Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

wharf, Paddington, hay salesman, Jan. 20 at 11, Court of
Bankruptcy, London.-Henry Rickett, Henry-st., Penton-
ville, dealer in wine, Jan. 25 at half-past 2, Court of Bank-
ruptcy, London. -John Spanton, Bermondsey-st., Surrey,
cheesemonger, Jan. 20 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy,
London.-Henry Howard, London-wall, looking-glass manu-
facturer, Jan. 20 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-S.
Magnus, Dover, Kent, slopseller, Jan. 21 at half-past 2, Court
of Bankruptcy, London.-Saml. Younger, Great Tower-st.,
London, merchant, Jan. 24 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, Lon-
don.-Wm. Gorsuch, Liverpool, hotel keeper, Jan. 23 at 12,
District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.-Jos. Clay, Dews-
bury, Yorkshire, draper, Jan. 24 at half-past 2, Court of Bank-
ruptcy, London.-James Hayward and R. H. Moore, Pater-
noster-row, booksellers, Jan. 24 at half-past 1, Court of
Bankruptcy, London.-Peter Little, Blackburn, Lancashire,
currier, Jan. 24 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manches-
ter.-E. P. West, Stamford, Lincolnshire, grocer, Jan. 25 at
half-past 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-R.
Scampton, Coventry, grocer, Feb. 18 at 11, District Court of
Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-C. W. Davies, Bishops Castle,
Shropshire, mercer, Jan. 25 at half-past 11, District Court of
Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-George Carey, Nottingham, lace
manufacturer, Jan. 31 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy,
Birmingham.-J. Topham, Liverpool, money scrivener, Jan.
23 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.-Robert
Craig, Manchester, innkeeper, Jan. 24 at 12, District Court
of Bankruptcy, Manchester.-James Fitton, Bolton-le-Moors,
Lancashire, smallware dealer, Jan. 20 at 1, District Court of
Bankruptcy, Manchester.-H. Hardie, Manchester, mer-
chant, Jan. 20, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Fras. James
Osbaldeston, St. Alban's, Hertfordshire, dealer in horses, Jan.
20, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-A. Wise, Wolborough,
Wm. S. Bentall, and Robt. Farwell, Totnes, Devonshire,
bankers, Jan. 20, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-A. Duncan
and C. Duncan, Tokenhouse-yard, merchants, Jan. 20, Court
of Bankruptcy, London.-E. J. Troughton, St. Michael's-
alley, Cornhill, Jan. 20, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-B.
Holmes, Birmingham, boot maker, Jan. 20, Court of Bank-
ruptcy, London.-Benjamin Moses, Hanway-st., Oxford-st.,
jeweller, Jan. 20, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Jas. Bed-
ford, Westminster-road, Surrey, ironmonger, Jan. 20, Court
of Bankruptcy, London.-J. A. Smith, Oxford-st., linen-
draper, Jan. 20, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Thomas
Scott, Bow Church-yard, commission agent, Jan. 20, Court of
Bankruptcy, London.-Thos. Humfrey, jun., Great Stan-
more, Middlesex, bricklayer, Jan. 20, Court of Bankruptcy,
London.-Alfred Bouglinval and Jos. Farrington, Stratford,
Essex, manufacturing chemists, Jan. 20, Court of Bankruptcy,
London.-Thos. Metcalfe, Cambridge, upholsterer, Jan. 20,
Court of Bankruptcy, London.-James Dover, Three Cranes-
wharf, London, merchant, Jan. 20, Court of Bankruptcy,
London.
FIAT ANNUlled.

Andover, Hampshire, horse dealer, Jan. 13 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.-Edw. Hilton and Nathaniel Walsh, Over Darwen, Lancashire, paper makers, Jan. 27 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, last ex.-Jas. Lockwood and Geo. Lockwood, Wakefield, Yorkshire, and St. John's, New Brunswick, North America, linen drapers, Jan. 20 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, last ex.-E. Beerbohm and Wm. Edm. Slaughter, Fenchurch-street, merchants, Jan. 24 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.—John Reid, King William-street, London, chemist, Jan. 24 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Mont. Combe Price, Brentford, glass seller, Jan. 23 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-John Stewart, Hampton-st., Walworth, linen draper, Jan. 23 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Geo. Chalk, Castlenau Barnes, Surrey, and Broadway, Hammersmith, Jan. 23 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.—Wm. Hopper, Great Queen-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, carpet warehouseman, Jan. 23 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.— John Hooper, Austin-friars, and Regent-street, Waterloo-pl., tea dealer, Jan. 23 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Geo. Olden, Salisbury, Wiltshire, grocer, Jan. 20 at halfpast 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-D. Brandon, Beech-st., Barbican, London, and Newbury, Berkshire, shoe manufacturer, Jan. 25 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Matthew Atkinson, Temple Sowerby, Westmorland, and Jonathan Laidman, sen., Penrith, Cumberland, bankers, Jan. 20 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, aud. ac.; Jan. 21 at 11, fin. div.-John Bent, Dudley, Worcestershire, grocer, Jan. 31 at 12, Birmingham District Court of Bankruptcy, aud. ac.-Adolphus Blumenthal, Birmingham, wine merchant, Feb. 6 at 11, Birmingham District Court of Bankruptcy, aud. ac.- -Wm. Huskisson, Birmingham, linen draper, Feb. 4 at half-past 12, Birmingham District Court of Bankruptcy, aud. ac.-John Baker and Edw. Swinburne, Birmingham, timber merchants, Jan. 28 at half-past 11, Birmingham District Court of Bankruptcy, aud. ac.-Edw. P. West, Stamford, Lincolnshire, grocer, Jan. 25 at 12, Biriningham District Court of Bankruptcy, aud. ac. -Robert Craig, Manchester, innkeeper, Feb. 2 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.; Feb. 3 at 12, div. -John Ashworth, Rochdale, Lancashire, worsted manufacturer, Jan. 21 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.; Jan. 25 at 12, div.-E. Burdekin, Manchester, banker, Jan. 26 at 11, Manchester District Court of Bankruptcy, aud. ac.-H. Adams, Totnes, Devonshire, merchant, Jan. 26 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter District, aud. ac. -Thos Brennand, Blackburn, Lancashire, linen draper, Jan. 25 at 1, Manchester District Court of Bankruptcy, aud. ac.Wm. Manning, Frederick Manning, and John L. Anderdon, New Bank-buildings, West India merchants, Jan. 24 at halfpast 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Edward Lees, Leather-lane, Holborn, tea dealer, Jan. 20 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Jas. Henderson, Poland-street, Oxford-street, carpenter, Jan. 24 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.—John Coats, St. John-st., draper, Jan. 27 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Edward Massey and Richard Lambert, Watling-street, warehousemen, Jan. 27 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Robert ford, Glasgow, merchant.-James King, Greenock, merchant. Stockdale, Crosby-square, London, merchant, Jan. 20 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-John Jones, New-road, Whitechapel-road, stationer, Jan. 23 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Francis Brittan, Bristol, woollen draper, Jan. 30 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, pr. d., aud. ac., and fin. div.

CERTIFICATES

To be allowed, unless Cause shewn to the contrary. Duncan Smith, Bucklersbury, merchant, Jan. 27 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Benj. Barlow, Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, Dorsetshire, wine merchant, Jan. 26 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter.-G. S. Harvey, Melcombe Regis, Dorsetshire, ironmonger, Jan. 26 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter.-Rich. Lindon, Snapes, Marlborough, Devonshire, corn factor, Jan. 26 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter.-Philip Willmott, Blackfriarsroad, Surrey, linen draper, Jan. 25 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-James N. Chapman, Upper Holloway, licensed victualler, Jan. 20 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London. -John Coats, St. John-st., Middlesex, draper, Jan. 25 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Augustus Lines, Irongate

Stephen Waters, Edenbridge, Kent, draper and grocer.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
Ambrose Grimshaw, Glasgow, hotel-keeper.-Alex. Craw-

INSOLVENT DEBTORS.

The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before the Court, in Portugal-st., on Friday, Jan. 20 at 9. Emilio Fusco, Durham-street, Vauxhall, Surrey, teacher of languages.-Wm. Silverton, Kirby-st., Hatton-garden, barman.-Ann Pattison, Lower Sloane-street, Chelsea, lodginghouse keeper.-Aaron Isaacs, Martletts-court, Bow-st., Covent-gardon, general dealer.-Chas. Fredk. Ellerman, Sugar Loaf-court, London, general merchant.-Anthony Underwood, Porchester-place. Oxford-square, Paddington, coachman.-J. Wm. Ashton, Wellington-place, St. Mary Islington, painter. -Wm. C. Crisp, Old Church-street, Paddington, painter.Wm. Growcutt, Cromwell-place, Wandsworth-lane, Putney, Surrey, coach wheelwright.-Chas. Brent, Vincent-square, Westminster, out of business.-Wm. Weeks, Orchard-street, Westminster, barman.

Jan. 23, at the same hour and place.

John Bloxam, Dudley-grove, Harrow-road, builder.-John H. Williams, Sable-street, Lower-road, Islington, cab-driver. -Wm. Hasler, Mount-terrace, New-road, Whitechapel-road, carman.- -Fredk. Hen. Ingersoll, Lewisham, Kent, veterinary

surgeon.—Robt. Hayward, Gravel-lane, Southwark, hat manufacturer.-John Field, Windmill-place, Windmill-st., Tottenham-court-road, coachsmith.-Wm. Fryer, Pleasant-row, Old Kent-road, Surrey, baker.-Wm. A. Cutbill, jun., New North-place, New North-street, Finsbury, bedstead maker.H. Hales, jun., Saville-row, Walworth-rd., Surrey, out of business.-Edmund G. Watson, Chatham, Kent, sail-maker. Wm. Lucas, Devonshire-cottage, Caledonian-fields, Chalk. road, St. Mary Islington, beer-shopkeeper.-Richd. Smart, sen., Whiskin-street, Clerkenwell, out of business.-Samuel Smeeton, Goswell-st., St. Luke's, and Newgate-market, carcass butcher.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' Dividends.

Wm. Carter, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, tea dealer: 18. 7d. in the pound.-W. G. Waring, Blackpool, Lancashire, stationer: 3s. 8d. in the pound.-David Wright, Trafalgar-road, Greenwich, surgeon in the navy: 3s. 6d. in the pound.-Jas. Foottit, Sheffield, attorney at law: 11d. in the pound.-Geo. Bloomfield, Thelnetham, Suffolk, millwright: 74d. in the pound.-Wm. Smith, Halifax, Yorkshire, grocer: 3s. 2d. in the pound.

Apply at the Provisional Assignee's Office, Portugal-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, between the hours of 10 and 1. Robert Affleck, Red Lion-st., Holborn, boot maker, Jan. 3, Parrell's, New North-st., Red Lion-sq.: 4s. 6d. in the pound.

MEETING.

Chas. Hawkings, Huntspill, Somersetshire, yeoman, Jan. 14 at 12, Ruddock's, Bridgewater, sp. affairs.

MASTER IN CHANCERY.-The Lord Chancellor has appointed Henry Moore, of Wimborne Minster, Dorsetshire, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery.

DEATH OF SIR ALEXANDER CROKE.-This event took place at the seat of the learned gentleman, Studley Priory, Oxfordshire, on Tuesday last. He was called to the Bar in 1786, and presided as Judge of the ViceAdmiralty Court in Nova Scotia for many years. On his retirement from that office in 1816, he received the honour of Knighthood. In 1823, he became a bencher of the Inner Temple, and in 1829 was appointed TreaHe died at the advanced age of 84.

surer.

[blocks in formation]

N ABRIDGMENT of the LAW of NISI PRIUS. Tenth Edition, enlarged and much improved, with the Statutes and Cases brought down to Michaelmas Term, 1841.

[blocks in formation]

IME

AUDITORS...

| Robert E. Allison, Esq.

Solicitors.-Messrs. Palmer, France, and Palmer. MPORTANT AND SALUTARY IMPROVEMENTS have been introduced into the practice of Life AsAll the advantages peculiar to surance by this Company. mutual life assurance, arising from a division amongst the assured of the whole of the mutual profits, and that security and freedom from responsibility which proprietary companies can guaranteed Mutual Society. alone afford, are combined by the constitution of this, the only

By a half-premium credit system, one-half of the premiums may be retained for the first seven years, and repaid at the convenience of the assured; and by the ascending scale a greatly diminished rate of premium is required for the first twelve years, combining the advantages of an assurance for the whole duration of life with the economy of a temporary policy. Specimen of Ascending Table. Second 3 Years.

Age.

First 3 Years.

£ s. d. £ s. d. £ s.

Fourth 3 Remainder Years. of Life.

Third 3 Years.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

3 10 10 5 17 4

4 5 5

500

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

677

249

2 18 10

4 2 1 5147

60 4 8 11 By the Deed of Constitution, all policies issued by this Company are declared to be INDEFEASIBLE and INDISPUTABLE, unless obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation, which renders them peculiarly valuable as documents of security.

COMMISSION.-The solicitor who transacts an assurance with this Company, is held to be the agent of the policy during its currency, and receives the usual commission upon all the future premiums, by whomsoever they may be paid.

Prospectuses, schedules, and every information requisite to enable parties to effect assurances, will be forwarded, free of expense, by the agents or manager.

ALEXANDER ROBERTSON, Manager.

This day is published, price 10s. 6d., Part II.,

By WILLIAM SELWYN, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, one of REPORTS and NOTES of CASES on LETTERS

[blocks in formation]

Of whom may be had, just published, BYLES ON BILLS OF EXCHANGE.-A Practical Treatise on the Law of Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, Bankers' Cash Notes and Cheques. With an Appendix of Statutes and Forms of Pleading. Fourth Edition, much en larged. 12mo. Price 16s. boards.

Orders for THE JURIST given to any Newsman or letter, (post-paid) sent to the Office, No. 3, CHANCERY LANE, or to V. & R. STEVENS & G. S. NORTON, (Successors to J. & W. T. Clarke, late of Portugal Street), 26 and 39, BELL YARD, will insure its punctual delivery in London, or its being forwarded on the evening of publica tion, through the medium of the Post Office, to the Country.

London: Printed by WALTER M'DOWALL, PRINTER, 4, PENBERTON Row, and Published by STEPHEN SWEET, BOOKSELLER and PUBLISHER, 3, CHANCERY LANE. Saturday, December 31, 1842.

No. 313.

JAN. 7, 1843.

With Supplement, 1s. 6d.

* The following are the Names of the Gentlemen who favour THE JURIST with Reports of Cases argued and decided in the several Courts of Law and Equity:—

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

presume, though he is not quite explicit on this point, as Masters, and to make them Judges in Equity for suits involving matters under a given value, and for suits of the administratory class; and to take the management of such suits from their inception to their final determination.

If a certain number of Judges were appointed with such a jurisdiction, we fully agree with Mr. Stewart, that benefit would result from it. And as to the difficulty of determining the extent of their powers, and the forms of pleading and practice which would be useful in such courts, surely the learned persons who are capable of framing Orders for the regulation of proceedings in the higher Courts, could find no great difficulty in framing Rules for the proceedings of inferior ones.

The suggestions which we made on the first of these subjects in former numbers of THE JURIST, (vol. 4, p. 185, and vol. 6, p. 301), and of which we find the principle involved in Mr. Stewart's propositions, were, that in suits of an administratory character, it should be per- But if the plan shadowed forth by Mr. Stewart is inmitted, under the sanction of the Court, to dispense tended to abolish the particular office of Master, and to wholly, or in part, with the formal allegations, and the leave as an Equity establishment, only the superior still more formal replies to them, which now fill bills courts to deal with hostile suits, and suits touching and answers respectively as to facts, the existence of considerable property, and the new inferior courts to which is not denied by any party to the suit, and the deal with administratory suits, and those which affect mode of stating which is perfectly immaterial, provided small amounts of property; then to such a plan we conthey are in some manner brought before the Court.ceive innumerable objections present themselves. What And as to suits touching matters of small amount, we for instance is to be the mode of dealing under the proventured to suggest, that, for these, some very short posed new plan, with exceptions of all kinds to pleadmode of pleading might be laid down, which, coupled ings, or with references of title, arising in suits comwith a limited power of applying oral examination to menced in the superior court? Is it intended that such the parties and to witnesses, might enable a court act-matters should be dealt with by the superior court itself, ing on equitable principles, to adjudicate usefully on questions of equity affecting sums of small amount.

There can scarcely be any question, that, with regard to suits wholly or principally of an administratory character, it would be perfectly practicable, by the aid of General Orders, to dispense with nearly the whole of the bill and answer. Mr. Stewart, however, goes further on this point than the contemplation of mere alterations in pleading. His main proposition is to convert the Masters into Judges; to abolish them we Ꮓ Ꮓ

VOL. VI.

or that they should be referred to the inferior Judge as they now are to the Master? Either of these courses seems very inconvenient. Again, even in heavy suits not of an administratory character, inquiries, which are in fact of the same nature as those which constitute the great business of administrative suits, will sometimes occur; and how are they to be dealt with? To suppose that the superior court is itself to take such inquiries, is of course preposterous; and to refer them to the inferior judge would hardly consist with his in

creased dignity, besides interfering with his administration of his own judicial business. It is difficult to see how the Equity Judges can ever dispense wholly with the Masters, or with some officers having a considerable portion of their duties. Mr. Stewart touches slightly on this difficulty of the subject, (see p. 52 of his Observations), but hardly we apprehend attributes to it sufficient weight.

We pass now to the next important point of Legal Reform to which Mr. Stewart addresses himself, viz. the shortening of assurances; and on this subject his plan is rather singular; the principle of it is this, that a series of Acts of Parliament should be passed, embodying the common forms now used in conveyances; and connecting them with certain very short forms of conveyances, by declaring that when parties execute those short forms, they shall be intended to adopt, and shall have the benefit of the several full forms which the act attaches to the respective portions of the short ones. Thus, for instance, for an ordinary conveyance of lands, he proposes that the Act should provide a form consisting of a table, in which the first column should contain the name and description of the vendor, the date of his signature, and the attestations of the witnesses; column the second, the same particulars with regard to the purchaser; column the third, the consideration-money; and column the fourth, description of the property. The Act is then to declare, that by adopting and signing such form, the land is to be vested in the purchaser and his heirs; that the vendor by signing adopts such and such covenants-setting forth according to the most approved common forms the usual covenants entered into by a vendor; and that the grant of the lands shall include all ways &c., and the reversion &c., setting forth the common form for the general words usually following the parcels.

Mr. Stewart's plan is therefore to fix as a standard by act of Parliament the common forms now in use, and to establish at the same time a set of parliamentary symbols representing or referrible to those common forms, so that a conveyance executed according to the parliamentary symbols, shall draw to itself the benefit of the common forms; and this he proposes to be applied for all varieties of deeds, purchase-deeds, mortgages, leases, &c.

quently that perpetuation of expense which depends upon writing and copying on each successive transaction, would be avoided, yet it is questionable whether an increase of labour and difficulty would not be thrown upon professional men in investigating titles and preparing deeds; and whether, therefore, on the whole, the transfer of property would be much facilitated. In considering, for instance, the effect of one of these short parliamentary deeds, it would of course be necessary always to refer to the Act to see what were the covenants and other clauses that the parties had adopted; and if, as would constantly happen, the transactions were in the least complicated, and the parties had been under the necessity of using any combinations of the short forms, or sets of symbols; or if they had gone still further, and added, as Mr. Stewart proposes, provisoes and stipulations of their own, much confusion and difficulty would frequently ensue in determining what forms were drawn into operation by the symbols used, and what would be the effect on the forms of the variations introduced by the parties. We would not be understood to assert that the forms at present in use are not of a length, which in many cases is simply useless, and in many more absolutely pernicious. But we doubt whether any mode of alteration which shall prevent the conveyancer from having before him the effective parts of a deed in the deed itself, will not introduce sources of omission, perplexity, and misunderstanding, which will be more than a counterbalance for the extinction of length. We confess we should prefer seeing some short form of conveyance provided by legislative enact ment, on the footing for instance of those introduced into the numerous Railway Acts, accompanied perhaps by a declaration of the meaning attached by the Legislature to the operative words of such conveyances. Short forms of this kind, if put forth and sanctioned, without being in any way made compulsory, by the Legislature, would probably be employed in transfers of small properties, and would, after a few years, acquire a settled construction, which would render them sufficient for the purposes to which they would be ap plied. As for estates of great extent and value, they are almost always placed under circumstances which render forms of great minuteness, and consequently of considerable length, unavoidable.

ON RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS OF SALE.

The practice of selling under what are commonly called restrictive conditions of sale, is of very modern origin, having arisen out of the dangerous state into which it was found that most titles had fallen, and the incapacity of vendors, generally speaking, to support their titles by such evidence as a prudent purchaser would call for. Of the policy of forcing at all upon purchasers, contracts founded upon conditions of this nature, some doubt may be entertained; for it is clear that, unless the persons attending sales were generally

The plan is undoubtedly ingenious, and deserving of consideration. Nevertheless, several objections to its efficacy occur at once. In the first place, although it is quite true, that, in a majority of cases, the frame of most deeds of the same class is very similar, and might without disadvantage be entirely so, yet it constantly occurs that special points of detail require to be provided for, both in the conveying and covenanting parts. The proposed Acts, to be of any extensive use, would require therefore to embody as great a variety of forms, as are to be found in the published books of precedents; and even then they would fall very far short of the wants of the practitioner, since it is well known that circumstances render it in practice of daily neces-informed as to what constitute defects of title, they are sity, for the conveyancer to modify in some slight particulars his common forms. In the next place, although undoubtedly the length and bulk of muniments of title would be enormously diminished, and conse

not much put on their guard by conditions couched in technical language, restraining them from requiring proofs, the importance or unimportance of which they are unable to appreciate. On these grounds it seems,

that restrictive conditions of sale have found but little favour in the eyes of Courts of Equity, and are generally to be construed strictly against the vendor.

son or persons requiring the same, who may have attested copies of such deeds at his or their own expense."

Lord Cottenham held, reversing the judgment of the Court below, that the fourth condition was a positive contract to make a good title; that the sixth did not destroy its effect; and that the purchaser had a right to have the title set forth in the abstract, verified by producing the title-deeds themselves, or if the vendor had them not, by other satisfactory evidence. (South

This case is particularly important as shewing the strong leaning of the Courts against such conditions. For the sixth condition, it will be recollected, distinguish

That a vendor who has a defective title may, by apt conditions, so guard himself, as to compel a purchaser to take the title with its defects, is quite clear; but then the conditions must be perfectly explicit. This was determined in Freme v. Wright, (4 Mad. 364), in which the restrictive condition was, that the purchaser should have an assignment of the vendor's interest "under such title as he lately held the same." And it was ex-by v. Hutt, 2 Myl. & C. 207). pressly put to the bidders by the auctioneer, that the sale was a re-sale directed on account of a defect in the title, and that the purchaser was not to expect a good title, but to take it as it was. The purchasered between "delivering up" deeds, and "producing" was compelled to take the title. The case, it may them. The vendor was to "deliver up" such deeds as be thought, could hardly admit of a doubt, unless it he had; but as to such as he had not, he guarded himself was meant to overthrow the rule, that parties sui against "producing" them. Unless, therefore, the juris, dealing with each other at arm's length, and vendor did mean to make a distinction between producwithout fraud, will be held to their mutual contract, tion as incident to delivery, and production for the purhowever much it may be to the disadvantage of one of pose of evidence, there could be no reason for the use of them. For it was impossible to read the condition and the two distinct terms. And the argument of the Court not to see that the vendor contracted only to grant on this point, that, if the word "produce" had been what he had, whether it were good or bad. The same used in the more general sense, "it would not have point was decided at law in Wilmot v. Wilkinson, (6❘ been confined to deeds in the possession of the vendor, B. & C. 511). But the vendor, to be thus supported in because, for the purpose of proving the abstract, the forcing a defective title on the purchaser, must ex-production of deeds not in his possession, but of which plicitly make his intention to do so appear on the condition of sale. Therefore, where a vendor contracted to execute and deliver a valid irredeemable disposition of the property, and to deliver to the purchaser certain specified instruments, and it was added "which are all the title-deeds of the property in his custody," it was determined that the purchaser was not restricted to those instruments. (Dick v. Donald, 1 Bligh, N. S., 655). There can be no doubt in the mind of any one, that the vendor intended by the particular reservation, taken alone, to exclude the purchaser from calling for

the deeds, which he, the vendor, had not; but it will be observed, that the expression of such intention in the restrictive clause was inconsistent with the preceding contract to execute and deliver a valid irredeemable disposition; in other words, to make a good title; and, therefore, whatever might have been the vendor's intention, he did not, on the whole, explicitly express it. In a recent case before Lord Cottenham, where the same sort of question arose, the fourth condition of sale provided that the vendor should deliver an abstract and deduce a good title. The sixth was in the following words:"The vendor will deliver up to the purchaser of the greater part in value of the said estates, all the title-deeds and copies of deeds and other documents in his custody, but shall not be bound or required to produce any original deed, or other documents than those in his possession, and set forth in the abstract, or which relate to other property; and such purchaser is to enter into the usual covenants for the production of the title-deeds to the purchaser or purchasers, or proprietor of the remaining or other lots; but if the largest portion in value of the estate shall remain unsold, the vendor shall be entitled to retain the deeds, upon entering into such covenants. All such covenants to be prepared by and at the expense of the perᏃ Ꮓ 2

he had the right or the means of procuring the production, would have been equally available," is so extremely refined as to shew that the court was astute to a construction of the restrictive condition, which should not support it.

if a vendor has in one part of the conditions of sale distinetly and positively undertaken to make a good title, he shall not be intended to destroy that contract by other conditions, which by themselves might be inconsistent with the making a good title, unless upon the strictest construction they are incapable of any other meaning.

The principle which we collect from this case is, that

Such conditions have been further disapproved in a late case*, in which the court said, they ought to be discouraged, and subjected to strict construction; and on the whole, it would seem that vendors, to obtain the benefit of conditions guarding them against making the usual proof of good title, must take care to frame their conditions of sale, so as positively and speintend to withhold; and must make it perfectly clear cifically to ascertain the particular matters which they restrictions to cut down the general liability to make a on the face of the conditions, that they do intend the

title.

David Arthur Saunders Davies, Esq., for the county of
MEMBER RETURNED TO SERVE IN PARLIAMENT.
Carmarthen, in the room of John Jones, Esq., deceased.

have been appointed Masters Extraordinary in the
MASTERS IN CHANCERY.-The following gentlemen
High Court of Chancery:-John Hett, of Brigg, Lin-
colnshire; Frederick William Fisher, of Doncaster;
George Pell, of Welford, Northamptonshire; Charles
Henry Jagger, of Birmingham.

* Morley v. Cook, before Wigram, V. C., not yet reported. 3

« ZurückWeiter »