MARTIN'S PRACTICE OF CONVEYANCING: WITH Forms of Assurance. BY CHARLES DAVIDSON, OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, ESQ., BARRISTER AT LAW, AND FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. In Five Volumes, Royal 8vo.-Price 71. in boards. THE Publishers beg to call the attention of Gentlemen engaged in the PRACTICE of CONVEYANCING to the above Work, which is now completed, and to state, that it has received the approbation, and is used in the chambers of the most eminent Conveyancing Counsel. It has been compiled with much care, from drafts of the most skilful Conveyancing Barristers of the present day; and each Precedent has undergone a careful revision with a view to its improvement in conciseness and clearness, its applicability to general practice, and its adaptation to the state of the Law at the time of publication. The First Volume consists of an Introduction, and of an Appendix (just published) containing several additional Precedents. The Second Volume contains a very large collection, made by the late Mr. MARTIN, of Common Forms of all the different Clauses of Deeds, Wills, and other Assurances; the forms are drawn from various sources, and present a very considerable choice to the draftsman. The last Three Volumes, and the Appendix to the First, (which are the work of Mr. DAVIDSON), contain entire Precedents of all the Assurances commonly framed by Conveyancers, with a very large body of Notes, principally relating to the practice of preparing Drafts, and to such points of Law as bear more immediately on that part of the Conveyancer's duty. It is to this object (the Preparation of Drafts) that the Work has been chiefly directed; and it is conceived, that the precision and uniformity of language in the Precedents, their conciseness, and their having been taken wholly from the most approved Forms, and principally from Drafts recently prepared, must give this book an advantage for practical purposes over any Collection of Precedents hitherto offered to the Profession. Precedents in Conveyancing; ADAPTED TO THE ACT FOR SIMPLIFYING THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, 7 & 8 VICT., CAP: 76, WITH Practical Notes, and Observations on the Act. BY CHARLES DAVIDSON, OF THE INNER TEMPLE, ESQ., BARRISTER AT LAW, LATE FELLOW LONDON: A. MAXWELL & SON, 32, BELL YARD, LINCOLN'S INN, AND HODGES & SMITH, COLLEGE GREEN, DUBLIN. PREFACE. SINCE the early sheets went to the press, it has been suggested, that the reason for making a distinction in the 8th section (infra, pp. 22, 39) of the late Act between existing contingent remainders and remainders hereafter to be created, may have been an impression, that, if existing contingent remainders had been turned into executory estates, then, under a contingent remainder to a class of persons, (the children, for instance, of a living person), the individuals comprised in the class might have been changed; that, under a remainder to such a class, only those comprised in it upon the determination of the preceding estate would be entitled; but that, under an executory gift to such a class, all would take who should at any time come within it. It is doubted, however, if this impression be well founded; for it is apprehended, that, according to the authorities, in the case of a gift, whether by way of contingent remainder or of executory estate, to a class of persons, preceded by an anterior interest, those only are included in the class who are or have been in existence at the determination or defeasance of the anterior interest, or during its continuance. (See 2 Jarman on Wills, 75 and 76). It has also been suggested that the observations infra, p. 32, with respect to those rules hereafter applying to deeds between parties which heretofore applied to indentures, is incorrect; but the author sees no reason to alter his opinion. With respect to estoppel (which is particularly referred to) it is, indeed, generally laid down, that estoppel can only be by indenture; but the reason seems to be, because a deed between parties could only be by indenture. The estoppel was not caused by the shape of the edge of the skin, but because it was considered that a man could only be estopped by a deed to which he was a party, and he could not be a party to a deed which was not an indenture. |