(i) Above, p. 630, n. (b).

(k) Re Sansom and Narbeth's Contract, 1910, 1 Ch. 741, 749, 750. In that case the contract contained only a general description of the property sold not defining the measurements or boundaries thereof; and it seems clear that the puchaser (unless precluded by the fact that the vendors sold as trustees; see below, pp. 634, 635) was entitled to a more detailed description than was contained in the contract. In the latest title deed under which the vendors claimed the property was described by reference to a plan; it was agreed before the summons came on for hearing that the purchaser should have a copy of this plan on his conveyance; and the summons was only heard to determine the question of costs. It was decided that the vendors must pay them.

A plan. But it is respectfully submitted that, where the land sold can be satisfactorily identified by a further or better verbal description than is contained in the contract, and the vendor offers to convey by such a description, it does in truth subject the vendor to an additional burthen if he be required also to convey by reference to a plan, which he must necessarily employ (and pay) his own surveyor to check. And it is further submitted that the rule, that the purchaser may take his conveyance in what form he pleases, is qualified by the proviso that the burthen laid on the vendor by the purchaser's choice be not materially increased, in respect of expense or otherwise (l). With great respect for Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, it is thought that he did not make sufficient allowance for this limitation of the rule. In the present state of the authorities, vendors of land should be particularly careful, where they desire not to convey by reference to a plan, to describe the property sold in the contract with complete verbal accuracy, or to stipulate expressly that they shall not be required to convey by reference to a plan or at least that an)' reference in the conveyance to a plan shall be made solely by way of illustration of the verbal description of the property sold and not so as to make the plan any part of the description by which the vendor conveys.

It is always desirable, in the purchasers interest, that the conveyance should contain a complete verbal description, independent of any plan, of the property sold and that any plan of the land referred to or drawn on the deed should be auxiliary only (m). If, as is sometimes unavoidable, the property is so described by reference to a plan that the plan is made a material part of the description (n), extreme care should be taken in checking the accuracy of the plan (o). When lands are conveyed by a new description not contained in any of the title deeds, it is always desirable in framing the deed of conveyance to connect the new description with the old by stating that the lands were formerly known by the old description (giving it) (p). Such a statement will in twenty years become prima facte evidence of identity on sales (q). When mortgagees, who are paid off, or trustees join in a conveyance on sale, they are not, as a rule, bound to convey by any other description than that by which the land was conveyed to them (r). If in such cases a new description be desirable for and can be required by the purchaser, and the mortgagees or trustees will not abate anything of their strict rights, the conveyance must be so framed that the mortgagees or trustees convey by the old description, and that any conveyance of the land by the new description or any statement that the land conveyed by the old description is now more accurately described by the new is the conveyance or statement of the vendor only. Trustees of lands under a simple trust are, however, bound to execute the estate (s); and if the equitable interest therein become vested by assignment or otherwise in several persons, of whom each is entitled in severalty to a particular parcel of the lands, the trustees must at the request of all convey to each the legal estate in his own part; and this may of course involve their conveying by a new description (t). But there is an oft-cited dictum of Lord Eldon (t) that a trustee cannot be compelled to divest himself of his trust by different parcels at different times. It appears, however, that an assignee from the cestui-que-trust of a part of the trust property is entitled, on proving to the trustee that the whole equitable estate or interest in that part is now vested absolutely in himself, to require the trustee to convey to him the legal estate or interest therein (u). Where trustees are themselves vendors of land, it does not appear that they are exonerated from the duties of identifying the land offered in fulfilment of the contract with that described therein and of conveying the land sold by a description sufficient to establish such identity, even though they sold as trustees (v). Mortgagees cannot of course be required to release from their security any part of the land charged wit hunt the whole amount due to them being paid (x). But it sometimes happens, where a small portion of lands in mortgage is sold, that the mortgagees, being satisfied that the remainder of the lands is an ample security for the money due to them, concur in the conveyance to the purchaser to convey the legal estate and release their charge without receiving any part of the purchase money. No difficulty can arise when this course is taken, if the mortgagees be beneficially entitled to the mortgage money, or if the purchaser have no notice that they are not so entitled (y). In either case he takes as a purchaser for value from the mortgagees, they conveying to him at the mortgagor's request in consideration of his paying the purchase money to the mortgagor; and there is no question of the adequacy of this consideration as regards the mortgagees, where they are apparently entitled for their own use. But if the purchaser should have notice that the mortgagees are trustees of the mortgage money, the question arises whether they have power, as against their cestui-que-trusts, to release gratuitously any part of their security. It is said that, at least where the trustees have the usual power of varying investments, they are justified in so releasing a portion of the property charged, provided that their security is not substantially impaired (the transaction being equivalent to the calling-in and re-investment of the money secured), and that the purchaser is entitled to assume that their power has been properly exercised (a). But it must not be forgotten that trustees advancing money on mortgage of land have no right to release any part of the land charged for the mere convenience of the mortgagor (a); even in exercising an express power to release or compromise a claim, they are bound to act reasonably and in good faith for the advantage of their cestui-que-trusts (b). It seems, therefore, that where mortgagees, being to the knowledge of the purchaser trustees, release part of the mortgaged lands to a purchaser without any valuable consideration given to them, they act, prima facie, to the disadvantage of their cestui-que-trusts, and the purchaser appears to take the risk of proving that the transaction was proper; failing which the release would be invalid against the beneficiaries (c). And it is certainly advisable for a purchaser, proposing to accept such a conveyance from trustee-mortgagees, to satisfy himself that their security will not be impaired in any substantial degree by the release, and to obtain evidence of this fact, which he can produce on any future sale or mortgage of the land.