(f) S. 132.

(g) Markham v. Paget, 1908, 1 Ch. 697; Woodfall, 22nd ed. 207, 868 et seq.

(h) Schwartz v. Locket, (1890) 61 L. T. 719; 38 W. R. 142; Baynes & Co. v. Lloyd & Sons, 1895, 2 Q. B. 610; 64 L. J. Q. B. 787; Jones v. Lavington, 1903, 1 K. B. 253.

(i) Line v. Stephenson, (1838) 5 Bing. N. C. 183; Shep. T. 165; Grosvenor Hotel Co. v. Hamilton, 1894, 2 Q. B. 836, 840; and it would seem that any words which will create a good lease imply the same covenants as the more technical word; Hart v. Windsor, (1843) 12 M. & W. 68, 85; 13 L. J. Ex. 129; Mostyn v. West Mostyn Coal Co., (1876) 1 C. P. D. 145; 45 L. J. C. P. 401; Budd-scott v. Daniell, 1902, 2 K. B. 351; 71 L. J. K. B. 706. A mere agreement to let implies a covenant that the lessor has a good title; Stranks v. St. John, (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 376.

(k) Budd-scott v. Daniell, sup.

(l) Including part of a dwelling-house; Housing Act, 1925, s. 1 (3).

A vendor's covenant for title, whether express or implied, does not amount to a sufficiently precise statement that he has the legal estate to create an estoppel (o).

Covenant for title not an estoppel.

The L. T. Act, 1897, s. 16 (3) (now repealed), provided that, in the case of land registered with an absolute title, a vendor, in the absence of special stipulation, was not to be required to enter into any covenant for title. This provision has not been reproduced in the L. R,. Act, 1925; and accordingly, covenants for production, and undertakings for safe custody of documents (which should in any case be inserted in transfers of land registered with a possessory or qualified title (p), might possibly be useful in cases where the land transferred is registered with an absolute title, e.g., where the documents contain evidence of matters not the subject of registration (q). By s. 24 of the L. E. Act, 1925 (reproducing s. 39 of the L. T. Act, 1875), it is provided that, on the transfer of leasehold lands, unless there is an entry on the register negativing such implication, covenants are implied by the transferor that the rents, covenants and conditions in the registered lease have been paid, performed and observed up to the date of the transfer, and by the transferee that he, his executors, administrators and assigns will pay, perform and observe the rent, covenants and conditions in the registered lease reserved and contained, and indemnify the transferor. These covenants may, however, be negatived or modified (r). On the transfer of freehold land, subject to an existing rent, similar covenants to those implied by s. 39 of the L. T. Act, 1875, are to be implied, but such implication may be negatived or modified (s). And on a transfer of land subject to an incumbrance appearing on the register, or, in the case of a possessory or qualified title, an incumbrance not affected by the registration, covenants to pay the money owing and to indemnify, may be added to the instrument of transfer, (t).

As to covenants on transfer of registered land.

(m) lb., sub-s. (1), replacing Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1909, ss. 14, 15. See Fisher v. Walters, 1926, 2 K. B. 315; Morgan v. Liverpool Corp., 1927, 2 K. B. 131, and cases there cited.

(n) lb., sub-s. (4).

(o) General Finance Co. v. Liberator Soc., (1878) 10 Ch. D. 15; and see Fernando v. Gunatillaka, 1921, 1 A. C. 357.

(p) See Rule 110 of the L. R. Rules, 1925.

(q) Brickdale & Stewart-wallace, 3rd ed. p. 81.