this settlement. The payment of this sum (being a valuable consideration) had the effect of supporting the settlement under the 27 Eliz. c. 4, and prevents it from being purely voluntary, and took it out of the operation and meaning of the 13 Eliz. c. 5. The settlement is perfectly valid, and Mrs. Crosby can make a good title to the purchaser. See the case of Bayspoole v. Collins, L. R. 6 Ch. 228, and the cases there cited.* The searches must be against Isaac Crosby and Mrs. Eleanor Crosby. [See General Observations and Requisitions, post, and add such as are applicable to this title.] *This settlement, it is to be observed, claims to be a settlement for valuable consideration, and therefore to lie wholly outside the law relating to voluntary settlements. The student will at times have occasion to consider the latter subject. If Re Brall, Ex parte Norton, 1893, 2 Q. B. 381, may be relied upon, it would seem that objections, founded upon the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 47, to titles depending upon voluntary settlements, will no longer have any weight, unless the property remains in the hands of the original donee, or of a volunteer claiming under him, and the donor had committed an act of bankruptcy, available for adjudication at the date of the contract. But it could not safely be assumed that this case would be allowed to overrule Re Briggs and Spicer, 1891, 2 Ch. 127; especially as it could be held, without expressly overruling Re Brall, that such titles, though perhaps good, are not good enough to be forced upon an unwilling purchaser. With regard to objections founded upon 13 Eliz. c. 5, or 27 Eliz. c. 4, see Noyes v. Paterson, 1894, 3 Ch. 267. Voluntary settlements are now taken out of the operation of 27 Eliz. c. 4, by the Voluntary Conveyances Act, 1893, 56 & 57 Vict. c. 21. C. R ABSTRACT NO. 12. Observations. The Settled Land Act, 1882, does not seem to empower a person who is entitled to the income of land, under a trust or direction for payment thereof to him "for years determinable on life," to sell the land; see section 58 (ix), and compare it with section 58 (vi); and the trustees of the property proposed to be sold do not appear to have any power of sale.* * There is room in the language of the Act for the doubt here expressed. The present writer, for certain reasons which are too lengthy to be stated here, is of opinion that the doubt would probably be overruled. COPYHOLD. ABSTRACT No. 13. COPYHOLD TITLE. PENISTAN'S TITLE. Purchaser's Requisitions. 1. It appears that a heriot is payable on the death of a tenant. Is it payable on any other occasion? This is the case in some manors. 2. The will of Jacob Penistan would appear to have been unattested. How is it shown that the copyhold estate was well devised by this will? [Vendor's reply:-Previously to the passing of the Wills Act, 1 Vict. c. 26, copyhold estates would pass by an unattested will; the will of Jacob Penistan was made in 1830. The Wills Act does not apply to a will made before 1st January, 1838, although the testator died after that date; therefore this will was sufficient this copyhold estate. to pass 3. It must be clearly shown that Maria Penistan survived her mother, otherwise the estate would appear beneficially to belong to the children of the testator's son, Robert Penistan. 4. It is stated that by the custom of the manor the descent is to the youngest son or youngest brother. The certificate of the steward of the manor as to this custom must be procured. 5. It is stated that Maria Penistan died intestate; this must be shown by the production of letters of administration to her personal estate, and by a statutory declaration by the solicitor of the family, or by some other mode, as to the fact of the intestacy of Maria Penistan. 6. Evidence that George Penistan is the youngest brother (of the whole blood) of Maria Penistan must be furnished. To prove this, a certificate of the marriage of Jacob Penistan must be furnished, and also certificates of the births or baptisms of George Penistan and the other sons of Jacob Penistan; and a pedigree of the Penistan family, and a statutory declaration by some person acquainted with the family, that George Penistan is the youngest brother (of the whole blood) of Maria Penistan. George Penistan must be admitted tenant on the court roll. 7. What documents of title will be handed to the purchaser? If the deed of 27th October, 1860, is not handed to the purchaser, he must have an attested copy of it, and a covenant for its production. 8. What stamp is on the mortgage of 27th October, 1860? 9. The mortgagee must be paid off, and satisfaction of the conditional surrender of 17th June, 1870, must be entered on the court rolls. 10. Search should be made for judgments, lis pendens, writs of execution and annuities, as against Maria Penistan and George Penistan, and also in bankruptcy and insolvency, and for deeds of composition with creditors. 11. The receipt for the succession duty, which became payable on the death of Maria Penistan, must be produced and handed to the purchaser on completion. 12. Certificates of the deaths of Judith Penistan and Maria Penistan to be produced, and evidence of their identity, by statutory declaration. [See General Observations and Requisitions, post, and add such as are applicable to this title.] ABSTRACT No. 14. COPYHOLD TITLE. DENTON'S TITLE. 1. It appears from the abstract of the will of Charles Denton that it was only attested by one witness. Vendor's answer: At the date of the will of Charles Denton (1832), a will attested by one witness only was sufficient to pass copyhold estate. 2. Was Jeremiah Denton separately admitted tenant on the court roll? Vendor's answer: The admission of Sarah Denton, the tenant for life, was the admission of the party entitled in remainder. 3. What stamp is on this surrender? 4. Did Jeremiah Denton surrender the copyhold estate to the use of his will? Vendor's answer:· At this time (1856) a surrender to the use of a will was not necessary. 5. Has the satisfaction of the conditional surrender to Richard Marton been entered on the |