and contracts, or agreements to deed, are of frequent occurrence on the records, and occasionally bonds for the same purpose will be found, though these latter are now practically obsolete. Should the contract he executory its contents should be set forth with considerable minuteness, particularly such portions as relate to the parties, the subject-matter and the conditions of conveyance. If, on the other hand, the contract has been consummated by deed, a passing allusion to it, as a part of the chain of title, will be sufficient. Where the subsequent deeds do not show a substantial compliance with the agreement a full synopsis may become material, but the general rule is that the acceptance of a deed ordinarily merges any provisions of the contract which are different from the deed.74

The effect of a valid contract for the conveyance of land, is to vest in the vendee the equitable estate, leaving the legal title in the vendor as a mere lien or security for the unpaid purchase money.75 The vendor, in such a case, is simply a trustee having an interest in the proceeds but not in the land, and this interest, upon his decease, would pass to his personal representative and not to his heirs. The heirs would, it is true, take the legal title by descent, but only as it was vested in the ancestor, which was as a mere security for a debt. The debt being due to the administrators of the vendor, and the lien being considered as held by the heirs in trust, and simply as a pledge or security for its payment, on payment of the debt the heirs would be compellable in equity to execute the trust by the conveyance of the title, while the purchase money would go to the personal representatives.

Davenport vs. Whisler, 46 Iowa, 287; Jones vs. Wood, 16 Pa. St., 25. This is the accepted doctrine, yet it is subject to large qualification. The actual contract, as shown by the agreement, will still be competent where through fraud, inadvertence, or mistake, a different deed has been delivered. Snell vs. Insurance Co., 98 U. S., 85. 5 Reed vs. Lukens, 44 Pa. St., 200; Cary vs. Whitney, 48 Me., 516.

No special form is required as an evidence of a contract of sale and the courts seem inclined to allow a wide latitude in this respect. If the terms of the contract, the consideration, the subject-matter of the sale, etc., are stated with reasonable certainty the memorandum is sufficient. Form is not important, nor need it be under seal, the one indispensable requisite being, that it be in writing and signed by the vendor or his agent.

Agreements for conveyance which do not contemplate an immediate sale are mainly resorted to by two classes: the one where, by reason of financial inability, no immediate consummation of the contract can be effected; the other, where parties desire to control the disposition of property for a limited time while awaiting other developments. In each case forfeitures often occur. Much stress is often placed by counsel upon the fact of unfulfilled contracts of sale appearing in the chain of title, and objections of a serious nature are frequently founded upon them, yet, as a rule, they are formidable only in appearance. Where a contract for the sale of land provides that if the purchaser fails to perform any of his covenants the vendor shall have the right to declare the contract null and void, a subsequent sale by such vendor to another party for a valuable consideration, after the time fixed for performance, is, in effect, a declaration of forfeiture of the purchaser's contract.76

76 Streeper vs. Williams, 48 Pa. St., 450; Grey vs. Tubbs, 43 Cal., 364; Cummings vs. Rogers, 36 Minn., 317.

Subsequent purchasers of land, in the absence of express notice of latent equities in others than their grantors, can only be affected by such legal consequences as may be fairly drawn from the record itself; and when the record shows that the claim of a prior purchaser has been cut off and defeated by a sale or foreclosure, or by a forfeiture of his contract, such subsequent purchasers will have a right to rely on what is thus disclosed.77

An unfulfilled contract of recent date, however, should always be closely scrutinized and the fact of forfeiture clearly established, for it must be remembered that a vendor in such a contract can do no act in derogation of his vendee's title when such vendee is not in default. Therefore, should the vendor convey to others while such contract is still subsisting, all persons who claim any interest in the land, with notice of the contract, will be held to perform such contract to the same extent that the original vendor would be bound if he had retained the title.