" Satisfactory" means " marketable" title.

Not to be relied on by vendor knowingly selling with a defective title.

Nor as against purchaser willing to complete without compensation: but will hold good if untenable objection is persisted in.

(t) Lord v. Stephens, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 222.

(u) Nelthorpe v. Holgate, 1 Coll. 203; but see Thomas v. Dering, 1 Keen, 728.

(v) See and consider Roberta v. Wyatt, 2 Taunt. 268; Page v. Adam,

4 Beav. 269; Williams v. Edwards, 2 Sim. 78.

(to) Page v. Adam, ubi supra. N.B. - In the third marginal pla-citum, it should be, " the objection being held invalid," instead of " the objection being held valid."

Where a purchaser required that certain annuitants under a will should join in the conveyance, this was held to be an objection to the title within the meaning of such a condition (x): the condition should, however, in terms extend to requisitions.

And, as a general rule, a vendor by replying to the purchaser's objections or requisitions, waives the right of rescinding the contract, and also the benefit of the condition limiting the purchaser's time for taking objections, etc. (that is, supposing them not to have been taken within such limited time) (y).

It seems, however, probable that mere argumentative replies would not amount to such a waiver: and that replies of any description, if returned "without prejudice," or with any similar reservation of the vendor's rights, would escape the rule laid down in Tanner v. Smith (z): or the rule may, it is conceived, be avoided, by the introduction, into the condition, of the words "notwithstanding any intermediate negotiations," or some equivalent expression.

For the purposes of such conditions time runs from the delivery of a perfect abstract; that is, an abstract as perfect as the vendor, at the time of delivery, has in his either actual or constructive possession (a); but a vendor would not be at liberty designedly to deliver an imperfect abstract, or otherwise neglect his duties under the contract, for the purpose of rescinding the contract under such conditions (b).

And the condition as to time does not preclude a purchaser from taking subsequent objections arising out of evidence called for before the expiration of the limited time (c): such objections must, however, it is submitted, be taken within a corresponding period after the production of such evidence.

Extends to requisitions.

Right to rescind, lost by replying to objections.

Unless replies are merely argumentative or returned without prejudice.

Time runs from delivery of perfect abstract; meaning of the term.

Objections arising upon subsequent evidence, may be taken, when.

(x) Page v. Adam, 4 Beav. 269.

(y) Tannery. Smith, 10 Sim. 410; see the same case on appeal, 4 Jur. 310; Cutts. Thodey, 13 Sim, 206.

(z) See Morley v. Cook, 2 Ha.

(a) Morley v. Cook, 2 Ha. 111.

(b) Page v. Adam, ubi supra; Morley v. Cook, ubi supra; Roberts v. Wyatt, 2 Taunt. 268.

It is usual, and proper, to insert a condition providing for a resale of the property, and forfeiture of the deposit, in case the purchaser fail to comply with the conditions; and that any deficiency upon such resale, together with the costs thereof, shall be borne by the purchaser; Equity, however, will, at least when the purchaser is bankrupt (d), set off the deposit against such deficiency; and the vendor's equitable right to the deposit in any case where the purchaser is able and willing to put him in the situation in which he would have been had the contract been duly performed, is doubtful (e): if, upon a resale, the estate were to produce more than the original purchase-money, the purchaser who had violated his agreement could not call for an account of the surplus (f): a stipulation that the purchaser making default shall pay a specified sum, (exceeding the amount of the deposit,) as liquidated damages, does not amount at law to a condition for the forfeiture of the deposit (g).

In the preparation of special conditions it is important to remember, that a purchaser, unless specially precluded from so doing, may require evidence of all matters of fact stated in any condition which goes to restrict his prima facie rights (h): it is, in fact, suggested by Mr. Jarman (i), that the ordinary condition throwing upon the purchaser the expense of procuring evidence to verify the abstract, does not preclude him from requiring all such information as to facts as is necessary to complete the abstract; so that, although precluded from requiring, except at his own expense, any evidence of a death (material to the title), he may yet insist on being informed when and where such death occurred; in many cases the expense of obtaining such information would be nearly the same as that of obtaining the usual evidence of the fact; and the point, although (it is conceived) not often insisted on in practice, may sometimes be usefully guarded against by the conditions.

As to resale, and forfeiture of deposit; how far binding.

Condition for payment of penalty by purchaser not equivalent to condition for forfeiture.

Matters of fact stated must be proved.

Whether purchaser precluded from evidence, may require information.

(c) Blacklow v. Latvs, 2 Hare, 40.

(d) Ex parte Hunter, 6 Ves. 94.

(e) Sug. 51; Moss v. Matthews, 3 Ves. 279.

(f) Per Curiam, 6 Ves. 97.

(g) Palmer v. Temple, 1 Per. & Dav. 379.

(h) Symons v. James, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 487.

(i) Conv. v. ix. p. 53.