Proceedings in the Courts of Law and Equity are regularly proved by exemplifications under the seals of the Courts, or authenticated by the signature of the Judge, (in cases where the Court has no seal (f);) and proof of the seal or signature is rendered unnecessary by the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113.

Proof of, under statutes.

Proof of Grant from Crown.

Of proceedings at Law and in Equity.

(c) 14 Geo. II. c. 20, s. 4.

(d) See Doe v. Price, 16 Mee. & W. 603.

(e) Sug. 450.

(f) Alves v. Bunbury, 4 Camp. 28.

Proceedings in Bankruptcy and Insolvency are proved by copies certified in manner directed by the several Acts; see as to Insolvency, 53 Geo. III. c. 102, s. 24; 7 Geo. IV. c. 57, s. 76; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 105; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 116, s. 11; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, s. 37: and as to Bankruptcy, 6 Geo. IV. c. 16, s. 97; 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 56, s. 29, and 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, ss. 232 et seq.; proof of the seals and signatures is rendered unnecessary by the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113.

The fiat, (or, if the case be under the recent Act (g), the Petition,) adjudication, and certificate of appointment of assignees, if not enrolled, ought to be entered on record by the vendor, and at his expense; Mr. Jarman considers that this is necessary although the bankrupt will join in the conveyance (h); Sir E. Sugden's opinion is the other way; and also, that such a requisition cannot be insisted on if it be too late to upset the fiat (i).

Office copies, (i. e. copies made by an officer of a Court under its authority,) although not strictly evidence, except in the causes or matters to which they belong, are received as evidence by conveyancers.

And we may here remark, that by the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 94, the Records of the Courts of Chancery, Exchequer, Queen's Bench, and Common Pleas, and of the abolished Courts in Wales, Chester, Durham, and Isle of Ely, are committed to the custody of the Master of the Rolls; and, by sections 12 and 13, certified copies of such Records under the seal of the Record Office, are made evidence equally with the originals.

The probate, or (if that be lost) an official copy, is usually received by conveyancers as sufficient evidence of a will, whether relating to real or personal estate (j); although the probate has been held to be in strictness inadmissible, even as secondary evidence, in a question of title to freehold (j) or copyhold (k) property: however, in recent Peerage cases, the copy of a will produced from the Prerogative Office has been received in evidence, upon the absence of the original from the Office being accounted for (l); the Probate Act Book of the Ecclesiastical Court is evidence of the appointment of executors (m); and an official extract from such book is often received in practice, where (as in the case of tracing a title to a chattel real held in trust) there is little chance of the will containing a specific bequest of the term which may have been assented to by the executor (n): where, however, a title has to be shown to a beneficial chattel interest, the risk of there having been such a bequest and consent renders it necessary to examine the entire will; and it is conceived that the purchaser may, in either case, require production of the probate or an office copy. A will thirty years old, produced from the proper custody, proves itself; and the thirty years are to be computed from the date of the will and not of the death (o).

And in

Bankruptcy and Insolvency.

As to the enrolment of proceedings in Bankruptcy.

Proof of by office copies.

As to certified copies of Records under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 94.

Proof of Will.

(g) 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106. (h) 1 Jarm. Conv. by S. 97.

(i) Sug. 672.

(j) 4 Jarm. Conv. by S. 178.

(k) Scriv. on Copyhold, 499; Jer-voise v. Duke of Northumberland, 1 Jac. & W. 570: but see Archer v. Slater, 10 Sim. 624; 11 Sim. 507. And see, as to the proof of a Will, the original of which is abroad or has been lost, Pullan v. Rawlins, 4 Beav. 142, and notes of cases subjoined; and Rand v. Macmahon, 12 Sim. 553.

(l) Fitzivalter Peerage, 10 Cl. & Fin. 952; Braye Peerage, 6 Cl. & Fin.

767; see, however, the Netterville Peerage, 2 Dow. & Cl. 342, where Lord Eldon held, that proof must be given of the actual loss or destruction of the original.

(m) Cox v. Allingham, Jac. 514.

(n) The clause disposing of trust estates is generally so worded as to exclude chattels real - besides which the devisees in trust are usually the executors.

(o) Man v. Ricketts, 7 Beav. 93.

In examining the title to a chattel interest, care should be taken to see that probate has been granted by a Court having jurisdiction: it appears, that where an executor takes out Prerogative Probate, and dies leaving an executor who proves in a Diocesan Court, the title of the second executor, as a representative of the original testator, is too doubtful to be forced upon a purchaser (p).

Upon a sale by a devisee of a freehold estate, the purchaser cannot (q), except under special circumstances (r), require the will to be proved in equity against the heir-at-law.

It may sometimes happen that a purchaser can require the production of an instrument although it forms no part of the title, and although he cannot claim an attested copy on completion; e. g., where property is vested in trustees, in trust to sell, with power to give receipts, and the trusts of the purchase-money are declared by a settlement referred to in the conveyance, it is generally considered that a purchaser can require the production of the settlement for the purpose of seeing that it contains nothing inconsistent with the power to give receipts, nor any other matter affecting the title, but thai he is not entitled to any attested copy or covenant for production; and the fact of his not being entitled to such covenant or copy, negatives, it is conceived, the right of any subsequent purchaser to require the production of the settlement (.9): it must, however, be noticed, that in a case of Cooper v. Emery (t), upon a sale by a party claiming under the heir-at-law of a deceased owner who left a will, Sir L. Shadwell, V. C, is reported to have held that the purchaser was entitled to inspect the will, but could not insist upon a covenant for its production; thus, apparently, deciding, that he was bound to accept a title without the ordinary means of proving its validity on a resale.