the Court of Chancery, or the trustees, may allot him a portion of the sum so paid as a compensation for personal injury, inconvenience, or annoyance: (s. 73.)

Course of proceeding upon petition for payment of money out of Court.]—In all petitions under acts of Parliament for the sales of property for public purposes, where the purchase money is directed by the act to be paid into court, the petitioner claiming to be entitled to the money so paid in must, in addition to the usual affidavit verifying their title, make oath that they believe they have a good title, and are not aware of any right in any other person to the sum mentioned in the petition, or any part thereof.

Purchaser's right to apply purchase money in discharge of incumbrances.]—As the vendor remains liable for all defects in his title until the purchase deed is executed by all the necessary parties, if any incumbrances are discovered which he neglects or refuses to pay off, the purchaser will be entitled to apply a sufficient portion of the purchase money in discharge of them, but he will not be allowed to retain any portion of the purchase money as an indemnity against a contingent charge and for which he has agreed to accept the vendor's covenant: (Vane v. Lord Barnard, Gilb. Eq. Rep. 6.)

III. ASSURANCES OF COPYHOLD AND CUSTOMARY ESTATES.

Mode of assurance for passing copyholds.]-Copyholds or customary estates pass by surrender and admission. In ordinary purchase deeds of copyholds, two modes of assurance may be selected. One is to surrender the copyholds to the purchaser, and by a separate deed to enter into the usual covenants for title: (see the form 1 Con. Prec., Part II., Section III., No. II., p. 309, 2nd edit.) The other is for the vendor to enter into a deed of covenant to surrender the copyholds to the purchaser's use, with a declaration of trust in favour of the purchaser and his heirs until such surrender be made, to which are added the usual qualified covenants for title: (see the form 1 Con. Prec., Part II., Section III., No. I., p. 301, 2nd edit.)

Copyholds not within Statute of Uses.]-Copyhold estates not being within the Statute of Uses, that statute cannot execute the use in the surrenderee, so that until he be

actually admitted, the legal estate still continues in the surrenderor; still, upon admission, the surrenderee will immediately become clothed with the whole legal estate, in the same manner as it would have vested in cestui que use in freeholds through the medium of the Statute of Uses relating back to the date of the surrender, and operating from that time: (Benson v. Scott, 1 Salk. 185; S. C., Carth. 279; 3 Lev. 385; Doe dem. Bennington v. Hall, 16 East, 208.)

Purchaser's solicitor should ascertain that surrender is perfected before he allows his client to pay the purchase money.] -But as the surrender passes no more than an equitable estate, it will be prudent, in many cases, for the purchaser's solicitor to ascertain that the surrender is perfected before he recommends his client to pay his purchase money; for, until such surrender is made, it is in a vendor's power to defeat the purchaser's equitable interest under the covenant by surrendering to a third party, who, in the absence of any notice of the previous deed of covenant, or of the former purchaser's title, would be entitled to the benefit of the legal estate, and thus, possibly, the former purchaser may become deprived of the property altogether: (7 Jarm. Byth. 332, 504.)

com

Presentment of surrender should be made as soon as plete.]-As soon as the surrender is complete, the purchaser should make a presentment of it, which, if taken out of court, should, according to the customs of most manors, be made at the next court day (Co. Cop. s. 3, Tr. 88; Gilb. Ten. 220, 280; Scriv. Cop. 277; Mitchell v. Neale, ib. 679), although, by a special custom, it may be made at a subsequent one: (Moore v. Moore, supra.) In Horlock v. Priestly (2 Sim. 77), the court certainly expressed an opinion that even in the absence of any special custom a surrenderee has an inchoate legal title, capable of being made complete whenever it may suit his convenience to have the surrender presented; but the correctness of this opinion has been much questioned; and in a case decided about the same time in the Court of King's Bench, in which a question of this kind was mooted (Doe v. Callaway, 6 B. & C. 492), Lord Tenterden, although he said it was not necessary in the case before him to give an opinion whether such a custom was good in point of law, yet he must say he should have great difficulty in holding that it was so. And even where such a custom can be supported, no time should be lost in getting such a presentment made; for if a subsequent surrenderee should make a prior present

ment, he would exclude the former surrenderee, even though both presentments should be made at the same court: (Burgaine v. Spurling, Cro. Car. 273; S. C., Sir W. Jones, 306.)

Presentment must correspond with surrender.]—It is also essential that the presentment should correspond in all material points with the surrender, as any variance between them might prove fatal: (Scriv. Cop. 279; Wat. Cop. 88.)

It must be ascertained that presentment has been entered on the rolls.]—It is also necessary to ascertain that the presentment has been duly made and entered on the rolls. This is a matter of the utmost importance; for although some contend that a presentment is only for the purpose of apprising the lord that a surrender has been made, which is unnecessary where the lord has acquired that information by any other means, there are others who argue just as strongly that a presentment is in every instance of as much importance as a surrender or admittance; that it is an integral part of the copyhold assurance, the tenant holding by copy of court roll, and the presentment being an essential part of that roll; and, in short, that the want of a true presentment will be a fatal defect in the surrender and admittance: (Scriv. Cop. 279; and see also Coventry's note to 1 Wat. Cop. 80.)

Presentment, wrongly entered, may be amended.]-If the presentment be truly made, and is in proper accordance with the surrender, but wrongly entered on the rolls, the roll may be amended: (Burgesse & Foster's case, 1 Leon. 289; Winter v. Jerningham, Ďy. 251; Gilb. Ten. 192; Co. Cop. 8. 40.)

Court rolls not the only evidence of surrender and present-. ment.]-The court rolls, although they afford the best, are not the only evidences of the surrender and presentment, which may also be proved by drafts of an entry produced from the muniments of a manor, and the testimony of the foreman of the homage who made such presentment: (Doe dem. Priestley v. Callaway, 6 B. & C. 848.) Nor is an entry on the rolls in all cases conclusive on the parties, as a mistake in any entry may be shown in an averment in pleading, or by evidence before a jury: (Burgesse & Foster's case, I Leon. 289; Kite v. Quienton, 4 Cox, 25.)

By whom the costs of conveyance are to be defrayed.]—In

the conveyance of copyhold or customary estates, the purchaser must pay the expenses of the surrender and of his admission, as also of the fine payable on such admission. The latter, indeed, the purchaser is bound to pay, notwithstanding the vendor has covenanted to surrender and assure the copyholds at his own charges; for the title is perfected by the surrender and admission, and the fine is not payable until afterwards: (Dalton v. Hammond, 4 Co. 28a; Graham v. Simes, 1 East, 652.)

Manorial customs as to preparing surrenders.]—A custom in a manor that the steward shall prepare all surrenders for a reasonable fee, appears to be valid: (Rex v. Rigge, 2 B. & Ald. 550; Reg. v. Lord of the Manor of Basingstoke, 8 Dowl. P. C. 608.)

As to acknowledgments by married women.]-A married woman may bar her right in copyholds in the same manner as in freehold property, by making an acknowledgment in pursuance of the Fine and Recovery Substitution Act (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74.) If she has the legal estate, the conveyance must be by surrender; if her estate be merely equitable, a surrender by her and her husband, after she has been privately examined, is as binding as if her estate was legal (s. 90), or her equitable estate will pass by a mere acknowledgment under the act: (s. 77.) And a married woman may acknowledge a deed without her husband's concurrence in all those special cases in which a wife is authorized so to do under the provisions of the said act in the case of freehold property: (Ex parte Shirley, 5 Bing. N. C. 226.)

IV. ASSIGNMENT OF LEAseholds.

By what instrument an assignment must be made.]—Previously to the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), a parol assignment of a term of years would have been perfectly valid; but by the 3rd section of that statute, all assignments were required to be in writing, still, as this did not specify any particular kind of instrument, it might have been effected as well by a mere note in writing, as by deed, if it was signed by the party or his lawfully authorized agent, as prescribed by the statute. The Stamp Acts next stepped in (44 Geo. 3, c. 98; 55 Geo. 3, c. 184), and required all assignments, whether by deed or note in writing, to be stamped with the common deed stamp, yet these enactments did not alter the nature of the instrument itself, so that an

assignment, if properly stamped, might, as previously, have still been made by a simple note in writing: (Rex v. Little Dean, Str. 555.)

And so the law continued until the passing of the act (8 & 9 Vict. c. 106), by which it is declared that all assignments, not being an interest which might have been created without writing, made after the 1st of October, 1845, shall be void at law, unless made by deed.

Note in writing will be supported in equity.]-But, notwithstanding this last enactment, a mere note in writing, if duly signed by the parties, will nevertheless be supported in equity as an agreement, and as such will pass an equitable interest to the assignee.

As to parol leases.]—And as the Act of Victoria does not require a deed for the assignment of such an interest as might have been created by parol, it seems that a parol lease for a term not exceeding three years, and valid as such within the Statute of Frauds, (1) may even now be assigned by a simple note in writing if impressed with a proper stamp.

As to the stamps on assignments.]-It must also be borne in mind that the common deed stamp is only applicable to such assignments for which no actual pecuniary consideration is paid, and where no consideration, or a mere nominal one is expressed in the body of the deed; for whenever there is an actual consideration, the assurance then comes in under the head, “Conveyance by Assignment," within the express terms of the General Stamp Act (55 Geo. 4, c. 184), as also of the more recent enactment (13 & 14 Vict. c. 97), and will require an ad valorem stamp, which must be regulated in proportion to the amount of the purchase-money: (Hughes New Stamp Act, p. 78.)

How deed of assignment should be penned.]-In preparing an assignment of leasehold property, the original lease is usually recited, but if any mesne assignments have been made, it is only usual to recite the last assignment to the

(1) The 2nd section of the Statute of Frauds excepts all leases not exceeding three years from the making thereof, whereupon the rent reserved to the landlord, shall amount to two thirds of the improved value.