The purchaser of an equity of redemption is exposed to the following risks: - First, since equitable charges or rights affecting equitable estates in land rank, as a rule, according to the order of the times at which they were created (q), he takes subject to all equities affecting the land purchased in the hands of the vendor at the time of sale, whether he have notice of any such equities or not. He buys, therefore, subject to all prior equitable mortgages of the land, whether made in favour of the legal mortgagee on further advances or of any other person (r), to any right of consolidation of securities which the mortgagee may have already acquired (s), and to all other equities affecting the premises, such as any equitable right to set aside the conveyance to the vendor (t), or any claims on the premises arising from any trust to which the same may have been subject in the vendor's hands (u). And after completion of the contract by conveyance and payment of the purchase money, he remains subject to such of these prior equities as amount to an interest in the land, in distinction to a bare right of suit (x). Secondly, in consequence of the doctrine of tacking equitable charges to the legal estate, the purchaser of an equity of redemption incurs the danger of being excluded by or postponed to equitable charges on the land made subsequently to the sale. Thus, if the legal mortgagee were to make further advances to the vendor after the sale, but whilst the vendor remained in possession or otherwise in apparent ownership of the land, and without having received notice of the sale, he would be entitled to tack all that might become due in respect of such advances to his original charge (y). And any other person who should make advances to the vendor on the security of the land after the sale and in the same circumstances, might, if he could obtain a transfer of the legal mortgage, tack what should he due under such subsequent advances to the original mortgage debt (z). The purchaser of an equity of redemption may guard against some of these risks, but against others he has no protection. Thus he may, and of course he always should inquire of the mortgagee, first, as to the state of the mortgage debt and what is owing thereon; secondly, whether the mortgagee has already made any further advances to the mortgagor on the security of the land purchased; and thirdly, whether the mortgagee has vested in himself any other mortgages or charges which affect any other property of the mortgagor and which he is entitled to consolidate with his mortgage on the purchased land. And the purchaser should give formal notice to the mortgagee of his contract for purchase. It is true that the mortgagee is not bound to answer such inquiries unless an offer to redeem his charge is made (a). And if the mortgagee should decline to answer these inquiries, the purchaser cannot safely proceed with the contract, and would, it is submitted, be entitled to repudiate the same on the ground that the vendor has failed to prove, by the only evidence that can possibly be accepted, facts material to the title. But if the mortgagee do answer such inquiries precisely, after being informed of the purpose with which they are made, he will be estopped from denying the truth of his answers, and so cannot afterwards assert his own charges or interests upon the property so as to defeat or postpone the purchaser's interest acquired on the faith of the representations so made (b). And notice to the mortgagee of the sale of the equity of redemption will of course prevent him from tacking any subsequent advances to his legal security (c). But the purchaser of an equity of redemption in land cannot protect himself against equitable rights, which are prior to his own and are either unknown to or suppressed by the vendor, by any notices or inquiries. Notice of his purchase to the mortgagee seised of the legal estate can give him no priority over equitable incumbrancers already existing (d), and will not prevent a subsequent equitable incumbrancer from excluding him by tacking, if the subsequent incumbrancer should procure a transfer of the legal mortgage (e). The purchaser of an equity of redemption should inquire of the vendor whether he has created or is aware of any equitable charge, incumbrance or right which affects the property sold and is not disclosed by the abstract (f); and it is submitted that, as the purchaser is to acquire no legal estate which would protect him against unknown equities, this question is relevant to the title offered by the vendor, and the vendor cannot vouch the rule in Re Ford and Hill (g) as an excuse for refusing to answer (h). The purchaser should also inquire of the legal mortgagee whether he has had notice or is aware of any such equitable charge, incumbrance or right. But if these inquiries fail to inform the purchaser of some existing equitable incumbrance, and he only discover the same after payment of his purchase money, he will have no remedy but to procure, if he can, a transfer of the legal mortgage, and so forestall the other incumbrancer in using the resource of tacking. If he can accomplish this, he will be entitled to hold the land free from the claims of all persons entitled thereto or interested therein under any equitable rights of which he had no notice at the time when he paid his purchase money; and any subsequent notice of any such right will be immaterial (i): but he cannot so avoid any equities of which he had notice, either actual or constructive (k), before he actually paid the price agreed upon for the land (l). If, therefore, he receive notice of any such equities after the contract for sale, but before completion, of course he cannot safely proceed with the purchase unless the equities are released or the persons entitled thereunder concur in the conveyance to him (m).

Risks incurred on purchase of an equity of redemption.

(n) Re Hall Dare's Contract, 21 Ch. D. 41.