This section is from the book "Dart's Treatise On The Law And Practice Relating To Vendors And Purchasers Of Real Estate", by J. Henry Dart . Also available from Amazon: A treatise on the law and practice relating to vendors and purchasers of real estate.
As previously pointed out (e), it is provided by s. 73 of the L. P. Act, 1925, s. 73, that where an individual executes a deed, he must either sign or place his mark upon the same, sealing alone not being sufficient; but this provision only applies to deeds executed after the commencement of the Act. And by s. 74 (1), in favour of a purchaser, a deed is to be deemed to have been duly executed by a corporation aggregate if its seal be affixed thereto in the presence of and attested by its clerk, secretary, or other permanent officer or his deputy, and a member of the board of directors or other governing body, and where a seal purporting to be the seal of a corporation has been affixed to a deed, attested by persons purporting to be persons holding such offices as aforesaid, the deed is to be deemed to have been executed in accordance with the requirements of the section and to have taken effect accordingly. By s. 123, the donee of a power of attorney may execute any assurance in his own name, and under his own seal (where sealing is required) by the authority of the donor of the power; and every assurance so executed is to be as effectual in law as if it had been executed in the name and with the seal of the donor of the power. But this provision is without prejudice to any statutory direction that an instrument is to be executed in the name of an estate owner.
3. Where there is a condition providing for compensation.
(b) See Shepherd v. Croft, 1911, 1 Ch. 521; Lee v. Rayson, 1917, 1 Oh. 613.
(c) Cordingley v. Cheeseborough, (1862) 4 D. F. & J. 379; 31 L. J. Ch. 617; Whittemore v. W., (1869) 8 Eq. 603, where the action was practically a vendor's suit for specific performance; Re Terry and White, (1886) 32 Ch. D. 14; 55 L. J. Ch. 345; though Lopes, L. J., took a different view; and see Re Fawcett and Holmes, (1889) 42 Ch. D. 150; 58 L. J. Ch. 763.
(d) Re Fawcett and Holmes, (1889) 42 Ch. D. pp. 156 - 157.
(e) Sup. p. 512.
By s. 75 of the L. P. Act, 1925 (replacing s. 8 of the Conv. Act, 1881), a purchaser, as regards all sales made after 1881, is not entitled to require the conveyance to be executed in his presence, but is entitled at his own cost to have the execution of the conveyance attested by some person appointed by him, who may, if he thinks fit, be his solicitor (f).
Execution of conveyance by vendor.