(e) ReHarman and Uxbridge, etc. Rail. Co., 24 Ch. D. 720, a very strong instance, as the recital which the Court compelled the purchaser to accept was not made by one who otherwise appeared to be absolutely entitled, but was a recital by an executrix, to whom her testator's estate had been given on trust for others, thai testator held the property in question as trustee for other persons, who were jointly entitled thereto.

(f) Ante, p. 118; RE Cousins, 31 Ch. D. 071, 676.

(g) McQueen v. Farquhar, 11 Ves. 467; Green v. Pulsford, 2 Beav. 70; below, Chap. XIX. Sec.3.

(h) He Blaiberg and Abrahams, 1899, 2 Ch. 340.'

(i) See S. C.

Where lands have been assured to several persons as joint tenants without disclosing the fact that they are trustees, circumstances may occur which will place the conveyancer engaged in investigating the title on behalf of a purchaser in an awkward dilemma. Thus, if it appear on the face of the abstract that several persons were seised of lands in fee (not by way of mortgage), and one of them has died, the purchaser may of course require the usual proof of the discharge of the succession and estate duty which would be payable on the death if they were beneficially entitled (k). But if this be done, and the joint tenants were in fact trustees, the only answer that can be given will be that no duty became payable, because the deceased person was not beneficially entitled (l). This, however, is tantamount to notice that he was a trustee; and after such an answer the purchaser cannot safely accept the title without the concurrence of the persons beneficially interested (hi). On the other hand, if no requisition as to succession or estate duty should be made, and the joint tenants should happen not to be trustees, and the duty had not boon satisfied, the purchaser would take the property subject to the charge of duty (n). And the same difficulty may arise, as regards estate duty, in consequence of the death of one of several joint mortgagees: although with respect to succession duty the law is different. Thus, in such a case succession duty would be payable, if the mortgagees were beneficially entitled, by the survivors as on a succession to personal property; but the duty would not be a charge on the successors' interest, except while the property should remain in their ownership or control; and it does not appear that persons in whom the property (that is, the mortgage debt and the charge on the mortgaged lands) might become vested by alienation after the succession had become an interest in possession would be accountable for the duty (o). It appears, therefore, to be unnecessary for any person proposing to take from the survivors a transfer or release of the mortgage to inquire respecting the payment of such succession duty (p). But in the case of the estate duty which would be payable if the mortgagees were beneficially entitled, it is at least a question whether persons in whom the mortgage should become vested by the alienation of the surviving mortgagees would not be accountable for the duty, and whether the property (which would not have passed to the deceased person's executor) would not be charged therewith (q). And if a person taking a transfer from such surviving mortgagees would be so accountable, or the duty be a charge on the mortgage debt, it seems that he ought to ascertain whether the duty has been discharged before he pays them the money owing on the security; and it is easy to put a case in which omission to make this inquiry might lead to a serious liability. Thus, suppose that a father and a son were joint mortgagees, who had made the investment with the view of the survivor becoming solely entitled, and the father died first: could any person safely take a transfer of the mortgage from the son without inquiring as to the payment of the estate duty? For if in this case the duty be indeed a charge on the property which passed on the father's death, then the mortgage debt and the mortgagee's estate in the mortgaged lands would appear to be as effectually charged therewith as if the two mortgagees had made a sub-mortgage of which the debtor had notice. And a similar difficulty arises where it is proposed to take a release or reconveyance by the survivor of two joint mortgagees appearing to be beneficially entitled. For if the estate duty which became payable on the death of one of the mortgagees be a charge on the property (that is, the mortgage debt and the mortgagees' estate in the lands), and the mortgagor or his successors in title have notice of the charge of duty, it does not appear that a release or reconveyance to him or them by the surviving mortgagee alone would vest in them the mortgagee's interest free from the charge of duty (if unpaid); and it seems that he or they might be held to be accountable for the duty as being a person or persons in whom the property had become vested by alienation (r). There seems to be no doubt that where a title is deduced through joint tenants appearing on the face of the deeds to be entitled for their own benefit, the only course which is perfectly safe is to treat them as being so entitled for all purposes, and consequently to require proof of the discharge of all death duties which if they were so entitled would be a charge on the property in the purchaser's hands. At the same time the writer believes that hitherto it has not been the practice to inquire respecting the payment of estate duty on the death of one of several joint mortgagees, unless there is good reason (as there would be in the case above put of a joint investment by father and son) to suppose that the parties are not or may not be trustees. The only justification for this course seems to be that joint mortgagees are so generally trustees that the risk run in omitting the inquiry is really very small, and the inconvenience consequent upon asking is exceedingly great. Whenever it is proposed to sell land under a title comprising a conveyance by the survivor of joint mortgagees, and the deceased mortgagee died after the 1st of August, 1894 (s), it is advisable to make a special stipulation in the conditions or contract of sale that no inquiry shall be made or objection taken as to any estate duty that may have become payable on such death (t). Where several persons appear to have been entitled to lands as joint tenants, but not by way of mortgage, it has not been the practice to refrain from inquiry as to the discharge of any death duties which may have become payable on the death of one of them on the ground that they are likely to have been trustees: on the contrary, regard is had to the fact that omission to inquire as to the payment of estate or succession duty on the death of one of them would leave the purchaser with an unsatisfied charge on the face of his title, and so prevent him from getting a good marketable title (u).