Parties to the conveyance on the grantee's side.

Conveyance to the purchaser's nominee.

(f) Above, pp. 636, 561. (g) Above, p. 46.

This appears to follow from the act that, if the pruchaster's assignee seek to enforce the specific performance of the contract by the vendor, the purchaser should be made a party to the action (above, p. 568), and would be a proper party to a conveyance ordered in such action.

(i) Above, pp. 568 - 570.

(k) Hartley v. Burton, L. R. 3 Ch. 365.

(l) It is thought that, where a purchaser re-selling before completion discloses to the sub-purchaser the fact that he is himself a purchaser under an uncompleted contract of sale and in effect sells the interest so acquired by him, the sub-purchaser cannot oblige him to take a conveyance from the original vendor; as that course would apparently involve the payment by the first purchaser of ad valorem stamp duty on such conveyance. But if the first purchaser so re-sell as if he were the full owner of the land, without disclosing that he is only entitled under an uncompleted contract of sale, it is submitted that the sub-purchaser's strict right would be to require the first purchaser to take a conveyance of the legal estate from the vendor in order to avoid all question of the first purchaser having incumbered his equitable interest under the contract for sale; see below, p. 619, and n. (a). Having regard to this liability, it is advisable for a purchaser of land re-selling before completion to sell his interest under the contract for sale, as such, and to stipulate expressly that the sub-contract shall be completed by a conveyance from the original vendor to the subpurchaser by the first purchaser's direction. Where a purchaser of land re-sells before completion, he is bound to furnish, at the sub-purchaser's request, an abstract of the original contract for sale and of his dealings, if any, with his interest thereunder; Re Huckerby and Atkinson's Contract, 102 L. T. 214, where note that the property sold will, as a rule, be effected by one deed. But it is for the purchaser to decide in what form he will take his conveyance, provided that the burden laid on the vendor, in respect of expense and otherwise, be not materially increased by the purchaser's choice (t). Thus, where properties of different kinds or held under different titles are sold by one contract, the purchaser may require the same to be conveyed by separate assurances and apportion the purchase money as he may think fit (u). For example, where freeholds and copyholds are sold together, the conveyance cannot of course be effected by one deed, the copyholds requiring to be assured by surrender and admittance. So where freeholds and leaseholds are included in one contract of sale, the purchaser may require that his title to the freeholds shall not be incumbered with the assignment of the leaseholds, and as to the leaseholds themselves, that his title under one lease shall not be complicated with the assurance of land held under another. And where lands sold together lie far apart, as in different counties not adjoining each other, he may demand that they shall be assured by separate deeds. But it is questionable whether the vendor can be compelled, in the absence of special stipulation, to execute a great number of separate conveyances in different parcels of a lot of land lying near together and sold by one contract; for that would sensibly increase the vendor's trouble of perusing and executing the assurance completing, the contract; and in any case he could only be required to do so on the terms of being paid the extra expense so occasioned, and also, it is thought, on condition that he were not asked to assure lands accurately described as one entire property in the contract by several new descriptions of the particular parts thereof (x). If a purchaser desire to take a conveyance in lots of lands offered to him for purchase by private contract as one entire estate, he should certainly insert an express stipulation to that effect in the contract (y).

Subject to the question discussed below (a), whether outstanding estates or incumbrances should be got in by deeds separate from the conveyance, the conveyance of the sub - purchaser expressly waived all objection to accepting a conveyance direct from the original vendor [see p. 215).

Form of the conveyance.

(m) See 1 Dart, V. & P. 611, 5th ed.; 581, 6th ed.; 536, 7thed. The memorandum should be in duplicate, one part being given to the sub-purchaser.

(n) See Davidson, Prec. Conv. vol. ii. pt. i. 319, 4th ed. (o) Above, p. 578

(p) Stat. 54 & 56 Vict. c. 39 s. 58 (4), (5).

(q) See above, p. 80; and see below in the present section of this chapter as to the cases in which the purchaser is bound to give a covenant of indemnity.

(r) This appears clearly to follow from the rule that the burthen of a contract cannot be assigned over; above, p.

(s) Pag 619.

(t) See Clark v. May, 16 Beav. 273; Cooper v. Cartwright, John.

679, 685; Egmont v. Smith, 6 Ch. D. 469, 474.

(u) Chirk v. May, 16 Beav. 273.

Where the whole estate in the land sold is not vested in the vendor, as where it is subject to mortgages or other charges or incumbrances, which have to be paid off, discharged, or released, to enable the vendor to convey such an estate as he contracted to sell (z), it appears that, if by the contract the vendor purported to sell the whole estate as vested in himself without disclosing the state of the title, and in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, the purchaser is in strict right entitled to require the vendor at his own expense to get in all the outstanding estates and interests and vest them in himself or in a trustee for himself, in order that the conveyance to the purchaser may be one simple deed of assurance from the vendor, or from him and his trustee, to the purchaser (a). But it has never been the practice to insist on this right, except in circumstances of extreme complication (b); and, as we shall see, it is not to the purchaser's interest to allow the legal estate to be conveyed to the vendor, where the land sold is heavily incumbered; so in most cases the conveyance is taken by one deed, to which the incum-brancers, as well as the vendor, are parties. If, however, by reason of the number of estates or interests outstanding in persons, who were not parties to the contract of sale, the expense of preparing the instrument of conveyance is sensibly increased, the purchaser is entitled to require the vendor to bear the extra expense so occasioned (c): though where the contract shows that the property is subject to charges or incumbrances, which must be released in order to make a good title, it does not appear that the vendor is liable to contribute to the cost of preparing the conveyance (d). As we have seen (e), it is and has long been the practice to stipulate expressly in conditions of sale by auction that the vendor and all other necessary parties, if any, shall execute a proper assurance of the property to the purchaser; and that the purchaser shall bear the expense of preparing, making and doing, not only this assurance, but also every other assurance and act, if any, which shall be required by the purchaser for getting in, surrendering or releasing any outstanding estate, right, title or interest, or for completing or perfecting the vendor's title, or for any other purpose. It has been decided that, where the purchaser expressly undertakes, in words as wide as these, to bear the expense of preparing, making and doing every assurance and act necessary to get in any outstanding estate or perfect the vendor's title, he is bound to pay the whole expense of the concurrence in the conveyance to him of the vendor's mortgagees (f), or of the execution of a deed of confirmation rendered necessary because of the imperfect execution of the conveyance to the vendor himself (g). But the understanding of the profession is that a condition of sale in the above form is not intended to throw upon the purchaser the expense of the perusal on behalf of and execution by the vendor himself of the conveyance of the property sold (h) - an expense for which the vendor is liable in absence of express stipulation to the contrary (i) - and the practice is for the vendor to bear this expense himself, although the contract contain this condition. It has been held that the stipulation in question does not cast upon the purchaser the expense of deducing the title to any outstanding estate (k).