Page images

and must, if so required by the purchasers of any other lots to which such deeds relate, give the usual acknowledgment and undertaking

The burden of performing the obligations of the statutory acknowledgment attaches to the person for the time being having the document to which the acknowledgment relates either in his possession or under his control. (See the Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 9, sub-ss. 2, 4.) Any person interested in or affected by the terms of any such document may enforce the performance of the obligations under the acknowledgment (see sub-s. 3), so that a vendor of land having the benefit of an acknowledgment as to deeds only can transfer such benefit to a purchaser.

5. All outgoings up to the date of completion must be paid by the vendor, and the last receipts for the same produced. If need be, the current outgoings must be

apportioned as between vendor and purchaser. Although there is generally a provision to the above effect in the conditions or contract for sale, yet this is a very usual requisition, its object being doubtless to draw the vendor's attention to the fact, and to put him on inquiry as to what outgoings affect the property.

In the case of freehold land, the only outgoings, as a rule, are the land tax, sewers rate, and tithe rentcharge (when these are not payable by a tenant). But this is not always the case, as where the land, although held in perpetuity, is yet subject to a chief or quit rent. Again, there may be outstanding charges in respect of the making up of the roads and footpaths, or of the drains and sewers thereunder. There may also be an outstanding claim by the tenant of agricultural land for compensation for improvements under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61). It is possible, again, in the case of

[ocr errors]

recently developed building land, that there may be outstanding claims for commission, survey fees, &c., which should be satisfied on or before completion, although, of course, these would not be in the ordinary sense a burden upon the land, and they are usually the subject of contract between the building owner and the agent or surveyor.

Only those outgoings in the nature of periodical payments are apportionable, such as rent (see Lawes v. Gibson, L. R. 1 Eq. 135); and unless there is any stipulation to the contrary, the current charges should be estimated up to the date of completion, and allowed to the purchaser, by deducting them from the purchasemoney. Of course, when the charge is paid in advance, the estimated portion due to the end of the current period is charged to the purchaser, and added to the purchasemoney.

6. The purchaser reserves the right to make further requisitions (if need be) on the replies to the above. Where by the conditions of sale or purchase agreement there is a time fixed for sending in requisitions on title, and time is expressed to be of the essence of the contract, if no such reservation as this were made, it is conceivable that the vendor might successfully object to answer further requisitions, on the ground that they were out of time.




1 to 3. The requisitions noticed in the previous chapter under these numbers will equally apply to land already built upon, and where the leases have been granted : in other words, to created ground rents.

4 to 5. These will be similar to those noticed in the previous chapter (supra).

6. Which of the boundary walls to the premises are party walls ? Where the lease is silent as to the party walls, this requisition is a necessary one, in order to ascertain the mutual rights and liabilities attaching to the use and occupation of the walls inclosing the land and separating it from adjoining lands.

Irrespective of statutory definitions, the term “party wall” would seem to be applied to such walls as are built upon the soil belonging in common to the owners of adjoining lands. Where the origin of the wall is unknown, the common use of it by the owners of adjoining lands is primâ facie evidence that both the wall and the land upon

which it stands belong to such adjoining owners in equal moieties as tenants in common. (Woodfall, L. & T., 9th edit., 508.)

For the purpose of the Metropolitan Building Acts a party wall is defined as every wall used or built in order to be used as a separation of any building from any other building, with a view to the same being occupied by different persons.” (Metropolitan Building Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 122), s. 3.)

Since both adjoining owners of a party wall are jointly liable for its repair, it would seem probable that one coowner could compel the other to contribute to the expense of keeping the wall in repair, or sue him for damages in respect of its non-repair, more especially if his neglect to repair would jeopardize the existence of the wall. If one co-owner of a wall exclude the other from his occupation and enjoyment of it, as by destroying the wall or building upon it, he commits a trespass, and renders himself liable to an injunction. (See Stedman v. Smith, 8 E. & B. 1; 26 L. J. C. B. 314.) But it is otherwise where one owner pulls the wall down temporarily, and with the intention of rebuilding it. (Cubitt v. Porter, 8 B. & C. 257; and Woodfall, L. & T., 9th edit., 509.)

Like all other kinds of property held in common, a party wall is subject to partition, and this can be enforced by one co-owner against the other as a matter of right.

In a recent partition action of this nature, the Court directed that the wall should be divided longitudinally, giving one half of the wall to each of the adjoining

(See Mayfair Property Company v. Johnston, (1894) 1 Ch. 508; 63 L. J. Ch. 399 ; 70 L. T. 485.)


17. Evidence should be given that the premises are insured by the lessee in accordance with the covenant in the lease, and the last premium paid.

Since by the rules of equity the property stands at the risk of the purchaser, from the moment of his entering into a completed contract to purchase the same, it is important that he should ascertain, as soon as possible, whether the property is fully insured in accordance with the covenant in the lease. The purchaser should not be satisfied on this point until the policy, together with the last premium receipt, has been produced; or, at all events, not until the vendor assures him positively that the covenants in the lease in this respect have been complied with, and undertakes to produce the policy and last receipt on completion.

8. Is the vendor aware of any breach by the lessee of any of the covenants contained in the lease? If so,

what steps (if any) have been taken to remedy the same? It seems probable that, in the face of such an inquiry as this, a vendor would not be justified in concealing the fact that a breach of covenant had occurred to his knowledge. A purchaser on learning of a breach of covenant should insist upon its being remedied, or, if it is incapable of remedy, he should claim compensation in respect of it.

In this connection it is perhaps profitable to glance shortly at the remedies now provided for breach of covenant.

A statutory remedy is now given to a lessee against forfeiture for breach of covenant in all except the following cases, viz., a covenant against assigning or underletting the property, also certain covenants in mining leases; and also in the case of forfeiture for non-payment of rent. (See the Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 14, sub-ss. 6, 8.) By the operation of the Conveyancing Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 13), the remedies against forfeiture are not extended to the case of a condition in a lease providing for forfeiture on the bankruptcy of the lessee or the taking in execution of his interest thereunder, where one year has expired from the date of the bankruptcy or taking in execution, and the

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »