The purchaser (in the absence of any express agreement) prepares, and pays for the preparation of, his conveyance (g); but the costs of perusal and execution by all necessary conveying parties fall on the vendor (h); including, it is conceived, the costs of all matters essential to the validity of the deed as a perfect conveyance; e. g., the acknowledgment by married women and the filing of the certificate of acknowledgment, and the enrolment of a disentailing deed and deed of consent by the protector upon a sale by a tenant in tail; but a purchaser always pays for the registration of his conveyance, as an unregistered deed is valid except as against adverse claimants under a registered instrument.

Where a testator having devised an estate in strict settlement contracted to sell part and died before conveyance, the costs of the necessary suit for obtaining a conveyance under the 1 Will. IV. c. 60, s. 17, were directed to be paid out of the vendor's estate (i); so where a vendor died intestate before conveyance leaving an infant heir, the costs of the necessary suit, and of the conveyance being settled by the Master, were ordered by Sir L. Shad-well, V. C, to be paid out of the purchase-money (k); but in a later case, where the death occurred within two months after the contract, V. C. Knight Bruce refused to give costs, and suggested that there must have been some default on the part of the vendor in the case last referred to (l): but where at the date of the contract the legal estate is in an infant the expenses of having the conveyance settled by the Master must be borne by the vendor, although the purchaser bought with notice of the state of the title (m).

Costs of conveyance are borne by purchaser: of execution by vendor.

(d) Jones v. Jones, 1 Cro. & M. 721.

(e) See Tilsley, 374, and cases cited.

(f) London and Brighton Railway Company v. Fairclough, 2 Man. &

Gr. 674.

(g) Sug. 692.

(h) Ibid.

(i) Farrar v. Earl of Winterton, 4 Y. & C. 472.

A purchaser of copyholds pays the fine on admittance, and the Steward's fees both on the surrender and admittance (n); but, of course, the vendor pays the private expenses of both himself and the other necessary parties to the surrender; an agreement to surrender and assure the estate at his own costs and charges will not render him liable to the fine payable upon admittance (o).

And if the vendor must himself be admitted and pay a fine before surrendering, he of course bears these additional expenses (p).

Where an allotment under an Inclosure Act had been made generally in respect of the landowner's several copyhold tenements, and the custom of the manor was to pay the same fee on admission to part as on admission to the whole of a tenement, the Steward upon the subsequent admittance of a purchaser to part of the allotment was held to be entitled to as many fees as the allottee had tenements at the time of the Inclosnre (q).

Purchaser of copyholds pays lor surrender and admittance; but vendor pays for his own admittance if necessary.

Steward's fees on admittance to an allotment held under several titles.

(k) Midland Counties Railway Company v. Westcomb, 11 Sim. 57.

(l) Hanson v. Lake, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 328.

(m) Browne v. Lake, 15 L. J., N. S., Ch. 34.

(n) Drury v. Man, 1 Atk. 95, n., Saunders' ed.; Scriven on Copyholds, 317.

(o) Graham v. Sime, 1 East, 632.

(p) See Drury v. Man, 1 Atk. 95, n., Saunders' ed.

Upon the grant of a lease the well-known practice is, for the lessor's solicitor to prepare the lease, and for the lessee to pay both his own and the lessor's expenses; where land is sold in consideration of a rent-charge the assurance partakes of the natures of a conveyance and a lease; upon this ground it is suggested in a work of considerable reputation (r) that the costs should be equally divided between the parties; if the vendor require a counterpart of the deed, he may, it is conceived, be fairly asked to pay for the counterpart, but (with this exception) it seems difficult to understand why the circumstance of his sustaining a mixed character of vendor and lessor should be a reason for his paying a proportion of costs which neither vendor nor lessor singly is ever liable to pay.

Upon a sale under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (s), the purchasers must pay to the vendors all their costs of the conveyance and the costs of making out and proving their title (t); such costs (if the parties differ) to be taxed by the Master; the vendors have no lien for the amount of such costs upon moneys deposited under the 85th section of the Act (u), and it seems doubtful whether, under the provisions of the above section or of the 80th section, the vendors can recover their costs of or prior to the contract (w).

Costs of lease.

Of conveyance in consideration of rent-charge.

Purchasers pay vendors' costs on sale under Lands Clauses Act,

(q) Evans v. Upsher, 16 Mee. & W. 675.

(r) Jarm. Conv. by S. 518.

(s) See sects. 82 and 83.

(t) Costs of the " contracts, sales, and conveyances," held, under a private act, to include costs of making out the title; In re London and Greenwich Railway Company, 3 Ha. 22.

(u) In re London and South Western Railway Company, 16 Sim. 165; Ex parte Great Northern Railway Company, 16 Sim. 171.

(w) See, however, Ex parte Stevens, 12 Jur. 238; as to whether these costs include the costs of getting the legal estate out of the infant heir or devisees of the vendor, see Midland Counties Railway Company v. Westcomb, 11 Sim. 57; Hanson v. Lake, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 328; Eastern costs as are occasioned by litigation between adverse claimants (c). The costs of applying the money in paying off incumbrances affecting other parts of the settled estates do not appear to be provided for by the Act (d). Where the money deposited by a Railway Company, amounting to 644l., was applied (together with other money, making in the whole 1000l.) in the purchase of lands, the Company were still held liable to pay all the costs (e); this decision, however, seems open to remark; as observed by the Company's Counsel, "This is not the expenditure of a few pounds more; but here is an expenditure of a much larger sum for the benefit of the Vicar. Where is the Court to stop? Would it make us pay the expense of a purchase for 10,000l.?" (f): and in a later case Sir James Knight Bruce, V. C, under similar circumstances, in ordering the Company to pay the costs, directed that the same should not be increased by reason of the purchase-money exceeding the amount in Court (g). Of course the Act only provides for such costs of re-investment as, in the absence of agreement, "would strictly fall upon the statutory vendors as between themselves and the parties from whom they buy for the purpose of re-investment (h); and, except under special circumstances, under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, only the costs of one reinvestment in land are allowed; although the general rule seems to he different under the older Acts (i).