Where an estate is held in undivided shares, the owner of any share may, in Equity, compel the owner of auy other share who holds the deeds to produce them for the satisfaction of a purchaser (o).

So, where estates are held in severalty under separate titles created by a single instrument, - as in the case of a settlement, exchange, or partition (p), - the owner for the time being of any one such estate, or, it is conceived, of any part of it, may enforce production of such instrument.

Notice of place.

Deeds producible only under covenant for production.

Grants from Crown.

Instruments on record.

Examination of deeds before perusal of title.

As to who may compel production of deeds on sale. Owner of undivided share.

Of estate held under several titles created by single instrument.

(h) Rippingall v. Lloyd, 2 Nev. & M. 410.

(i) S. C, 419.

(k) Sug. 450.

(l) Sug. 449; but as to furnishing copies on completion, vide infra, Ch. XIII.

(m) Hodges v. Lord Litchfield, 1 Bing. N. C. 499.

(n) Gosbell v. Archer, 4 Nev. & M. 485.

0) See 2 Mer. 490; Sug. 468.

(p) Lord Banbury v. Briscoe, 2 Ch. Ca. 42; Sug. 467; and see Shore v. Collett, G. Coop. 234; and Att.-Gen. v. Lambe, 3 Y. & C. 162; S. C. at the Rolls, 12 Jur. 386.

So, where a portion of an estate has been sold by the owner, who retains the deeds, the purchaser can, it appears, in Equity (q), enforce their production upon a resale (r); unless there was an understanding to the contrary; which would probably be implied from the circumstance of the title not being required upon the original sale.

Where an estate is in settlement, it appears that a contingent remainderman cannot enforce the production of the deeds for the purpose of effecting a sale or mortgage (s); nor, as a general rule, can a vested remainderman compel their production except under special circumstances; the more remote the remainder the stronger doubtless must be the case made for production; the existence of lineal relationship between the tenant in possession and the remainderman would increase the difficulty; for the circumstance of the transaction being disapproved of by the ancestor (especially if he were the settlor it) ) would go far to show its impropriety; and the Court would refuse to aid a party who was seeking to do himself an injury (u): even, however, as between father and son, the Court, it is conceived, might be so satisfied of the prudence and propriety of the particular arrangement as to depart from the general rule (w): the strongest case in favour of the general right to production would seem to be that of a remainder in fee immediately expectant on an estate for life, with no relationship existing between the parties; where, it may be conjectured, the remainderman could enforce production for the purpose of a sale or mortgage, unless, from his youth or other special circumstances, the Court were satisfied it would best serve his interests by rejecting the application.

Purchaser of portion of estate.

Contingent remainderman cannot

Whether vested remainderman can do so.

(q) But not at Law; Sug. 472. (r) Fain v. Ayers, 2 Sim. & St. 533.

(s) Noel v. Ward, 1 Mad. 322. (t) See Sug. 470.

(u) See Shaw v. Shaw, 12 Pri. 167

(w) See Lord Lempter v. Lord

Pomfret, 1 Dick. 238.

And, it is conceived, that where, as sometimes happens, A. and B. jointly purchase property, taking the conveyance so as to give to B. merely an estate in remainder, B. has a general right to the production of the muniments of title.

A mortgagee is not, in general, bound to produce the deeds until he is paid off (x), even although the devisee of the mortgaged estate may be ignorant of all particulars relating to the security (y); since, however, a person can give no right which he does not himself possess, the mortgagee of a person who would be liable to produce the deeds must himself produce them at the suit of those persons who could compel their production as against the mortgagor (z); but he would not be justified in so producing them except with the consent of the latter, or under an order of the Court (a). So, the solicitor of a mortgagee has no lien upon the deeds, as against the mortgagor, to an amount exceeding what is due on the security (b). 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 (c).

Remainderman under a purchase-deed.

Mortgagee need not produce deeds until paid off; unless he claim under party who himself is liable to produce them.

Solicitor's lien.

(x) See Sparke v. Montriou, 1 Y. & C. 103; Addison v. Walker, 4 Y. & C. 447; Greenwood v. Roth-well, 7 Beav. 291; Darner v. Lord Portarlington, 15 Sim. 380. Lord Kenyon is said to have advised a mortgagee to put his deeds into a box, and sit upon it, until the money was put into his hands; see 1 Y. & C. 107.

(y) Browne v. Lockhart, 10 Sim. 421; see Crisp v. Platel, 8 Beav. 62.

(z) Balls v. Margrave, 4 Beav. 119; and see Hercy v. Ferrers, ib. 97; see also a singular case of Muston v. Bradshaw, 10 Jur. 402; 15 Sim. 192; where it was held that a purchaser could not make the vendor's wife a defendant to a suit for specific performance, on the ground of her having possessed herself of the deeds.

(a) Lambert v. Rogers, 2 Mer. 490.

(b) Hollis v. Claridge, 4 Taunt. 807; see Wakefield v. Newbon, 6 Q. B. 276; and Rider v. Jones, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 329.

A mortgagee who consents to a sale by the Court, must bring the deeds into the Master's office in the usual way (d), 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 mortgagee who has, even although insane, destroyed (e), or has negligently lost (f) the muniments of title, will, it seems, be compelled to replace such as can be replaced; and as respects originals which cannot be replaced, will be required 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 took of his own, ought not, it would seem, to be severely dealt with if they are accidentally lost (g).