Technically, when an attorney is called to pass the title to land under a given state of facts as presented by an abstract, he is not presumed or supposed to extend his investigations beyond what is directly to a break of this kind, and a certified copy of the patent can be obtained from the General or inferentially disclosed therein. The absence of requisite links in the chain of title calls for inquiries respecting same, but the existence of unrecorded evidence, or of equities not apparent or fairly de-ducible, do not properly come within the province of an examining counsel.

Land Office by any person showing himself to be entitled to it.

It is, however, strongly recommended, that in addition to the inquiries and requisitions made during the perusal of an abstract, and which are raised by disclosures made therein, a further inquiry be directed to the present possession and occupation of the land under examination. A long series of adjudicated cases confirms the doctrine that open and exclusive possession of land affords notice of the claim of the person so in possession,85 and a purchaser of land at the time adversely held by another who does not inquire of the party in possession as to his title or right of occupancy, will not be considered a bona fide purchaser, notwithstanding he may have examined the registry of titles.86 A purchaser of land who examines the records is protected by them so far as they can protect him, but he necessarily takes the risk of having the actual state of the title correspond with that which appears of record. The registration laws are designed only to protect purchasers against latent equities; hence, unrecorded deeds are void as against subsequent purchasers without notice, but a purchaser from the record owner is bound to notice the possession of another, and takes subject to the right indicated by such possession.87

85 Redden vs. Miller, 65 111., 336; Hackett vs. Callender, 32 Vt., 97; the rule is the same both at law and in equity; Griswold vs. Smith, 10 Vt., 454.

86 Russell vs. Sweezy, 22 Mich., 235;

Warren vs. Richmond, 53 111., 52. 87 Pinney vs. Fellows, 51 Vt., 525; Perkins vs. Swank, 43 Miss., 349; Happin vs. Doty, 25 Wis., 673.

In any event, the safe course is to make the inquiry, for the law will not extend its protection to those who through negligence or inattention suffer an advantage to be taken of their credulity, nor will it afford relief to those who neglect to examine and by personal observation ascertain the knowledge of those facts of which they are presumed to be conversant.

An actual inspection of the premises should also be had for the express purpose of ascertaining whether there are any servitudes resting upon the land that have not been disclosed by the abstract. It is true that, as a rule, a claim for an easement must be founded upon a grant by deed, yet an easement may pass by implication, when its existence is necessary to the enjoyment of that which is expressly granted or reserved. This is well illustrated in the rule of the common law which provides that where the owner of two heritages, or of one heritage of several parts, has arranged and adapted them so that one derives a benefit or advantage from the other of a continuous and obvious character, and then sells one of them without making mention of these incidental advantages or burdens of one in respect of the other, there is, in the silence of the parties, an implied understanding and agreement that the advantages and burdens, respectively, shall continue as before the separation of the title.88

But in order that an easement should pass by implication, under the grant of an estate, it must be obvious to any observer, while an apparent sign of servitude must be impressed upon the servient estate; in other words, the marks of the burden must be open and visible.89 Where these conditions exist, their effect upon the servient estate is frequently productive of results that the purchaser neither anticipated nor intended, but of which he might have been fully apprised had proper inquiry and examination been made prior to the acceptance of the title.

88 Morrison vs. King, 62 111., 30; Lamp-man vs. Milsk, 12 N. Y., 505.

Where any doubt exists with respect to lines, courses or dimensions, a survey should be had to fix boundaries.