Circumstances may make disclosure of a trust unavoidable.

(k) See Mats, it; & 17 Vict, c. 51, s. 3; 57 ft 58 Vict. c. 30, ss. 1,2 (1).

(l) See Stats. 16 & 17 Vict c. 51, 8. 2; 57 & 58 Vict. c. 30, s. 2 (3).

(m) See 2 Dart. V. & P. 594, 5th ed.: 669, 6th ed.; 1230, 7th ed.: above, p. 238, n. (b).

(n) See State. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 61, b. 12; 57 & 68 Vict. 0. 30.

8.9(1)

W

(o) See Stat, 16 & 17 Vict, c. 51, ss. 42, 44,

(p) Davidson, Prec. Conv. vol. ii. pt. ii. pp. 52, 53, 4th ed.; but see 2 Dart, V. & P. 594, 5th ed.; 669, 6th ed.; 1230. 7th ed.

(q) See Stat. 57 & 58 Vict. c. 30, ss. 8 (4), 9 (1). It may be doubted whether sect. 8 (4), according to the strict grammatical construction of the words used, makes a person accountable in whom the property shall become vested by alienation made after the death, which gives rise to the liability to duty: but in Hanson's Death Duties, 174, 4th ed. (197, 5th ed.), it is asserted that it does.

(r) See Stat. 57 & 58 Vict. c. 30, s. 8 (4); above, p. 242, n. (q). Where lands have been mort-ed to two persons jointly, the mortgagor and his successors in title are not accountable under the same sub-seotion, as being "trustees or other persons in whom any interest in the property is vested." for any estate duty which may have become payable on the death of one of the mortgages; they are in the position of debtors;see Matthew v. Northern Assurance Co., 9 Ch. D. 80. But if a debtor have notice of a charge created on the debt due from him, how can he v pay the whole amount of the debt to the original creditor?

16(2)

(s) The date of the commencement of that part of the Finance Act, 1894, which imposes estate duty; Stat. 57 & 58 Vict. c. 30, s. 24.

(t) For a form of such a condition, see Appendix A., below.

It is said, speaking generally, that notice of any document is notice of its contents: but this statement is only applicable as a rule subject to the following qualifications: - If a purchaser of any land have notice of some document, which must necessarily affect, or is stated to affect, the title to the land, then he ought to inquire as to its contents; and if he omit to prosecute this inquiry, he will be affected with notice of its contents and of any equitable interest disclosed by its contents. And if the document must necessarily affect the title, he will have notice of its contents (if he have notice of the document), notwithstanding that he were told that the document did not affect the title. But if the document be such as may or may not affect the title, and the purchaser ask, on receiving notice thereof, whether it does affect the title, and be told that it does not, he is justified, in the absence of any reason for suspecting the vendor's veracity or good faith, in accepting this statement as correct; and if he omit to peruse the document, he will not be fixed with notice of its contents or of any equity thereby disclosed (x). As already pointed out (y), however, it is imprudent not to require the production of a document, of which the purchaser has notice and which may or may not affect the title, because the document may disclose some legal estate or interest adverse to the vendor's title, and the purchaser would take subject to this, whether he had notice of the contents of the document or not.

Notice of a document, how far notice of its contents.

(u) Theoretically, omission to make the like inquiry with re-t to estate duty payable on the death of a joint mortgagee leaves the title equally open to objection: but, as we have seen (above, pp, 241, 242 . before the Finance Act, 1894, when succession duty only was payable, there was no necessity to make the inquiry, and the difference arising under that Act with respect to estate duty has hardly yet been a appreciated by the profession generally. It should not be forgotten that joint mortgagees, who have been obliged to foreclose, or who have had to take possession and have acquired a title barring the equity of redemption under the Statute of Limitations, have become owners of the whole estate in the lands and not merely of a charge thereon; and on the subsequent death of one of them any succes-sion duty which might become payable would be a charge on the survivors' estate in the lands, so that inquiry as to the payment thereof could no longer be safely dispensed with; see Re Loveridge, 1904, 1 Ch. 518.

(x) Janet v. Smith, 1 Ph. 244 , 253, 254; Potman v. Harland, 17 Ch. D. 363, 366, 367; Lloyd's Banking Co. v. Jones, 29 Ch. D. 221. 230; English and Scottish Mercantile Investment Co. v. BrunNotice of trusts, equities or similar matters, may be either actual or constructive. Actual notice to the person principally concerned himself, as to a purchaser personally, calls for no remark; but it may be observed that the term " constructive notice " is applied to two kinds of notice, namely, the notice which is imputed to a person principally concerned where he acts through a solicitor or other agent, and the notice which is imputed to a person where he or his agent has not made such inquiry or investigation as ought to have been made. The law with respect to notice is now contained in the following section of the Conveyancing Act, 1882 (z): Notice, actual or constructive.

Sect. 3, sub-sect. 1. - A purchaser (a) shall not be prejudicially affected by notice of any instrument, fact or thing, unless (i) It is within his own knowledge, or would have come to his knowledge, if such inquiries and inspections had been made as ought reasonably to have been made by him; or

(ii) In the same transaction with respect to which a question of notice to the purchaser arises, it has come to the knowledge of his counsel, as such, or of his solicitor, or other agent, as such, or would have come to the knowledge of his solicitor, or other agent, as such, if such inquiries and inspections had been made as ought reasonably to have been made by the solicitor or other agent.