If one tenant in common purchase of another, he is entitled to an abstract of their general title (e); the rule, however, may perhaps be different in the case of a partner purchasing his co-partner's share of the partnership leasehold premises (f).

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 (g): when the allotment has been made indiscriminately in respect of lands held under different titles, all such titles must be shown by the abstract (h).

As to what abstract should be furnished in certain cases; on purchase by a tenant in common or a copartner.

On purchase of allotment.

(c) 2 Sug. Pow. 118.

(d) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, s. 47.

(e) Morris v. Kearsley, 2 Y. & C.

(f) Law v. Law, 9 Jur. 745. (g) Sug. 432.

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 estates (i); unless, in the case of a common-law exchange, (as to the future operation of which see 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, s. 4,) the estate given in exchange has since been aliened (j), and the vendor can prove the alienation.

Where the estate has been taken in exchange under the Acts authorizing the exchange of ecclesiastical property (k), or under an Inclosure Act, or the provisions of the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 30, (authorizing the exchange of Common Lands,) the title down to the exchange must be that of the estate given in exchange: Sir E. Sugden, 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" (l); this may be admitted if the validity of the exchange be assumed: but, as such exchanges, and also exchanges of common-field lands under the 4 & 5 Will. IV. 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 sufficient to show that the transaction was within the provisions of the Act: but where the estate has been taken in exchange under the Commons Inclosure Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118, the single title alone seems necessary; as the Act contains a provision making the award, when confirmed, conclusive evidence that the directions of the Act have been complied with, and declaring that every allotment, exchange, etc, specified and set forth in the award, shall be binding and conclusive on all persons whomsoever (n). 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 particulars 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 (o).

Of land taken in exchange.

Of land taken in exchange from the Church or under Inclosure Act.

(h) See and consider, King v. Moody, 2 Sim. & St. 579.

(i) Sug. 432.

(j) 1 Jarm. Conv. by S. 75.

(k) 55 Geo. III. c. 147, see s. 3; and 56 Geo. III. c. 52; and 1 Geo. IV. c. 6. See, as to confirmation of void exchanges, by the tithe commutation commissioners, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 54, s. 7.

(l) Page 432.

(m) See 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 30, ss. 2, 4, and 25, in which, note the words, "according to the provisions," etc.; and 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 115, s. 35. See also 3 & 4 Vict. c. 31, s. 1, which, in cases falling within the Act, makes the award conclusive evidence that the provisions of the general Inclosure Act, and of the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 115, have been complied with, and that all necessary consents have been given: but, query, whether this meets the difficulty in the case of an exchange; it would rather seem to refer merely to such consents as are requisite to the validity of the Inclosure.

Where the title depends upon an exchange under the 1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 92, (authorizing the exchange of charity lands,) the abstract must 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 is expressly reserved to the Charity trustees (p); and it is conceived, that the purchaser may require evidence of the land given in exchange having been quietly enjoyed by the charity.

The title to terms of years attendant upon the inheritance, and which are considered to have merged under the 8 & 9 Vict. 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; viz.: by abstracting, if practicable, the deed creating the term, and the mesne assignments: these latter, however, may be abstracted very concisely (q): the Act, it may be remarked, does not appear to extend to copyholds, or customary freeholds (r): and it seems doubtful whether the first and second sections extend to any hereditaments other than land technically so called (s).

Of land taken in exchange from a charity.

Of estate which has attendant terms.

(n) Sect. 105; and see, as to partitions by the commissioners, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 99, ss. 13, 14.

(o) Cattell v. Corrall, 4 Y. & C. Ex. 228.

(p) See sect. 9 of Act.

Upon a sale of land formerly copyhold, the abstract must trace the copyhold title, and also the lord's title to the manor, down to the enfranchisement (t); and it is said that a purchaser may further require evidence of the manor having, since the enfranchisement, been enjoyed conformably with the title shown by the abstract (u).

Upon a sale of leaseholds, the abstract must, (except in the case of a Bishop's lease (v),) show the lessor's title, as well as the subsequent title to the term (w); even although the lessors were a corporation, and the lease be one of long standing (x); the decision, as to the non-production of the Bishop's title (y), was 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 would seem to apply to leases granted by a Dean and Chapter, and possibly to other cases: and the general rule does not apply when the purchaser enters into the contract with notice that the freehold title cannot be produced (z); nor does it appear clear that the rule applies where, on the sale of a lease of great antiquity, the vendor shows the creation of the term, and deduces the leasehold title for the last sixty years (a). Where, however, the purchaser can require the lessor's title, it would appear, upon principle, that he might also require evidence of the freehold having been, since the demise, enjoyed conformably with the earlier title.