(d) P. 21, n. (r) . (e) P. 32, note. (f) Pp. 51-53. (j) P. 109. (h) P. 385 and n. (p).

(i) Pp. 435, 436, 674 - 679. (k) Pp. 310 sq. (l) Pp. 314 - 316. (m) 1903, 2 Ch. 150.

(n) See p. 319, n. (i).

(o) See Chap. XXI.

(p) Pp. 242 - 245.

(q) P. 584.

(r) P. 386.

(a) P. 362.

(t) 44 Ch. D. 146.

(u) 7 Ch. D. 766; below, p. 137. n. (p).

(x) 1901, 1 Ch. 921: Bee p. 466, n. (z), below.

(y) 1897, 2 Ch. 144; see p. 681, below.

(z) 1902, 2 Ch. 214; 1903, 1 Ch. 287: see p. 354, below.

(a) Pp. 605 sq.

{b) Pp. 83-93.

(c) P. 498.

(d) Pp. 491 sq., 647, 666, 670, 674.

(e) Formby v. Barker, C. A. (July 14). 1903, W. N. 133; 72 L. J. Ch. 716; 51 W. R. 646.

(f) Pp. 38, 39, 88, 204 - 208.

It is hoped that this book may be useful, not only to practitioners but also to students preparing for conveyancing practice in either branch of the profession. With this object the author has endeavoured, throughout the work, to write in a manner intelligible to those who have no greater preliminary knowledge of the subject than an acquaintance with the elements of the law of real property and of contract. He may point out that the earlier part of his treatise (Chapters I. - V.), which gives a general account of the subject, is especially adapted to the use of students, and that it is designed to prepare them to understand the rest of the book, in which matters of interest to practitioners are more particularly dealt with. The writer has started with the assumption that his readers will at least have such an acquaintance with the law of real property as may be gathered from a text-book like "Williams on Real Property "; and he has not thought it necessary to repeat here descriptions of those parts of the law, which are explained in that book in an elementary way. Thus he has not inserted an account of the historical progress of the law of creditors' rights (i) as an introduction to his discourse about searches (k). But he has tried throughout so to treat his subject that readers may understand, who have no greater knowledge than this.

(g) This doctrine appears to have originated with the case of Best v. Hamand (1879), 12 Ch. D. 1; see Fry, Sp. Perf. Sec. 1325, p. 592, 3rd ed.

(h) 1895, 1 Ch. 596; 2 Ch. 603. This case must have shattered the last ruins of the delusion that law and equity wore fused by the Judicature Acts. It appears in truth to be equally destructive of the pretensions put forward by eminent judges (see p. 58, n. (n), below), that a contract is really construed in the same manner in equity as at law. In the days when the Courts of Common Law and Chancery were separate, the student'e curiosity used to be stimulated by the statement that "on one side of West minster Hall a man may succeed in his suit under circumstances in which he would undoubtedly be defeated on the other side" (Wms. Real Prop. 129, 1st ed.; 177, 13th ed.). But this apparent paradox is eclipsed by the judicial ruling that, in the same Court and cause and in a matter depending on the effect of the same stipulation in the same contract, a suitor may at the same time obtain and be denied substantial relief according as his claim is rested on the doctrines of equity or of law.

(i) See Wms. Real Prop. Chap. XI.. 21st ed.

(k) Below, p. 580.

The writer is conscious of many imperfections in his treatise, and for these he must ask the indulgence of the profession. He has been occupied with the task of its production for several years; but he has only been able to prosecute his undertaking during such time as he could spare from his other work. He will be much obliged if readers, who discover mistakes or omissions, will kindly inform him of them.

Mr. J. F. Iselin is responsible for the correction of the press, except as regards pp. 1 - 128; and he has undertaken the work of preparing the Index. He has also supplied the writer with many valuable notes for the preparation of Chapter XI (Of The Effect Of The Contract Pending Completion)., and is affording him the like assistance with regard to certain parts of the second volume. The author has endeavoured to make up for the absence of the Index from Vol. I. by using particular care in compiling the Table of Contents, and by inserting therein references to the pages under each heading.

7, Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, 8th October, 1903.

The following paragraph, relating to Chaps. XIII. to XV., now included in the First Volume (l), originally formed part of the Introduction to the Second Volume.

The writer may mention that at the very outset he lias found himself beset with many doubts and difficulties as to the true theory of English law with respect to mistake as a ground of avoiding the contract. The view he has put forward is warranted, he believes, by the English authorities; and it is supported by the statements made by the late Mr. Benjamin's classical treatise on Sale. On the other hand, it seems to conflict with the opinion maintained by Mr. Justice O. W. Holmes, of the Supreme Court of the United States, who is perhaps the most brilliant and original of all living writers on the Common Law, and with that adopted by Professor Holland. And it is with extreme diffidence that the writer ventures to criticise their conclusions (m). The question, how far mistake is available, either as a ground of avoiding a contract for the sale of land at law, or of resisting its specific performance in equity, was raised in an acute form in the recent case of Van Praagh v. Everidge (n), which unfortunately went off in the Court of Appeal on the point of non-compliance with the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds. The writer has fully discussed the case in both of these aspects (o). Another difficult point, relating partly to the law of mistake and partly to that of misrepresentation, is the effect upon the contract at law and in equity of non-disclosure by the vendor of a latent defect of quality, of which he is aware; and the authorities on this point have been carefully considered (p). A full examination has been made of the questions, whether one may well claim the rectification of a written executory agreement together with the specific performance of the agreement as rectified (q), and whether rectification ought ever to be granted where the mistake has been unilateral and not common to both parties(r). In connection with these questions, the cases of May v. Platt (s), Garrard v. Frankel(t), Harris v. Pepperell (u) Bloomer v. Spittle (x), and Paget v. Marshall (y) have been criticised. Under the head of fraudulent misrepresentation, the much discussed case of Cornfoot v. Fowke {z) has been considered; and it is suggested that the decision there given may yet be in point where an agent has innocently and without express authority made a false statement as to some fact, on which his principal was accurately informed, and it is sought on this ground to set aside the contract after completion (a).