to Robert Chalmer as the heir-at-law of Charles Chalmer.

[See cases as to equitable and legal contingent remainders collected in Re Eddel's Trusts, L. R. 11 Eq. 559; Astley v. Micklethwait, 15 Ch. Div. 59, and Marshall v. Gingell, 21 Ch. D. 790. The following are the statutes which relate to contingent remainders:-10 & 11 Will. 3, c. 16;* 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, and 40 & 41 Vict. c. 33.]

A statutory declaration by some disinterested person well acquainted with the family as to the following facts, and identifying the parties, should be furnished (with certificates) :

Death of Charles Chalmer without issue. Death of Maria Chalmer without issue and a spinster.

Death of Julia Chalmer.

Marriage of Antonia Dornton.

Birth of Richard Imbert.

Death of Antonia Imbert.

That Antonia Imbert had no other child than Richard Imbert, and that she was only married once.

The certificates necessary to verify the above declaration should be produced, and made exhibits thereto.

And the several places and dates of the several deaths or burials, marriage and birth or baptism of the parties respectively should be stated in the declaration.

Receipts from the Inland Revenue Office for the succession duties which became payable on the respective deaths of Julia Chalmer and

* In Rev. Ed. St. 10 Will. 3, c. 22. [Note to last ed.]

Antonia Imbert must be furnished to the purchaser.

The usual searches for incumbrances must be made as against Richard Imbert and Robert Chalmer. See General Obs. No. 13, post.

Search should be made for deeds of disentail by Charles Chalmer and Maria Chalmer, to ascertain if either of them have barred his or her estate tail.

[See General Observations and Requisitions, post, and add such as are applicable to this title.]

ABSTRACT No. 9.

PARKES' TITLE.

This title commences with a lease in 1780 for 999 years a long term.

In 1830 the termor assigned the term to a trustee to attend the inheritance, and then made a feoffment and levied a fine to acquire a tortious fee; in the deed assigning the term, it is stated that the reversioner was not then known. It will be requisite to have a statutory declaration that no rent has been paid during a long term of years last past to satisfy the terms of the 8th section of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, and the 65th section of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41:

If the title be accepted, a title must be shown to the term, and the term must now be enlarged at the vendor's expense under sect. 65 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881.

Under the will of Edward Parkes, his three sons took as tenants in common in fee.

As to Jeremiah's third.

By the settlement 27th June, 1840, made on the marriage of Jeremiah Parkes, his third was (subject to the life estates of Jeremiah Parkes and Charlotte Benson) limited to the use of the issue of the marriage. In a deed the word "issue" is not a word of limitation; and it is apprehended that the effect of the settlement was to give only life estates in this third to the three children of the marriage, and that (subject to the life estate of Mrs. Charlotte Parkes) the three children are now entitled to this third during their lives as tenants in common in remainder. Subject to their life estates, this third is vested in Mrs. Parkes in fee under Jeremiah's will.

As to Rowland's third.

Rowland Parkes by his will devises his onethird to his brother, Jeremiah, and his children; the effect of which, it is apprehended, was to give them the fee simple as tenants in common. Jeremiah Parkes by his will devises his real estates to his wife Charlotte.

Therefore, as to Frederick's one-third, he will be the party to convey.

And as to the other two-thirds, Mrs. Charlotte Parkes and her three children will be the parties to convey, according to their respective interests. The usual evidence must be furnished as to the marriage of the parties, births and number of children, and deaths of parties.

The usual searches for incumbrances must be made as against all the conveying parties.

[See also General Observations and Requisitions, post, and add such as are applicable to this estate and title.]

ABSTRACT No. 10.

DENNE'S TITLE.

Observations.

The deeds of 4th and 5th March, 1820 (recited in the deed of 1834), should be produced for examination by the purchaser's solicitor, and it must be ascertained that the deeds are properly stamped.

William Denne's will must be carefully examined, and it must be registered in Middlesex as against the heir-at-law.

Mrs. Laura Denne, who appears to have been married to William Denne before 1834, must concur in the conveyance to the purchaser to release her right to dower, and also to release the estate from her life annuity of £200, given to her by the will of William Denne.

Julia Denne must release the estate from her life annuity of £50; the succession duty on the annuity to Julia must be commuted for and paid, and the succession duty payable by Charles Denne must be paid, and the official receipts for these duties must be handed to the purchaser. If either of the annuitants refuse to release, application to the Court must be made under sect. 5, Conveyancing Act, 1881.

The searches should be as against William Denne and Charles Denne.

The Middlesex Registry must be carefully searched to see that the abstract is complete.

[See General Observations and Requisitions, post, and add such as are applicable to this estate and title.]

ABSTRACT No. 11.

CROSBY'S TITLE.

Observations.

1. What title deeds relating to the estate are in the possession of the vendor? Has she the custody of the deeds of 17th and 18th November, 1835?

2. It should be ascertained whether Robert Foster, the vendor, in 1835 had a wife, then and now living, who was entitled to dower; and when Robert Foster died, if he be dead. See General Observation No. 19.

3. Was Isaac Crosby a bankrupt or insolvent debtor before 1868? If so, when?

4. Joseph Morton, the trustee, must concur in the conveyance to the purchaser.

5. The settlement made by the deed of 13th September, 1867, appears to be a voluntary settlement by Isaac Crosby, and to have been made for the purpose of defrauding his creditors; and as he became bankrupt so soon after the date of the settlement, the title is objectionable on those grounds, and the settlement would seem to be void (under the statute 13 Eliz. c. 5) as against the mortgagee and the assignees in bankruptcy.

How is it shown that this settlement can be supported, and that Mrs. Eleanor Crosby can make a good title as against, and without the concurrence of, the mortgagee and the assignees in bankruptcy?

appears

[Reply of Vendor's Solicitor:- It clearly from the settlement of 1867 that £500 was paid by Peter Adams to Isaac Crosby as a consideration and inducement to him to make