(y) Berry v. Smith, (1842) 9 M. & W. 681; 11 L. J. N. S. Ex. 269; see Rochefoucauld v. Boustead, (1896) 65 L.J. Ch. 794.

(z) Sawyer v. Birchmore, (1835) 3 M. &: K. 572. As to documents hcing privileged on the ground of their political character, see Wadeer v. The East India Co., (1856) 2 Jur. N. S. 407; 25 L. J. Ch. 345; and cases cited in note (d) to R. S. C. Ord. XXXI. r. 1 in An. Pr. As to illegal secrets, see Gartside v. Outram, (1857) 26 L. J. Ch. 113 ; R. v. Cox, (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 153; 54 L. J. M. C. 41.

(a) Doc v. Lord Hertford, (1850) 13 Jur. 632; 19 L. J. Q. B. 526.

(b) Dwyer v. Collins, (1852) 7 Ex. 639; 21 L. J. Ex. 225.

(c) Goodall v. Little, (1851) 1 Sim. N. S. 155 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 132 ; Glyn v. Coalfield, (1851) 3 M. & G. 403 ; and see Jenkyns v. Bushby, (1866) 2 Eq. 547; 35 L.J. Ch. 820; Rochefoucauld v. Boustead, (1896) 65 L. J. Ch. 794.

(d) Gore v. Harris, (1851) 15 Jur. 1168 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 10 ; S. C., as Gore v. Bowser, (1851) 5 De G. & S. 30.

(e) Gartside v. Outram, sup.; Follett v. Jefferyes, (1850) 1 Sim. N. S. 3 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 65 ; R. v. Cox, (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 153 ; 54 L. J. M. C. 41 ; Re Postlethwaite, (1887) 35 Ch. D. 722 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 1077 : Williams v.

The privilege is for the protection of the client, not for the benefit of the solicitor (k); and it is good as against all persons claiming adversely to the client; but not as between persons claiming under him (/) : it does not cease on the death of the client (m).

To whom the privilege extends.

It appears that even the purchaser himself will not, if an action be brought against him, be bound to produce letters written, or cases stated, for the opinion of counsel, either by himself or his solicitor, with a view either to that suit or even to a suit with third parties, if respecting the same matter and involving the same question to which such letters and cases relate ; nor, a fortiori, the opinions obtained on such letters and cases (n) ; and the same privilege seems to exist in favour of cases laid before counsel and letters written to a solicitor for legal advice with reference to a known defect in title, though not with any view to threatened litigation (o) : but, of course, an opinion which, in effect, was taken for the joint benefit of the party seeking and the party refusing production is not protected (p). An opinion taken by another party in the same interest, and confidentially communicated to the purchaser, the latter not only need not produce, but is actually bound to conceal (q).

Nor will purchaser be obliged to produce cases, opinions, etc.

Quebrada Co., 1895, 2 Ch. 751 ; Bullivant v. A.-G.for Victoria, 1901, A. C. 190; 70 L. J. K. B. 645.

(f) See Clagett v. Phillips, (1842) 2 Y. & C. C. C. 82 ; Carpmael v. Powis, (1846) 1 Ph. 687, 692; Herring v. Clobery, (1842) 1 Ph. 91 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 149; Jones v. Pugh, (1842) 1 Ph. 96; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 323. Generally as to what is within the scope of the solicitor's business, see Bray, 373 ct scq.

(g) Sug. 14th ed. 785; but where land was recovered in ejectment, the solicitor of the defendant was held bound in Equity to state to whom he had on behalf of his client delivered the title deeds ; Banner v. Jackson, (1847) 1 De G. & S. 472. So, at Law, the solicitor of a mortgagee has been compelled to show a deed for the mere purpose of identification; Phelps v. Prew, (1854) 3 E. & B. 430; 23 L. J. Q. B. 140.

(h) Chant v. Brown, (1849) 7 Ha. 79.

(i) Calley v. Richards, (1854) 19 Beav. at p. 404.

(k) Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia, (1876) 2 Ch. D. 644, 649; 45 L. J. Ch. 449 ; Proctor v. Smiles, (1886) 55 L. J. Q. B. 527, 528.

(1) Gresley v. Mousley, (1856) 2 K. & J. 288 ; Russell v. Jackson, (1851) 9 Ha. 387.

(m) Bullivant r. A.-G. for Victoria, 1901, A. C. 196, 206 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 645; Bray, 386.

(n) Holmes v. Baddeley, (1844) 1 Ph. 476 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 113 ; and see earlier cases there cited; Broun v. Oakshott, (1849) 12 Beav. 252 ;

As to the effect of notice when established: - As a general rule, a purchaser with notice, is, in Equity, " bound to the same extent, and in the same manner as the person was of whom he purchased" (r) ; for instance, he will be bound by a trust, or incumbrance, or by any agreement respecting the estate, of which he lias notice, and which would have bound the estate in the hands of the vendor (s).

Effect of notice.

Thompson v. Folk, (1852) 1 Dr. 21 ; Wright v. Vernon, (1853) ib. 344 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 447; Jenkyns v. Bushby, (1866) 2 Eq. 547 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 820; Wheeler v. Le Marc/nod, (1881) 17 Ch. D. 675, 682 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 793 ; Caleraft v. Guest, 1898, 1 Q. B. 759 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 505 : Re II. 7/ . Strachan, 1895, 1 Ch. 439, 441.

(o) Pearse v. P., (1846) 1 De G. & S. 12 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 153 ; Herring v. Clobcry, (1842) 1 Ph. 91 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 149 ; Holmes v. Baddeley, (1844) 1 Ph. 476 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 113 ; Lord Wahingham v. Goodricke, (1844) 3 Ha. 122 ; Recce v. Trye, (1846) 9 Beav. 316 ; Penruddock v. Hammond, (1847) 11 Beav. 59, 61 ; Hawkins v. Gathercolc, (1851) 1 Sim. N. S. 150 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 303 ; Manser v. JDix, (1855) 1 K. & J. 451 ; Calley v. Richards, (1354) 19 Beav. 401 ; Manby v. Bcwicke, (1856) 8 D. M. & G. at p. 476; 26 L. J. Ch. 20; but see Beadon v. King, (1849) 17 Si. 34; Flight v. Robinson, (1844) 8 Beav. 22 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 425 ; Minet v. Morgan, (1873) 8 Ch. 361 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 627 ; Bray, 368 ; Calcraft, v. Guest, sup. As to cases of fraud, see Addis v. Campbell, (1839) 1 Beav. 258; 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 305; Bass-ford v. Blakesley, (1842) 6 Beav. 131, and cases there cited ; Kelly v. Jackson, (1849) 13 Ir. Eq. R. 129 ; Swift v. M'Ternan, (1847) ib. 119; Follctt v. Jefferyes, (1850) 1 Sim. N. S. 1 ; 13 Jur. 972 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 65; Reynellv. Sprye, (1846) 10 Beav. 51 ; (1848) 11 Beav. 618; 16 L. J. Ch. 117; Chaduick v. C, (1853) 16 Jur. 1060 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 329 ; Williams v. Quebrada Co., 1895, 2 Ch. 751 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 68. The mere connection of the documents with the acts impeached by the bill is no ground for their production; see Follett v. Jeffcryes, (1850) 13 Jur. 972 ; and see Russell v. Jackson, (1851) 9 Ha. 387 ; Stainton v. Chad-wick, (1851) 3 M. & G. 575. As to secondary evidence of privileged documents, see Calcraft v. Guest, sup.