Where the purchaser has neither taken a conveyance of the legal estate, nor such a conveyance of the equitable estate as would seem to give him an absolute and indesioners, and will probably eventually be destroyed by a General Registration Act.

Best right to call for legal estate, a protection in Equity.

Equity will not in general act against bond fide purchaser without notice.

As between mere equitable claimants, prior title prevails.

(o) See Wilker v. Bodington, 2 Vern. 599; Ex parte Knott, 11 Ves. 618; Bowen v. Evans, 1 Jo. & L. 264.

(p) See and compare Jerrard v. Saunders, 2 Ves. J. 454; Gait v. Osbaldeston, 1 Russ. 158; Head v. Egerton, 3 P. Wms. 281; Att.-Gen. v. Backhouse, 17 Ves. 290; Jackson v. Rowe, 4 Russ. 514; and V. C. K. B.'s judgment in Penny v. Watts, 13 Jur. 459.

(q) See Williams v. Lambe, 3 Bro. C. C. 264; Collins v. Archer, 1 Russ. & M. 284.

(r) See Payne v. Compton, 2 Y. & C. 461; Bowen v. Evans, 1 J. & L. 178, 264; Joyce v. De Moleyns, 2 J. & L. 374; but see Titley v. Davies, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 399.

(s) Sug. 1020.

And it has been decided in several cases (y), that, as respects equitable estates in land, the priority of a purchaser or incumbrancer is not affected by his giving or neglecting to give notice of his purchase or security, to the trustees, mortgagees, or other persons in whom the legal estate may happen to be vested; and that the ordinary rule, as to notice of assignments of choses in action, does not apply.

So, where the property is subject to a concealed incumbrance it seems that a purchaser of part, having merely the equitable estate, may throw the entire charge upon a subsequent innocent purchaser of the equitable estate in the residue (z).

Mortgagees by deposit, bound by secret trust.

On purchase of equitable interest in land, no priority acquired by notice to owner of legal estate.

Concealed incumbrance thrown wholly on puisne equitable purchaser.

(if) Beckett v. Cordley, 1 Bio. C. C. 353.

(u) See 1 Gl. & J. 243; 6 Yes. 192; 2 Russ. 214; and see Jones v. Jones, 8 Sim. 642, and see Tourville v. Naish, 3 P. Wms. 308.

(w) Manningford v. Toleman, 1 Coll. 670, and see Att.-Gen. v. Flint, 4 Ha. 156.

(or) Jennings v. Bond, 2 J. & L. 720.

(y) Peacock v. Burt, Coote on Mortgages, 569; Jones v. Jones, 8 Sim. 633; Wiltshire v. Rabbits, 14 Sim. 76; Wilmot v. Pike, 5 Ha. 14; Bugden v. Bignold, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 392.

(z) See Hartly v. O'Flaherty, Llo.

Incumbrances in favour of a Charity seem to be subject to the same rules as those in favour of a private individual; except that notice to the first purchaser is said to bind subsequent purchasers without notice (a).