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.
(d) Jacomb v. Turner, sup.
(e) Cattell v. Corrall, (1840) 4 Y. & C. 228; 9L.J.N. S. Ex. Eq. 37.
Under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1869, s. 12 (f), where the trustees or persons acting in the administration of a charity have power to determine on any sale, exchange, partition, lease, or other disposition of the charity estate (for which purposes the land is deemed to be settled land (g)), a majority present and voting at a meeting of their body duly constituted, are to have full power to execute and do all such assurances and things as may be requisite for carrying such sale, etc, into effect; and their assurances and acts are to have the same effect as if executed by all the trustees or administrators, and by the official trustee of charity lands. Where the title is derived under the Charitable Trusts Acts, the abstract must show that all the statutory requirements have been complied with (h).
Under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1869.
So, ,where land has been exonerated from tithe by an exchange under the Tithe Act, 1836, s. 30 (i), the title to the land given in exchange for the tithe must be shown (k) .
Of land exonerated from tithe by exchange under the Tithe Act, 1836, s. 30.
The title to property having terms of years attendant upon the inheritance, which have merged as satisfied terms (l), must 6how in whom they were vested at the time when the merger took place (m), by abstracting, if practicable, the deed creating the terms and the mesne assignments from the commencement of the title shown to the inheritance to the date of merger (n).
Of estate which has attendant terms.
Under s. 44 (6) of the L. P. Act, 1925 (which takes the place of s. 3 (2) of the Conv. Act, 1881), on a sale of land formerly of copyhold or customary tenure, but which has become enfranchised, the purchaser cannot, under a contract for the purchase of the freehold, call for the title to make the enfranchisement. He is not, however, debarred from objecting to the title of the lord on grounds ascertained aliunde.
Of enfranchised copyholds.
(f) This section seems retrospective. See Charitable Trusts Act, 1853: Charitable Trusts Amendment Act, 1855; Charitable Trusts Act, 1860; and the Charitable Trusts Act, 1862, which are, so far as consistent therewith and not repealed thereby, to be construed with this statute.
(g) S. L. Act, 1925, s. 29.
(h) Generally as to the Acts, see Tudor, Charitable Trusts.
(i) And see Tithe Act, 1842, ss. 6 and 7.
(k) See the Tithe Act, 1839, s. 20.
(l) L. P. Act, 1925, s. 5.
(m) Lyle v. Earl of Yarborough, (1859) John. 70, 74.
(n) Sug. 14th ed. 370.
By s. 44 (7) of the L. P. Act, 1925, a purchaser is not concerned with the title of the lord of the manor to enter into a compensation agreement for extinguishing manorial incidents. It should be observed that since 1925 the former copyhold title is abstracted, not (as previously) for the purpose of showing who are the tenants on the Court Rolls, but to show in whom the land was vested by the L. P. Acts, 1922 and 1925, on the 1st January 1926, such persons and their successors being the persons to make a title (o).
It was formerly the rule that upon a sale of leaseholds the abstract must show (except in the case of a Bishop's lease (p), or perhaps of a lease of great antiquity) the lessor's title, as well as the subsequent title to the term (q); but the Law was altered by the V,. & P. Act, 1874. And now by s. 44 of the L. P. Act, 1925 (which takes the place of s. 2 of the V. & P. Act, 1874, and of s. 3 (1) of the Conv. Act, 18(81), it is provided that under a contract to grant or assign a term of years, whether derived Or to be derived out of freehold or leasehold land, the intended lessee or assign shall not be entitled to call for the title to the freehold; and that under a contract to sell and assign a term of years derived out of a leasehold interest in land, the intended assign shall not have the right to call for the title to the leasehold reversion (r).
Of leaseholds - freehold title must formerly be produced; but not now - L. P. Act, 1925, s. 44.
(o) 1 Prideaux, 22nd ed. 142; see lie King's Theatre, Sunderland, 1929, W. N. 40.
(p) Fane v. Spencer, (1815) 12 Mer. 430, n.; see Sug. 14th ed. 369.
(q) Souter v. Drake, (1834) 5 B. & Ad. 992; 3 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 31; Hall v. Betty, (1842) 4 Man. & G. 410; 11 L. J. N. S. C. P. 256; Clive v. Beaumont, (1848) 1 De G. & S. 397, 406; Gaston v. Frankum, (1846) 2 De G. & S. 561; 13 Jur. 739; Smith v. Capron, (1849) 7 Ha. 165; 19 L. J. Ch. 322. And see Stranks v. St. John, (1867) L. E. 2 C. P. 376; 36 L. J. C. P. 118; Frend v. Buckley, (1870) L. R. 5 Q. B. 213; 39 L. J. Q. B. 90.
(r) Wolst. & Cherry, 11th ed. vol. i. pp. 201, 202.
On a sale under the powers of the S. L. Act, 1925, the dealings with the property between the dates of the settlement and the exercise of the power are immaterial to the title, except such dealings as are by s. 72 of that Act made paramount to the power of sale.
Sales under S. L. Act, 1925.
Upon a sale of shares in a mining company, the purchaser is not entitled to a regular abstract of title to the mines themselves, as if he were purchasing an interest in the land in which they are worked; but he is entitled to such evidence of the constitution of the company, and of the nature of the title under which the mines are worked, as will show that the subject-matter of the purchase is what it professes to be, and that the proposed form of transfer will give him a valid title to the shares (s).
Of shares in mines.
Upon the sale of a messuage with pews claimed as appurtenant thereto, the right to the pews must be proved, either by production of the faculty (t), or by evidence of prescription (u). With respect to seats in the chancel, if the Rector allows seats to be erected or placed there by the parish, ,they seem to be thenceforth in the same position as pews in the body of the church, and to be subject to the like jurisdiction of the Ordinary: but the Ordinary cannot interfere with pews occupied by the Rector and his family and tenants, nor, indeed, with any he has licensed; and he cannot introduce pews or seats into the chancel without the Rector's consent (x).