Against what names searches mould be made.

(d) Stat. 51 & 52 Vict. c. 51.

(c) Stat. 63 & 64 Vict. c. 26.

(f) See Wms. Real Prop. 86 94. 465-467, 13th ed.; 270 278, 285 - 287, 293, 294, 602 605, 21st ed.

(g) On this point the testimony of.Mr. Joshua Williams is express Wms. Real Prop. 357, 1st ed., 465, 13th ed. And the same rule is laid down in Elphinstone v Clark on Searches, 144, 148. 149. Mr. Dart, however, stated that searches in the Middlesex and Yorkshire Registries and in the Court Rolls should extend over the whole period covered by the abstract: 1 Dart. V. & P. 497, 5th ed.; 567, 6th ed.; 1223,7th ed. The statement in l Dart, V. & P. 560, 6th ed., that it is not the practice to go further back, in searching, than the last mortgagee or purchaser for value does not appear in the 5th ed. (p. 491). and is the statement of the editors

Only. The same statment as to the practice is, however, made in Wolstenbolme's Conveyancing and Settled Land Acts, 196, 8th ed.

(h) Above, pp. .197 - 600.

(i) Finch v. Winchilsea 1 P. W. 277, 282; Whitworth v. Gaugain, 1 Ph. 728.

(k) Stat. 18 ,& 19) Vict. c. 15, s. 11; Greaves v. Wilson, 25 Beav. 434; Wms. Real Prop. 569, 21st ed.

(l) Stats. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, ss. 11, 13; G3 & 64 Viet. c. 26, s. 2 (1); Wms. Real Prop. 381. 21st ed.

(m) See Wins. Real Prop. 419, 21st ed.

(n) Mayor of Poole v. Whitt, 15 M. & W. 571.

(o) Re South, L. R. 9 Ch. 369; Hood-Barrs v. Gatheart (No. 5), 1895, 2 Ch. 411.

It may be observed that there is no obligation on a purchaser to make or direct any search at all; he owes 110 duty in this respect to any person interested under an entry in any register, and omission to search is not negligence which will affect him with notice of any matter to be discovered by searching (u). But if he do make a search in person or by agent, he will be affected with notice of all entries in the register which affect the land sold, although he may fail to discover them (x). It is the duty of the purchaser's solicitor to make on his behalf all searches which in the circumstances of the case are necessary and proper (y); and if he omit so to search and the purchaser's title be injuriously affected in consequence, he will be liable to his client in an action of negligence for the damage incurred (z).

No obligation on purchaser to search.

(p) Re Harrison Bottomley, 1899, 1 Ch. 495, 471.

(q) The jurisdiction of the Court to make an order for the appointment of a receiver in respect of a judgment debtor's leagl or equitable estates in raion or remainder in land may be supported by the decision in Tyrrell v. Painton 1895, l Q. B.

202, and the dicta of Lindley, M.R., in Re Harrison and Bottomley, 1899, l Ch. 465, 471, and by the consideration that under the Land Charges Act. 1900, actual delivery in execution is no longer a condition precedent to the attachment of the charge en by sect. 13 of the Judgment Act, 1838; but the principles laid down in Holmes v. 1893, 1 Q. B. 561, seem opposed to any such jurisdiction. (r) Stat. 40 & 47 Vict. c. 62, ss. 20, 44, 168.

Stat. 61 & 62 Vict. c. 51, s. 10, providing also that where the person, on whose application the land charge was created, was beneficially entitled to a leave for lives or life at a rent or to a term of years, the land charge shall also be registered in the name of that person.

(t) See the Acts cited above, pp. 588 593; Elphinstone & Clark on Searches, 109 sq.

Search is notice.

Duty of purchaser's solicitor to search.

Under the Conveyancing Act, 1882 (a), and the Land Charges Act of 1888 (b), official searches may be directed to be made in the registers of lis pendens, life annuities, writs and orders affecting land, land charges, deeds of arrangement, and certificates of acknowledgment by married women, and a certificate of the result of the search filed. Such a certificate, according to the tenour thereof, is conclusive, affirmatively or negatively, us the case may be, in favour of a purchaser as against persons interested under the matters or documents, which are the subject of registration; an office copy is evidence of the certificate; and solicitors obtaining an office copy of such a certificate, and any trustees, executors, agents or other persons in a fiduciary position for whom they are so acting, are not answerable in respect of any loss that may arise from any error in the certificate (V). These advantages are not obtainable on private searches, which may still be made. The utility of official searches has, however, been doubted by the Learned authors of the treatise on searches (d), who maintain that the certificate of the result of an official search can only be evidence, negatively, that no entry of any of the matters searched for is made against the name of the person therein mentioned by the description applied to him in the requisition for search, and does not exclude the possibility of the existence of other entries against that person by the same name but under a different address or description. It appears, however, that this contention is not quite correct. The Conveyancing Act, 1882, provides that the certificate shall be conclusive according to its tenour (e), not according to the tenour of the requisition for search. It is true that by the rules made under that Act (f) any one directing an official search to be made against a particular name is required to state the usual or last known place of abode as well as the title, trade or profession of the person bearing that name. But according to the forms prescribed by these rules, the search is directed to be made against the name mentioned in the requisition, and the certificate is of the result of a search against the name specified in the certificate. By the practice of the office, too, the certificate of the result of the search does not necessarily specify the address and description of the person against whose name the search was made. If no entry, or none but those specified in the certificate, were found against any person of that name, the fad is so stated in the certificate, without adding the address and description contained in the requisition for search; and in such case the certificate certainly has a value unobtainahle by a private search. If entries are found against the same name but coupled with a different address and description, the certificate then states that no entries, or none but the entries specified therein, have been found against the name, address and description contained in the requisition for search. This form of certificate shows that there are entries against the same name but coupled with an entirely different address and description, and is a warning that further search may be necessary. If, however, entries are found against the name specified in the requisition for search, but coupled with an address and description which, though not identical with those contained in the requisition, render it probable that the person so described is the same as that mentioned in the requisition, then a note is made in the schedule to the certificate, of the entries against the person so described. And if the identity of the person be certain, as it would be in the case of a peer, though the address be different, all the entries against the name are included in the schedule to the certificate (g). It appears, therefore, that a certificate of the result of an official search has a greater value than is allowed by the learned authors of the treatise on searches; and it seems that in general the best course to take is to direct an official, instead of making a private search. When this course is adopted, the purchaser obtains in the certificate a valuable document of title, and the purchaser's solicitor is relieved from the liability which he would incur if he or one of his clerks searched the register but failed to discover a material entry.