« PreviousContinue »
Sects. 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 28, 30, 37, 39, 40, 46, 55. Sections verbally altered are :
Sects. 3–7, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 38, 39, 40, 43, 50, 56, 57, 62, 64, 70, 72, 73, 75.
The corresponding sections of the amended bill are :
Sects. 4-8, 11, 12, 13, 23, 24, 32, 34, 35, 43, 44, 45, 50, 57, 63, 64, 72, 74, 80, 82, 83, 85.
As to Bill No. 2.
Sects. 6, 12-16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 38, 41, 42, 47, 52, 54, 62, 70, 76.
The corresponding sections of the amended bill are:
Sects. 6, 13–17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 39, 42, 43, 48, 51, 52, 59, 75, 84.
The sections verbally altered are :
Sects. 2, 4, 7, 8, 18, 21, 22, 31-37, 39, 40, 45, 46, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 61, 72, 73, 74, 78.
The corresponding sections of the amended bill are:
Sects. 2, 4, 7, 8, 18, 22, 23, 32-38, 40, 41, 46, 47, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 58, 80, 81, 82, 86.
We will now examine some of these amendments. Sect. 15 of the amended bill, No. 1, is as follows:
“ Whenever a final declaration has been made establishing the title of any person to land, every purchaser for valuable consideration of the land mentioned in the declaration, or of any part thereof, or of any interest in such land”—the words “or in any part thereof” are wanting-“shall be deemed to bold the same for an estate in fee simple, or for such less estate as may be conveyed to him, with the reservation, and subject to the incumbrances (if any), appearing in the declaration, or created since the date of that declaration, and subject also, except in so far as the contrary is expressed in the declaration, to such charges and interest (if any) as are hereinbefore declared not to be incumbrances, but free from all other estates, incumbiances, and interests whatsoever”_here the 14th section of the original bill stopped, the amended section proceeds—“including all estates, interests, and claims of her Majesty, her heirs and successors.
The maxim, Roy n'est lie per ascun statute si il ne soit expressement nosme, must have been forgotten by the framers of the original bill, or perhaps they thought it advisable to leave it open whether the Crown would be bound by the general nature of the words of the section or not. The same blunder occurred in several other sections of the original bills, and is, in all cases, now rectified-(see original bill, No. 1) sec. 25 declaring the effect of conveyance by court; original bill, No. 2, sec. 13, defining the nature of the estate of the first registered proprietor ;
and same bill, sécts. 28 and 29, defining the nature of the estate of a purchaser for valuable consideration, and of a voluntary transferee respectively, and the corresponding sections of the amended bills.
Section 8 of the original bill No. 1, contained an enumeration of the several charges and interests which were not to be deemed incumbrances under the act. Amongst them we find tithe rentcharges, quit rents, easements of various kinds, &c., but land tax was not noticed. In sec. 12 of the original bill No. 2, which defined the various charges to which all registered land was to be deemed subject, unless specially excepted, land tax and quit rents were not mentioned. These defects have been cured in the amended bills; but whether land, in respect of which an indefeasible tithe has been procured, would be subject to parliamentary or parochial taxes (other than land tax), and rates of a general character, seems to be questionable.
Section 34, original bill No. 1, provided that, when the court had made a declaration or conveyance, all deeds relating to the land should be retained by the court. This section proves one thing beyond a doubt; namely, that the framers of this bill were totally igvorant of the ordinary detail of the practice of conveyancing. The authors of it could never have perused a single abstract of title, or a set of conditions of sale, or a covenant for production of title-deeds, otherwise they must have known that title-deeds do not always relate solely to the property of one individual, and that some of the title-deeds relating to one property frequently relate to other properties, otherwise held under perfectly distinct titles.
Section 37 of the amended bill No. 1, is indeed rather a new clause than an amendment of sec. 34. It properly provides that all such deeds delivered to the court as relate exclusively to the land, and are of no avail except for the purpose
of substantiating the title to the land, shall be retained by the court, and all other deeds shall be returned, marked in such manner as to give notice to any person inspecting them, of the proceedings of the court in relation to the land comprised in such returned deeds.
Many of the powers which, under the original bill No. 2, were vested in the registrar, are by the amended bill taken from him, and vested in the Landed Estates Court. For instance, where, upon the first registration of land, notice of an incumbrance has been entered on the register, the registrar, on proof being given to him of the discharge of the incumbrance, was directed to enter on the register a memorandum of the discharge (sec. 14). By the amended bill, séc. 15, the Landed Estates Court is to direct the registrar to enter such memorandum. Again, the registrar, on the-requisition of the proprietor of a charge, or on the production
of sufficient evidence that a charge had determined, was directed to "enter the discharge -not a memorandum of the discharge on the register.-(Original bill No. 2, sec. 23.) By sec. 34 of the amended bill, the registrar is directed, on the requisition of the proprietor of a charge, or on the production of an order of the Landed Estates Court, to enter a memorandum of the discharge on the register; and a necessary addition to the section is made by stating that, upon such entry being made, the land shall be deemed to be discharged.
Instruments such as transfers and charges, which, under the original bill No. 2, were required to be attested by “one or more witnesses,” by the amended bill are required to be attested by a solicitor—(See original bill No. 2, sec. 16, 24, and 30, and corresponding sections in amended bill.) This amendment is certainly a good one, for it lessens the danger of fraud.
For the word “mortgage," which occurred over and over again in the original bill No. 2, the word “charge” is substituted in the amended bill.
Section 19, in the original bill No. 2, provided that any mortgagee might, in default of payment of the mortgage money or interest, “enforce all such remedies against the mortgagor for the recovery of the money due to him, or for the foreclosure of the land, or otirerwise howsoever as he might have enforced, if such land were not registered, or as near thereto as circumstances admit;" but what remedies the mortgagor might have enforced if the land had not been registered, could not possibly have been determined by any one, not even by two conveyancers of ten years' standing. The corresponding clause in the amended bill in strictness ought to have been included in our list of new clauses; it is to the effect that the proprietor of a charge may enforce a foreclosure of the land in the same manner in which he might enforce the same if the charge were secured by a conveyance of the land to him, subject to redemption; this clause is better than the one which it supersedes, yet it affords another example of awkward reference so common in this Lill, to something that might have been, but is not, done,
Section 38 of the origiņal bill No. 2, is as follows :—“The husband of any female proprietor of land shall be entitled to be registered as 00-proprietor with his wife of such land;" but no provision was made for taking the name of the husband off the register upon his death. Sec. 39 of the amended bill directs that the husband shall be described as co-proprietor in right of his wife, and on his death the original registry of the wife, with a change of name if necessary, shall revive. This new section provides for the case of the husband dying in the lifetime of his wife; but how if the wife should die first, and the husband not
be entitled to the curtesy of England? The case has been omitted.
To show the effects of tinkering, we will print sec. 39 of the original bill, and the corresponding section of the amended bill side by side. ORIGINAL BILL.
AMENDED BILL. Sec. 39. Where land is regis Sec. 40. Where land is registered in the joint names of hus- tered in the joint names of husband and wife, no registered dis- band and wife, no registered dealposition of such land shall be made ings with such land shall take until the wife has been examined place until the wife has been ex. by the Landed Estates Court, &c., amined by the Landed Estates and has assented to such disposi Court, &c., and has assented to tion, after full explanation of her such disposition after full explanarights in the land, and of the tion of her rights in the land, and effect of the proposed disposition. of the effect of the proposed dis
position. Now, the use of the term “such disposition,” when no disposition has been mentioned before, is, to say the least, not very accurate.
Section 42 of the original bill No. 2, is divided into six subsections : of these two have been altogether omitted, and three have been amended in the corresponding section of the amended bill (sec. 43), which also contains four new subsections. The section defines the rules to be observed with respect to registry: The fourth subsection was to the effect, that no alteration should be made in the registered description of the parcels except upon the requisition of all parties interested, and upon the production of such evidence as the registrar should approve of. The omitted subsections (Nos. 5 & 6) are as follows :-No. 5, “The registrar shall not be compelled to recognize any description of any parcel other than the registered description ;” and No. 6, “Where the description by which any parcel was originally registered is altered, each proprietor shall be responsible for the identity of such altered parcel with the parcel as originally described.” What the draftsman meant by being “ responsible" it is iinpossible to imagine; nor was it clear to whom " each proprietor” referred, or for what each proprietor would be responsible. The fourth subsection in the amended section provides, that no alteration in the parcels shall be made except under the order of the Landed Estates Court. No registered owner, therefore, would be able to sell a part of his estate without subjecting himself to the trouble, annoyance,
of resorting to this new Court of Chancery !
Three of the new subsections relate to succession duty. No transfer of any registered land, and no creation of a charge, is to
be made until a certificate has been obtained from the commissioners of inland revenue, that no succession duty is payable in respect of the land. The commissioners of inland revenue are required to give such certificate upon such declaration being made, or such other evidence being produced as the commissioners may require, and the registrar is directed to see that such certificate is duly obtained; but nu transfer or charge once entered on the register is to be invalidated on the ground that the certificate was not obtained, or on the ground of any informality. These three subsections would not affect a lease, though it might be for a thousand years, at a peppercorn rent. The fourth new subsection provides that when an instrument, required to be attested by a solicitor, is executed out of England, it may be attested by a solicitor of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, a writer to the signet, a consul, vice-consul, or notary public.
By sec. 76 of the original bill No. 1, a scale of costs, to be paid to persons other than the officers of the registry, was to be fixed by the Landed Estates Court; by sec. 84 of the amended bill this scale is to be fixed by the Lord Chancellor, with the assistance of the Lord Justices and the judges of the Landed Estates Court; and the section moreover contains a valuable addition, namely, that the scale of costs may be based either wholly or in part on an ad valorem principle.
It is very remarkable that, even in the clauses relating to stamps, some amendments were necessary. The draftsman, had he taken the trouble to search for precedents, might have found plenty that would have served his turn, and saved him from bungling; for instance, in sec. 70, original bill No. 1, and sec. 74, original bill No. 2, it was provided that, when any fees are payable in respect of any document, a stamp denoting the amount should be affixed to the document. An impressed stamp is often found to be more convenient than one that requires to be affixed; and the amended bills provide that stamps may be affixed or impressed.
Some of the inaccuracies and defects which are to be found in the amended bills we have already noticed in the foregoing remarks; there are yet others—many others—a few only of which we now propose to consider.
Section 15 of bill No. 1 has been given in extenso in a previous page. The expression, "every purchaser for valuable consideration of the land mentioned in such declaration," in that section, is somewhat
whose title is established may, in the strict legal sense of the word “ purchaser," be a purchaser for valuable consideration of the land mentioned in such declaraLion; does this section apply to him? The meaning of the