Modern statutes have in effect abolished the old rule of equity, that any person paying money or assigning other personal estate to a trustee thereof was bound to see that the same was duly applied pursuant to the trust, unless exempted from that obligation by the intention of the author of the trust, either expressly declared or implied from the nature of the trusts (t). Under the Trustee Act, 1893 (u), the receipt in writing of any trustee for any money, securities or other property or effects, payable, transferable or deliverable to him under any trust or power, shall be a sufficient discharge for the same, and shall effectually exonerate the person paying, transferring or delivering the same from seeing to the application or being answerable for any loss or misapplication thereof. It may be noted that this enactment does not justify the payment of money or delivery of securities to one only of several trustees. In such a case the money must be paid or other property assigned over to all the trustees, who should all join in giving the receipt (x).

Trustees' receipts.

According to the general rule of equity, trustees investing trust money in the purchase of lands were bound to see that they obtained a good marketable title (y). This rule, however, was not inflexible; it might be modified in its application according to the circumstances of particular cases. Thus if, considering the objects of the trust (such as the acquisition of land advantageous or convenient to be held with land already in settlement), the purchase were otherwise desirable, it appears that trustees would be justified in accepting a substantially safe holding title (z). And the rule has now been considerably relaxed by statute. Trustees purchasing land are expressly authorized to buy without excluding the application of the second section of the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 (a). This exonerates trustees authorized to invest in the purchase of leasehold lands, held for a term of which less than forty years are unexpired, from the necessity of stipulating for the production of the lessor's title (b). Trustees are also specially protected in buying under the conditions imported into contracts for sale by the Conveyancing Act of 1881 (c), when the period, for which title is by law required to be shown, is not curtailed by special stipulation. And it is now provided by the Trustee Act, 1893 (d), that a trustee shall not be chargeable with breach of trust only upon the ground that in effecting the purchase of any property he has accepted a shorter title than the title which a purchaser is, in the absence of a special contract, entitled to require, if in the opinion of the Court the title accepted be such as a person acting with prudence and caution would have accepted. The standard so set is that to which trustees are now obliged to conform (e); and they should be careful, in buying lands with trust money, not to bind themselves by any condition of sale which will preclude them from requiring such a title as they ought to obtain. Trustees directed or empowered to purchase lands are frequently authorized by the express terms of the instrument creating the trust to purchase any hereditaments with less than a marketable title; but this scarcely allows them to adopt a lower standard than that now set by the Trustee Act, 1893 (f).

Purchase by trustees.

(t) Lloyd v. Baldwin, 1 Ves. sen. 173; Sug. V. & P. 657 sq.: Lewin on Trusts, 394 sq., 6th ed.; 530 sq., llth ed.

(u) Stat. 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, s. 20, replacing 44 & 45 Vict, c. 41, s. 36, and applying to trusts created either before or after the commencement of the Act. Also by stat. 22 & 23 Vict. c. 23, the receipt of a trustee for any purchase or mortgage money payable to him is a good discharge, unless a contrary intention be expressly declared by the instrument creating the trust. Lord Cranworth's Act, stat. 23 & 24 Vict. c. 145, s. 29, provided that trustees' receipts should be good discharges for any money payable to them: but this provision applied only in the case of instruments executed on or after the 28th Aug. 1860, and was repealed by stat. 44 & 45 Vict, c. 41, s. 71. After the passing of Lord Cranworth's Act, however, the old practice of inserting in every instrument creating a trust a receipt clause, in terms similar to those of the present statutory provision, was discontinued; 3 Davidson, Pree. Conv. 222-226, 719, n., 3rd ed.

(x) Hall v. Franck:, 11 Beav. 519; Webb v. Ledsam, 1 K. & J. 385: Margetts v. Perks, 12 W. R. 517; Lee v. Sankey, L. R. 15 Eq. 204: 3 Davidson, Prec. Conv. 223, n., 3rd ed.

(y) Lewin on Trusts, 4 37, 6th ed.'; 579. 11th ed.; Dance v. Gold-ingham, L. R. 8 Ch. 902, 911.

(z) 1 Dart, V. & P. 89, 90, 5th ed.; 99, 100, 6th ed.; 97, 98, 7th ed.

(a) Stat. 56 .& 57 Vict. c. s. 15, replacing 37 & 38 Vict. c. 78. s. 3; see above, pp. 12, 99, 192. Trustees purchasing □ not, of course, exclude the operation of the first section of the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874: for that section altered the rule of law, and made a forty years' title an equally good marketable title as a sixty years' title was previously: see above, pp. 98,

(b) See above, pp. 96, 99.

(c) Stat. 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41. s 66; see above, pp. 42, 45,. 99.

(d) Stat. 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53. 9. 8 (3), replacing 51 & 52 Vict, c. 69, s. 4 (3).

W

What kind property should be bought by-trustees for persons entitled successively tenant for life, and is likely to continue to yield the same advantage to the remainderman after his death. They should avoid alike property which is wasting, or may he wasted, such as mines or timber, and property yielding no present profits, as a reversion or remainder to which no rent is incident, or an advowson (g). Even house property has been thought to be objectionable for purchase by trustees on the ground of its being liable to decay for want of repair and to destruction by fire (h). It has been held, however, that trustees authorized to invest in the purchase of "lands or hereditaments of an estate in fee simple in possession" were entitled to buy lands subject to building leases for ninety-nine years (i). Each case must, of course, be considered with reference to the terms and object of the power given to purchase. Thus, where it is intended that a large estate shall be purchased and conveyed to the usual limitations of a strict settlement, it is certainly allowable to buy lands bearing a fair proportion of timber (k); and at the present time it seems equally permissible to purchase land containing mines and minerals, so long as the mineral wealth does not form too large a part of the value of the property, since the mines can be worked and the profits equitably distributed between tenant for life and remainderman under the powers given by the Settled Land Act, 1882 (l).