The agent (c) or solicitor (d) of the vendor, cannot, without special authority, receive and give a discharge for the purchase-money; and the usual indorsed receipt is in Equity no conclusive evidence of payment (e); the money, therefore, should in strictness be paid to the vendor, or upon his written authority; and, in the case of a fiduciary vendor, care should be taken that the proposed mode of payment does not involve a breach of trust; e. g., it is a breach of trust for trustees for sale to authorize their solicitor to receive the purchase-money (f): and of course it cannot, except under a special power in the instrument creating the trust, be safely paid to fewer than the entire body of trustees (g): when an agent is empowered to receive it, there must be a bond fide payment; for instance, it cannot be set off against a private debt due from him to the purchaser (h), unless the vendor, being indebted to the agent, have authorized him not merely to receive, but to pay himself out of the purchase-money (i); so, if an agent be authorized to receive the money according to the contract, and it be paid to him in anticipation of the time therein named, the purchaser is liable for its due application (k): if a check be given for it, and, by reason of an unintentional non-compliance with the Stamp Act be so drawn that no action could be maintained upon it, and the bankers upon whom it is drawn fail before payment, or if, (supposing it to be valid and to be presented within a reasonable time,) the bankers upon receiving it with instructions to transmit the amount to Loudon, on the same day, and before the usual hour for closing business, stop payment, the loss falls on the purchaser (l).

Agent or solicitor of vendor not authorized as such to receive purchase-money.

How the same should be paid.

(e) Supra, p. 86.

(d) Sug. 851.

(e) Winter v. Lord Anson, 3 Russ. 488; infra, Ch. XIV.

(f) See Ghost v. Waller, 9 Beav. 497.

(g) Hall v. Franck, 11 Beav. 519; et vide supra, p. 264.

(h) Young v. White, 7 Beav. 506.

(i) Barker v. Greenwood, 2 Y. & C.

Exch. 414; Hanley v. Cassan, 11 Jur. 1088, Exch.; as to how the loss of money, by the fraud of a person acting as agent for both parties, is to be borne, see Vandaleur v. Blagrave, 6 Beav. 565; on appeal, 11 Jur. 935; Young v. Guy, 8 Beav. 14 7.

(k) Parnther v. Gaitskell, 13 East, 432; Cotman v. Orton, 5 Jur. 142, C.

Upon a sale in Bankruptcy, the purchase-money must be paid to the Official Assignee, unless the Court shall otherwise direct (m).

Where A., in ignorance of the purchaser being an uncertificated bankrupt, advanced part of the purchase-money and paid it direct to the vendor, and the conveyance was handed over to him immediately after its execution, he was held to have a valid lien upon the property; although the purchaser at the same time signed a memorandum stating that he had deposited the deed with A. as a security for the advance (n).

Upon a sale by a mere statutory owner, under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, the entire purchase and compensation moneys, if amounting to 200l., must be paid into the bank, or (if under 200l. but exceeding 20l.), into the bank or to trustees, and be applied in manner directed by the 69th and following sections of the Act; and no part thereof can be safely paid to such statutory owner (o), and the above provisions extend to moneys agreed to be paid to him for assenting to or not opposing the passing of the bill authorizing the taking of the lands; but the Court of Chancery or the Trustees, as the case may be, may allot to him a portion of the sum so paid, as a compensation for personal injury, inconvenience or annoyance (p).

On sale in Bankruptcy.

Lien of third party-advancing part of the purchase-money, as against purchaser's assignees in Bankruptcy.

Payment of consideration-money upon sale by statutory owners to Railway Companies, etc.

(l) Bond v. Warden, 1 Coll. 583.

(m) 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 39.

(n) Meux v. Smith, 11 Sim. 411; which see, as to the usual mode of payment for public houses. Bond fide payments by purchaser, after his secret act of bankruptcy but before petition, are protected by 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 138.

(o) As to apportionment, between lessee and reversioner, of purchase money paid into Court with reference to sect. 74 of Act, see Ex parte Ward, 2 De G. & S. 4. Purchase money of lands of a municipal corporation may be applied in redeeming incumbrances upon any other lands of the same corporation; Ex parte Corporation of Cambridge, 6 Ha. 30; an order for the re-investment of part of the money in land may go on to direct that the balance, if less than 20l., be paid to the tenant for life; Re Lord Egrement, 12 Jur. 618.

Where a Railway Act provided that where any question should arise upon the Act touching the title to any lands, etc, " the parties who should have been in possession or receipt of the rents or profits of such lands at the time of such purchase," etc, should be deemed to have been lawfully entitled, etc, according to such possession until the contrary should be shown to the satisfaction of the Court," and the capital and income of the funds, etc, representing the purchase-money were to be paid and applied accordingly, it was held that the party in possession, but whose title was objected to by the Company, was entitled to have the money paid out of Court on his own affidavit of title (q): the 79th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, contains provisions of a similar nature, but with variations of expression which might probably induce the Court to refuse to follow a precedent evidently open to serious objections.

In all petitions under Acts of Parliament for sale of property for public purposes, when the purchase-money is directed by the Act to be paid into Court, the petitioners claiming to be entitled to the money so paid in, must, in addition to the usual affidavit verifying their title, make oath that they believe they have a good title, and are not aware of any right in any other person, or of any claim made by any other person, to the sum mentioned in the petition or any part thereof (r); and an affidavit to this effect will not be dispensed with, although, the petitioner be aged and infirm, and the Company have contracted with him, accepted his title and consented to the prayer of the petition (s): where a person entitled to an aliquot share of a sum of money so brought into Court petitions for payment of his share, he need not give notice to the parties entitled to the other shares (t); nor, where an order has been made for the payment of the interest to a single woman, need the Company be served with a petition for its payment to her and her husband on her marriage (u).

Prima facie right thereto of parties in possession of the land.

What affidavit necessary on

Petition for payment out of Court.

(p) Sect. 73; see In re the Duke of Marlborough's estates, 13 Jur. "38.

(q) Ex parte Grainge, re Great Western Railway Acts, 3 Y. & C. 62, and see cases cited, p. G6.

(r) Letter of Lord Chanceller to Senior Registrar, dated 12th February, 1842; see 16 L. J., N. S., Ch.72

The Court has refused to sanction the investment of money so paid into Court in the purchase of an equity of redemption, or of land the title to which has not been approved by the Master (w): and has refused to interfere with the Master's decision who reported generally against the propriety of an investment on mortgage (x): an investment in land of a different tenure from that which produced the fund is generally improper, but has been allowed under special circumstances (y); where the fund has arisen from land belonging to an ecclesiastical corporation sole, the income has been ordered to be paid to the petitioning incumbent, so long as he remained incumbent, and afterwards to the incumbent for the time being (z).

What mode of reinvestment thereof will he sanctioned by Court.

(s) Ex parte Hollick, 16 L. J., N. S., Ch. 71.

(t) In re the Midland Counties Railway Company, 11 Jur. 1095, R.

(u) Ex parte Hordern, 2 De G. & S. 263.

(w) Ex parte Craven, 17 L. J., N. S.,Ch. 215, V. C.

(x) Ex parte Francklyn, 1 De G. & S. 528.

(y) In re Cann's estate, 19 L. J., Ch. 376, V. C. K. B.

(z) In re the Archbishop of Canterbury, 1 De G. & S. 365; vide infra as to costs; and see In re the Buckinghamshire Railways, 5 Rail. Ca. 702.