« PreviousContinue »
RULES FOR THE PREPARATION AND EXAMINATION
ALL ORDINARY ABSTRACTS OF TITLE.
TOGETHER WITH THE
LAW OF EVIDENCE
CONNECTED WITH THE
TITLE TO REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY.
BY JAMES STEWART,
OF LINCOLN'S INN, ESQ., BARRISTER AT LAW.
43, FLEET STREET.
In presenting the last Volume of this work to the profession, the Author is desirous of mentioning his principal object in directing his attention to the subject. It appeared to him that a work which should show the exact state of the law, at the present time, respecting Abstracts of Title, and the alterations effected in it during the present century, would be both new and useful. The able work of Mr. Preston on Abstracts of Title is necessarily defective in these particulars.
The law of evidence, as it regards the title to property, has hitherto remained either altogether unconsidered, or has been merely treated of incidentally. Its importance seemed to demand a more careful consideration, and the Author hopes that this part of the present volume will at least be found useful.
The Author has endeavoured to touch as lightly as possible on those parts of the subject which have been considered by other writers, and to dwell only on
those which have remained uninvestigated. For this reason, the nature and qualities of estates have been mentioned so far only as was necessary to introduce the rules on the matters immediately under considera
In the arrangement of the work, the preference has been given to that which appeared the most practically useful, rather than that which was the most scientific. The plan adopted, however, although on the whole the most advisable, has sometimes precluded the discussion of each subject in all its different bearings in the same part of the work. A reference to the INDEX will obviate any difficulty on this account.
The Author has not been able to pass the whole of the work through the press so rapidly as he could have wished; and some cases have been reported since the portion of the following pages to which they relate were printed. He takes this opportunity of noticing them below,* and of requesting the reader to insert them in their proper places.
March 19, 1831. 8, New Square, Lincoln's Inn.
* Page 44.—To the cases cited in n. (c) add Walker v. Moore, 10 B. & C. 416.
Page 99.—To the case cited in n. (d) add Warren v. Richardson, 1 Younge, 1.
Page 120.—The salary of the assistant parliamentary counsel to the Treasury is not assignable, and the court will appoint a receiver of it. Cooper v. Reilly, 2 Sim. 560.
Page 121.-A rent change per auter vie, if the grantor dies, leaving cestui que vie, goes to grantee's executors, though not named in the grant. Bearpark v. Hutchinson and wife, 7 Bing. 178.
Page 180.-A purchaser of property under a commission of bankrupt, which is afterwards superseded by a creditor, in not protected by 6 Geo. IV. c. 16. s. 87, from a claim, at the suit of the assignees under a subsequent commission. Gould v. Shoyer, 6 Bing. 738.
Page 221.-Where a younger son, who had lived with his father some years before his death, and managed his concerns, and had the superintendence of his property, entered on his lands at his death, and continued in possession for several years, claiming as heir to his father on the ground of the illegitimacy of his elder brother, and levied a fine; it was held that the fine did not bar the right of the eldest son to recover possession by ejectment, without au actual entry to avoid the fine. Doe d. Davis v. Davis, 12 Pri. 756.
Page 232.-A lord of a manor cannot establish a claim to the exclusive right of cutting sea-weeds on rocks situate below low-water mark, except by a grant from the king, or by such long and indisturbed enjoyment of it as to give him a title by proscription. The possession necessary to constitute a title by proscription, must be uninterrupted and peaceable. Benest v. Pipon, 1 Knapp, 60.
Page 279, n. (a)-Add Harvey v. Reynolds, 12 Pri. 724.
Page 296, and 427.-A right to a pew can only exist by faculty or by prescription. Where the prescription is interrupted, the jury are not bound to presume a faculty from long uninterrupted possession. Morgan v. Curtis, 3 M. & R. 389.
Page 317.—By a deed dated in 1822, lands are conveyed to such uses as A. B. should appoint. In 1826, a judgment was obtained against him; and in 1827, he mortgaged the estate, and appointed it to the use of C. D. for five hundred years, for securing the money advanced. After the execution of this deed, the judgment creditor issued an elegit.