum-
mary Convictions under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts,
1 848 and 1879; including Proceedings preliminary and subsequent
to Convictions, and the responsibility of Convicting Magistrates and
their Officers, with Forms. Sixth Edition. By W. H. MACNAMAEA,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1879. 11. 4s.

Wigram. — Vide " Justice of the Peace."

SU MMONSES& ORDERS.— Archibald.— Vide "Chamber Practice."

TAXES ON SUCCESSION.— Trevor's Taxes on Succession.—
A Digest of the Statutes and Cases (including those in Scotland and
Ireland) relating to the Probate, Legacy and Succession Duties, with
Practical Observations and Official Forms. Fourth Edition. By
EVELYN FEEETH and R. J. WALLACE, of the Legacy and Succession
Duty Office. Royal 12mo. 1881. 12s. 6d.

TAXPAYERS' GUIDES.— Vide "House Tax," "Income Tax," and
" Land Tax "

THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS.— Geary's Law of Theatres
and Music Halls, including Contracts and Precedents of
Contracts. — By W. N. M. GEARY, J.P. With Historical Introduc-
tion. By JAMES WILLIAMS, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. 8vo. 1885. 5*.

TITHES. — Bolton's Tithe Acts; including the Recent Act for the
Limitation and Redemption of Extraordinary Tithe ; with an Intro-
duction and Observations and copious Index. By T. H. BOLTON,
Solicitor. Royal 12mo. 1886. 6*.

Studd's Law of Tithes and Tithe Rent-Charge, — Being a Treatise
on the Law of Tithe Rent- Charge, with a sketch of the History and
Law of Tithes prior to the Commutation Acts, and including the Tithe
Act of 1891, with the Rules thereunder. Second Edition. ByEDWAED
FAIRFAX STLTDD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1891. 6s.
" This book was originally a good one. Now it is a better one." — Law Times.

%* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W C. 29

TORTS. — Addison on Torts; being a Treatise on Wrongs and

their Remedies. Sixth Edition. By HORACE SMITH, Esq., Bencher

of the Inner Temple, Editor of "Addison on Contracts," &c.

Royal 8vo. 1887. II. 18*.

" Upon a careful perusal of the editor's work, we can say that he has done it

excellently." — Late Quarterly Review.

" As now presented, this valuable treatise must prove highly acceptable to judges and
the profession." — Law Time*.
" An indispensable addition to every lawyer's library." — Law Magazine.

Ball's Leading Cases on the Law of Torts, with Notes. Edited
by W. E. BALL, LL.D., Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Author of "Prin-
ciples of Torts and Contracts." Royal 8vo. 1884. II. la.
" The notes are extremely, and as far as we have been able to discover uniformly,
good. . . There is much intelligent and independent criticism." — Solicitors' Journal.
"All the cases given are interesting, and most of them are important, and the
comments in the notes are intelligent and useful." — Law Journal.

Pollock's Law of Torts : a Treatise on the Principles of Obligations
arising from Civil Wrongs in the Common Law. Second Edition,
to which is added the draft of a Code of Civil Wrongs prepared for
the Government of India . By Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK, Bart. , Barrister-
at-Law. Author of "Principles of Contract," "A Digest of the
Law of Partnership," &c. Demy 8vo. 1890. 21*.

" Concise, logically arranged, and accurate." — Law Times.

" A book which is well worthy to stand beside the companion volume on 'Contracts.'
Unlike so many law-books, especially on this subject, it is no mere digest of cases, but
bears the impress of the mind of the writer from beginning to end." — Law Journal.

Shearwood's Sketch of the Law of Tort for the Bar and Solicitors
Final Examinations. By JOSEPH A. SHEABWOOD, Esq., Barrister-at-
Law. Author of ' ' Concise Abridgments of the Law of Real and
Personal Property," &c. Royal 12mo. 1886. 3s.

TRADE MARKS.— Aston.— Vide "Patents."

Graham's Designs and Trade Marks. — By JOHN CAMERON GRAHAM,
of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1889. 6*.

Sebastian on the Law of Trade Marks and their Registration,
and matters connected therewith, including a chapter on Goodwill i
together with the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Acts, 1883-8,
and the Trade Marks Rules and Instructions thereunder ; Forms and
Precedents ; the Merchandize Marks Act, 1887, and other Statutory
Enactments; the United States Statutes, 1870-81, and the Rule's
and Forms thereunder ; and the Treaty with the United States, 1877.
Third Edition. By LEWIS BOYD SEBASTIAN, Esq., Barrister-at-
Law. Demy8vo. 1890. 11.5s.
" The work stands alone as an authority upon the law of trade-marks and their
registration." — Law Journal, August 2, 1890.

" It is hardly necessary to tell anyone who has consulted the last edition of this
book that it is characterized by mastery of the subject, exemplary industry, and com-
pleteness and accuracy of statement It is rarely we come across a law book which
embodies the results of years of careful investigation and practical experience in a
branch of law, or that can be unhesitatingly appealed to as a standard authority.
This is what can be said of Mr. Sebastian's book.— Solicitors' Journal, Nov. 1, 1890.

Sebastian's Digest of Cases of Trade Mark, Trade Name,

Trade Secret, Goodwill, &c,, decided in the Courts of the United

Kingdom, India, the Colonies, and the United States of America.

By LEWIS BOYD SEBASTIAN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1879. ll.lt.

" A digest which will be of very great value to all practitioners who have to advise on

matters connected with trade Taafks."— Solicitors' Journal.

Hardingham's Trade Marks: Notes on the British, Foreign, and

Colonial Laws relating thereto. By GEO. GATTON MELHUISH

HARPIXOHAM, Consulting Engineer and Patent Agent. Royal 12mo.

1881. Net, 2«. 6d.

%* Att standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings.

30 STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,

TRAMWAYS.— Sutton's Tramway Acts of the United Kingdom;
with Notes on the Law and Practice, an Introduction, including the
Proceedings before the Committees, Decisions of the Referees with
respect to Locus Standi, and a Summary of the Principles of Tramway
Hating, and an Appendix containing the Standing Orders of Par-
liament. Rules of the Board of Trade relating to Tramways, &c.
Second Edition. By HENRY SUTTON, assisted by ROBERT A. BEN-
NETT, Barristers -at -Law. Demy 8vo. 1883. 15*.

TRUST FUNDS. — Geare's Investment of Trust Funds. — Incorpo-
rating the Trustee Act, 1888. By EDWARD ARUNDEL GEARE, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. Including the Trusts Invest-
ment Act, 1889. Royal 12mo. 1889. Is. 6d.
" Tne work is written in an easy style, it can very well be read by all trustees,

whether they are lawyers or not ; and if they will take our advice, and invest their

money here before they invest other people's elsewhere, they may be spared much

trouble in the future." — The Jurist.

TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. — Godefrors Law Relating to Trusts
and Trustees. — Second Edition. By HENRY GODEFROI, of Lincoln's
Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1891. 11. 12*.

" The second edition of this work which lies before us is a model of what a legal
text-book ought to be. It is clear in style and clear in arrangement, and we can have
little doubt that it will soon take the foremost place among text-books dealing with
trusts. Moreover, it is brought up to date by including in its scope the Trust In-
vestment Act of 1889, and the Settled Land Act, 1890. The chapter on Precatory
Trusts in Mr. Godefroi's work seems to us particularly good and clear, and the many
judicial decisions as to what expressions are sufficient and what are insufficient to im-
port a trust are marshalled with great care and accuracy." — Law Times, April 18, 1891.

Hamilton's Trustee Acts. — Containing the Trustee Act, 1850 ; the
Trustee Extension Act, 1852 ; and the Trustee Act, 1888 ; with Sup-
plement of the Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 Viet. c. 5), so far as relates to
Vesting Orders. By G-. BALDWIN HAMILTON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law,
Author of " A Concise Treatise on the Law of Covenants." Demy
8vo. 1890. 6s.

" This is a very useful little book. "We have perused it with much care, and we
have come to the conclusion that it may be safely tinisted to as a guide to the compli-
cated law to which it relates." — Law Quarterly Review.

VENDORS AND PURCHASERS. — Dart's Vendors and Pur-
chasers. — A Treatise on the Law and Practice relating to Vendors
and Purchasers of Real Estate. By the late J. HENRY DART, Esq.,
one of the Six Conveyancing Counsel of the High Court of Justice,
Chancery Division. Sixth Edition. By WILLIAM BARBER, Esq., one
of Her Majesty's Counsel, RICHARD BURDON HALDANE, and WILLIAM
ROBERT SHELDON, both of Lincoln's Inn, Esqrs., Barristers -at -Law.
2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1888. 3^.15*.

" The new edition of Dart is far ahead of all competitors in the breadth of its range,

the clearness of its exposition, and the soundness of its law." — Law Times.

" The extensive changes and numerous improvements which have been introduced

are the result of assiduous labour, combin* d with critical acumen, sound knowledge,

and practical experience." — Law Quarterly Review.

Turner's Duties of Solicitorto Client as to Sales, Purchases, and
Mortgages of Land. — By EDWARD E. TURNER, Solicitor, Lecturer
on Real Property and Conveyancing. Demy Svo. 1883. 10s. 6d.
See also Conveyancing. — " Turner."

" A careful perusal of these lectures cannot fail to be of great advantage to students,
and more particularly, we think, to young practising solicitors." — Law Times.

WAR, DECLARATIpN OF.— Owen's Declaration of War.— A
Survey of the Position of Belligerents and Neutrals, with relative
considerations of Shipping and Marine Insurance during War, By
DOUGLAS OWEN, Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1889. 21s.

*»* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other binding*.

119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 31

WATERS.— Musgrave's Dissertation on the Common Law of
Waters and its Application to Natural Circumstances other
than those of England.— By W. A. B. MUBOBAVE, D.C.L., of the
Inner Temple, Barribter-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1890. Net, 2*.

WILLS.— Theobald's Concise Treatise on the Law of Wills.—

Third Edition. By H. S. THEOBALD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal

8vo. 1885. II. 10*.

" A book of great ability and value. It bears on every page traces of care and sound

judgment. It is certain to prove of great practical usefulness." — Solicitors' Journal.

Weaver's Precedents of Wills. — A Collection of Concise Precedenta
of Wills, with Introduction, Notes, and an Appendix of Statutes.
By CHABLES WEAVES, B.A. Post 8vo. 1882. 5«.

WINDING UP.— Palmer's Winding-up Forms.— A Collection of 580
Forms of Summonses, Affidavits, Orders, Notices and other Forms
relating to the Winding-up of Companies. With Notes on the Law
and Practice, and an Appendix containing the Acts and Rules. By
FRANCIS BEAUFORT PALJCEE, Esq., Barrister- at-Law, Author of
" Company Precedents," &c. 8vo. 1885. 12*.

Pitt- Lewis' Winding-up Practice. — A Manual of the Practice as
to Winding-up in the High Court and in the County Court;
being the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, and the Winding-up
of Companies and Associations (Part IV. of the Companies Act, 1862),
as now amended, with Notes, and the Companies Winding-up Rules,
1890. Forming a SUPPLEMENT to "A Complete Practice of the
County Courts." By G. PITT-LEWIS, Q.C., M.P., Recorder of
Poole. Demy 8vo. 1891. Is. 6d.

" This is a book that we can cordially recommend, and forms a fitting supplement
to the aptly-named larger work of the same author." — Law Gazette, March 5, 1891.

WRECK INQUIRIES.— Murton's Law and Practice relating to
Formal Investigations in the United Kingdom, British Posses-
sions and before Naval Courts into Shipping Casualties and
the Incompetency and Misconduct of Snips' Officers. With
an Introduction. By WALTER MURTON, Solicitor to the Board of
Trade. Demy 8vo. 1884. II. 4*.

WRONGS.— Addison, Ball, Pollock, Shearwood.— Ft<£<? "Torts."

REPORTS. — A large Stock, New and Second-hand. Prices
on application.

BINDING. — Executed in the best manner at moderate prices
and with dispatch.

The Law Reports, Law Journal, and all other Reports,
bound to Office Patterns, at Office Prices,

PRIVATE ACTS,— The Publishers of this Catalogue
possess the largest known collection of Private Acts of
Parliament (including Public and Local), and can supply
single copies commencing from a very early period.

LICENSED VALUERS for Probate, Tartnersliip, &c.
LIBRARIES PURCHASED OR EXCHANGED.

STEVENS AND SONS, LD., 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS.

Addison's Treatise on the Law of Contracts. — Ninth Edition. By
HORACE SMITH, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. (In the press.)

Dixon's Law of the Farm. —Fifth Edition. By AUBREY J. SPENCER,
B.A., Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In preparation.)

Fry's Treatise on the Specific Performance of Contracts. — By the
Right Hon. Sir EDWARD FRY, one of the Lords Justices of Appeal.
Third Edition. By the Author and EDWARD PORTSMOUTH FRY, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. (In the press.)

Hedderwick's Parliamentary Election Pocket Manual. — ByTnoMAs
CHARLES HEDDERWICK, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In the press.)

Highmore's Stamp Act, 1891, and the Stamp Duties Management
Act, 1891. — With an Introduction and Notes, and a copious Index.
By NATHANIEL JOSEPH HIGHMORE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Assistant-
Solicitor of the Inland Revenue. Demy 8vo. (Nearly ready.)

Innes' Principles of the Law of Torts. — By L. C. INNES, lately one
of the Judges of the High Court, Madras, Author of " A Digest of
the English Law of Easements." (Nearly ready.)

Lawrance's Precedents of Deeds of Arrangement between
Debtors and their Creditors. — Fourth Edition. By H. ARTHUR
SMITH, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In the press.)

Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England,—

Second Edition. Edited by Sir WALTER G-EO. FRANK PHILLIMORE,

Bart., D.C.L., Chancellor of the Diocese of Lincoln. (In preparation.)

Roscoe's Admiralty Practice. — Third Edition. By E. S. ROSCOE and

T. LAMBERT MEARS, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. (In preparation.)

Selwyn's Abridgment of the Law of Nisi Prius. — 14th Edition. By
W. H. MACNAMARA, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In preparation.)

Seton's Forms of Judgments and Orders in the High Court of
Justice and Courts of Appeal, having especial reference to the
Chancery Division, with Practical Notes. Fifth Edition. By C. C.
M. DALE, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and W. CLOWES,
Esq., one of the Registrars of the Supreme Court. (In the press.)

Shelford's Real Property Statutes,— Ninth Edition. By T. H.
CARSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In preparation.)

Shirley's Selection of Leading Cases in the Common Law. With'
Notes. — Fourth Edition. By RICHARD WATSON, of Lincoln's Inn,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. * (Nearly ready.)

Theobald and Schuster's Lunacy Act, 18^0, with Notes.— By H. S.
THEOBALD and E. J. SCHUSTER, Barristers-at-Law. (In preparation.)

Warburton's Selection of Leading Cases in the Criminal Law

With Notes. — By HENRY WARBURTON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law
[Founded on " Shirley's Leading Cases."] (In the press.)

Wharton's Law Lexicon.— Ninth Edition. By J. M. LELY, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. (In preparation.)

Whitehead's Church Law. — Being a Concise Dictionary of Statutes,
Canons and Regulations affecting the Clergy and Laity. By BENJAMIN
WHITEHEAD, B.A., Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In preparation.)

Wigram's Justice's Note Book. — By the late W. KNOX WIGRAM, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law, J.P. Sixth Edition. By ARCHIBALD HENRY
BODKIN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In the press.)

Williams' Law of Executors and Administrators. — Ninth Edition.
By the Hon. Sir ROLAND VAUQHAN WILLIAMS, a Justice of the High
Court. 2 vols. Royal 8 vo. (In the press.)

STEVENS AND SONS, LD., 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

Edmunds on Patents. — The Law and Practice of Letters

Patent for Inventions, with the Patent Acts and Eules annotated, and the International
Convention ; a full Collection of Statutes, Forms and Precedents, and an Outline of
Foreign and Colonial Patent Laws, &c. By LEWIS EDMUNDS, assisted by A. WOOD
RENTON, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Royal 8vo. (992pp.) 1890. Price \l. 12s. cloth.

Sebastian's Law of Trade Marks and their Kegistration,

and matters connected there with, including a Chapter on Goodwill. Together with the
Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883-8, and the Trade Marks Rules and
Instructions thereunder, Forms and Precedents ; the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887,
and other Statutory enactments ; and the United States Statutes, 1870 to 1881, and the
Rules and Forms thereunder, and the Treaty with the United States, 1877. Third
Edition. By LEWIS BO YD SEBASTIAN, B.C.L., M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1890. Price II. bs. cloth.
" The work stands alone as an authority upon the law of trade marks." — Law Journal.

Stringer's Oaths and Affirmations in Great Britain and

Ireland ; being a Collection of Statutes, Cases, and Forms, with Notes and Practical
Directions for the use of Commissioners for Oaths, and of all Courts of Civil Proce-
dure and Offices attached thereto. [In succession to "Braithwaite's Oaths."] By
FRANCIS A. STRINGER, of the Central Office, Supreme Court of Judicature, one
of the Editors of the "Annual Practice." Crown 8vo. 1890. Price 3s. 6d. cloth.
"Indispensable to all Commissioners." — Solicitors' Journal.

Thring's Joint Stoek Companies' Law. — The Law and

Practice of Joint Stock and other Companies, including the Companies Acts, 1862
to 1886, with Notes, Orders, and Rules in Chancery, a Collection of Precedents of
Memoranda and Articles of Association, and other Forms required in Making and
Administering a Company. By Lord TURING, K.C.B. Fifth Edition. By J. M.
RENDEL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1889. Price II. 10*. cloth.
"The highest authority on the subject." — The Times.

WoodfaiFs Law of Landlord and Tenant. — With a full

Collection of Precedents and Forms of Procedure ; containing also a Collection of
Leading Propositions, fourteenth Edition. By J. M. LELY, Esq., Barrister-at-
Law. Royal 8vo. 1889. Price 11. 18s. cloth.

Oldham and Poster on th© Law of Distress — A Treatise

on the Law of Distress, with an Appendix of Forms, Table of Statutes, &c. Second
Edition. By ARTHUR OLDHAM and A. LA TROBE FOSTER, Esqrs.,
Barristers-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1889. Price 18*. cloth.

Macnamara's Law of Carriers, — A Digest of the Law of

Carriers of Goods and Passengers by Land and Internal Navigation. By WALTER
HENRY MACNAMARA, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Registrar to the Railway Com-
mission. Royal 8vo. 1888. Price II. 8s. cloth.
"We cordially approve of the general plan and execution of this work." — Solicitors1 Journal.

Browne and Theobald's Law of Railway Companies. —

Being a Collection of the Acts and Orders relating to Railway Companies in England
and Ireland, with Notes of all the Cases decided thereon, and Appendix of Bye-Laws
and Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Second Edition. By J. H.
BALFOUR BROWNE, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and H. S. THEOBALD,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1888. Price II. 15s. cloth.
" Contains in a very concise form the whole law of railways." — The Times.

Geare's Investment of Trust Funds. — Incorporating the

Trustee Act, 1888. Second Edition. Including the Trusts Investment Act, 1889*
By EDWARD ARUNDEL GEARE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1889,
Price 7s. Qd. cloth.

Brooke's Notary. — A Treatise on the Office and Practice of

a Notary of England. "With a full Collection of Precedents, fifth Edit. By GEORGE
F. CHAMBERS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1890. Price 11. Is. cloth.

Studd's Law of Tithes and Tithe Bent-Charge. — Being a

Treatise on the Law of Tithe Rent- Charge, with a Sketch of the History and Law of
Tithes prior to the Commutation Acts, and including the Tithe Act of 1891, with the
Rules thereunder. Second Edition. By EDWARD FAIRFAX STUDD, Esq., Bar-
rister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1891. Price 6s. cloth.

Rawson's Profit- Sharing Precedents, with Notes, — By

HENRY G. RAWSON, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo.
P 1891. Price 6s. cloth. ' <

^ _ — — _ ^

*** A large stock of Second-hand Law Reports and Text-books on Sale.

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

Common Law_
tioii fr<

iiu'lii.-si

t>Q CD rH
C CV2 O O

University of Toronto
Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Chitty's Index to all the Reported Cases decided in the

several Courts of Equity in England, the Privy Council, and the House of Lords,
with a Selection of Irish Cases on or relating to the Principles, Pleading and Practice
of Equity and Bankruptcy from the Earliest Period. Fourth Edition. Wholly
Revised, Re-classitied, and brought down to the end of 1883. By HENHY
EDWARD HIRST, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Complete in 9 Vols. JtoyalSvo. 1883-89.
Price 121. 12s. cloth. *#* The Volumes may be had separately to complete Sets.
"The work is thoroughly well done." — Law Quarterly Review.

Fisher's Digest of the Reported Decisions of the Courts of

•ether with a selec-
Ifrora 1756 to 1883
[Ksswted by C. M.
1 Barristers-at-Law.

:s in all the

J Barrister-at-Law.

| JOHN MEWS,

»* The above works
he end of 1890.

.ating to Par-

'AM FREDERICK

f.l. Is. cloth,
fa, together with a few
aw Quarterly Review.

Divorce and

sq., Barrister-at-Law.

— Third English

Law. Royal 8vo. 1889.

L )les of Equity,

Students and Practi-
M.A., LL.B. (Lond.),

-Second Edition.

'. jaw. Demy Svo. 1889.

Criminal Law,

-at-Law. Demy 8vo.

actitioners and

J Practical Rules and
bth Edition. By J.
[187. Trice 14*. cloth.

j-A Manual of

pd on the Works of
il Principles and the
)SIAH W. SMITH,
., Barrister-at-Law.

ises Civil and

[lining them, &c., &c.,
' th Edition. With a
£ cloth.

J the Advocate's art in
Trial by Jury.1 — Solicitors Journ&l.

The Pocket Law Lexicon. — Explaining Technical Words,

Phrases and Maxims of the English, Scotch and Roman Law, to which is added a
complete List of Law Reports, with their Abbreviations. Second Edition. Revised
and Enlarged. By HENRY G. RAWSON, B.A., of the Inner Temple, Esq
Barrister-at-Law. Fcap. 8ro. 1884. Price 6s. 6d. limp binding.
"A wonderful little legal Dictionary."— Indermaur's Law Students1 Journal.

*»* A Catalogue of New Law Works (1891) gratis on application.

Acme Library Card Pocket

Under Pat. "Ref. Index File"
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU