Title under an order for sale made by the Court.

(l) The effect of such a stipulation is that, on the death of a partner the entire property in all the assets (including- any real estate) belonging to the firm passes at once in equity to the surviving member of the firm; Vyse v. Foster, L. R. 8 Ch. 309, 328, 7 H. L. 318, 330, 334, 335, 341, 345; Hordern v. Hordern, 1910, A. C. 465, 473; and that the surviving partner has authority, for the purpose of winding-up the affairs of the partnership, to sell or mortgage such assets free from any lien of the personal representatives of the dead partner for the amount so payable to them; see Me Langmead's Trusts, 20 Beav. 20, 7 De G. M. & G. 353; Me Bourne, 190G, 2 Ch. 427. In Me Bourne the partnership contract contained such a stipulation (see 1906, 1 Ch. 113): but the case was decided on the footing of its being a partnership under an open contract, and the judgments delivered apply to a partnership of that kind. Before this decision, it was the practice of conveyancers, on the sale of partnership land by the surviving partner under an open contract of partnership, to require the personal representatives of the dead partner to concur in the conveyance and give a receipt for their share of the purchase money; see Butchart v. Dresser, 10 Hare, 453, 456, 4 De G. M. & G. 542, 544: West of England, $c. Bank v. Murch, 23 Ch. D. 138; 50 Sol. J. 307 (by the writer).

(m) As to sales of land by the Court, see 2 Dart, V. & P. 1190 sq., 5th ed.; 1313 sq., 6th ed.; 1151 sq., 7th ed.; 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 872 sq., 7th ed.; 1 Seton on Judgments, 333 sq., 338, 6th ed.; 1 Davidson, Prec. Conv. 499 sq., 5th ed.

Jurisdiction of the Court to order a sale of laud.

(n) Stat. 44 ft 45 Vict. c. 41.

(o) The original jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to order a sale of land appears to have been confined to cases where such a sale was necessary in order to satisfy creditors' claims enforceable against the land in that Court, or where a trust for sale of the land had been created and was exercisable: Lechmere v. Brasier, 2 J. & W. 287: Calvert v. Godfrey, 6 Beav. 97; Carlyon v. Truscott, L. R. 20 Eq. 348; Re Staines, 33 Ch. D. 172. Thus in suits for the administration of the estates of deceased persons the Court might order a sale of chattels real, and might, if there was jurisdiction to administer the real estate, either by reason of the same having been charged with the payment of debts or under stat. 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 104, order a sale of real estate. The Court might also order a sale of land in a suit to enforce an equitable lien in the nature of an equitable mortgage of land, as in the case of a vendor's lien for unpaid purchase money: Mackreth v. Symmons, 15 Ves.329; Neate v. Marlborough, 3 My. & Cr. 407,417; Governors of Greycoat Hospital v. Westminster Improvement .. 1 De G. & J. •331; Skene v. Cook, 1902, 1 K. B. 682, 688, 689; Seton on Judgments, 2054, 6th ed. And lands forming part of the assets of a partnership firm might be ordered to be sold under the general jurisdiction of the Court to order the sale of the firm's property on a dissolution of partnership: Featherstonhaugh v. Fenwick, 17 Ves. 298; Darby v. Darby, 3 Drew. 495: Taylor v. Neate, 39 Ch. D.

. The principal statutory jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice to order a sale of land is the following: - (l)That conferred by sect. 25 of the Conveyancing Act of 1881 stat. 44 & 46 Vict. c. 41) to order a sale in redemption or foreclosure actions. This was new as to redemption actions, while as to foreolosure actions it replaced and extended the jurisdiction given by sect. 48 of the Chancery Procedure Act, 1852(stat. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86 . (2) That conferred by the Partition Acts, L868 and 1876 (stats. 31 & 32 Vict. c. 40; 39 & 40 Vict. c. 17).

What interests are bound by an order for sale.

(3) That conferred by the Settled Estates Act, 1877, replacing a similar Act of 1856 (stats. 40 & 41 Vict. c. 18; 19 & 20 Vict. c. 120).

(4) That conferred by the Confirmation of Sales Act, 1862 (stat. 25 & 26 Vict. c. 108). (5) That conferred by the Judgments Act, 1864, enabling the Court to order the sale of a judgment debtor's interest in land taken in execution by a judgment creditor. This superseded the former proceedings under the Judgments Act, 1838, to realise the charge given by that Act (see stats. 27 & 28 Vict. c. 112, s. 4: 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 13; Wms. Real Prop. 275, 21st ed.). (6) That conferred by R. S. C, Nov. 1893, r. 18 (Ord. LI. r. 1b), to order a sale in debenture holders' actions: and see R. S. C. 1883, Ord. LI. r. 1. which has been held not to extend the jurisdiction of the Court so as to enable it to make an order for sale of real estate, where none could have been made before: Re Robinson, 31 Ch. D. 247.

(p) Stats. 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, ss. 16, 34; 37 & 38 Vict. c. 83; 38 & 39 Vict. c. 77; Wms. Real Prop. 167, 21st ed.

(q) Cole v. Sewell, 17 Sim. 40; Re Williams, 5 De G. & S. 515; Basnett v. Moxon, L. R. 20 Eq. 182, 184.

(r) 2 Hayes s Conveyancing, 104, n.; Davidson, Prec. Conv. vol. ii. pt. i. 270, n. (a), 283, n. (b), 4th ed.

(s) See Craddock v. Piper, 14 Sim. 310, 312; Govrs. of Greycoat Hospital v. Westminster Improvement Commrs., 1 De G. & J. 531;

What estates the purchaser should require to be conveyed to him.

Knight v. Pocock, 24 Beav. 436; Freeland. v. Pearson, L. R. 7 Eq. 246; Jones v. Burnett, 1899, 1 Ch. 611, 1900, 1 Ch. 370.

(t)Noel v. Weston, G. Coop.

138; Morris v. Clarkson, 3 Swanst.

658,564; Sug. V. & P.:397, 398;

Freeland v. Pearson, L. R 7 Eq.

(a) See stat. 11 Geo. IV. & l Will. IV. c. 17. b. 11; Sug. V. & P. 397, 398.

(x)Waltham's case, cited G. Coop. 139, Sug. V. & P. 397; Morris v. Clarkson,;5 Swanst.

(y)Stats. 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 47, s. 11, and c. 60, 8. 7

(z) Stats. 13 & 14 Vict, c. 60, s. 29: 15 & 16 Vict. c. 55, s. 1. a Stat. 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, s. sects. 26 - 29, 31 - 33, 50: and see as to the orders made and practice thereunder, 2 Seton on Judgments, 1261 sq., 6th ed.

(b) 2 Dart. V. & P. 1220, and n.(q), 5th ed.; 1347, and u.(k) , 6th ed.: 1184, and n. (s), 7th ed.

The order should have been rightly made And the sale properly carried out.

(c) See Wake v. Wake, 17 Jur. 545; Wood v. Beetlestone, 1 K. & J. 213; Lees v. Coulton, L. R. 20 Eq. 20; Basnett v. Moxon, ib. 182; Seton on Judgments, 1261, 1262, 6th ed.

(d) Above, p. 472.

(e) Above, p. 471, a. (o).

(f) Lechmere v. Brasier, 2 J. & W. 287; Blacklow v. Laws, 2 Hare, 40; Calvert v. Godfrey, 6 Beav. 97; 2 Dart, V. & P. 1224, 5th ed.; 1351, 6th ed.; 1186, 7th ed.

(g) Colclough v. Sterum, 3 BLigh, 181; Powell v. Powell, L. R. 10 Ch. 130.

(h) See Lutwych v. Winford, 2 Bro. C. C. 248; Lloyd v. Johnes, 9 Ves. 37, 65; Curtis v. Price, 12 Ves. 89; Bowen v. Evans, 2 H. L. C. 257; Beioley v. Carter, L. R. 4 Ch. 230, 238; Sug. V. & P. 110; 2 Dart, V. & P. 1223 - 1225, 5th ed.; 1350 - 1352, 6th ed.; 1185 - 1187, 7th ed.

Order of the Court not to bo invalidated for want of jurisdiction.

(i) Colclough v. Sterum, 3 Bligh, 181, 186; Beioley v. Carter, L. R. 1 Oh. 230, 238; Bug. V. & P. 111; 2 Dart, V. & P. 1225, 6th ed.; 1352, 6th ed.: L187, 7th ed.;and see above, p. 472, and note (s).

(k) Stat, 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 70, sub-s. L, extending by sub-s. 3 to past as well as future orders, except those which had been already held to be invalid, or to invalidate which proceedings were pending: and declared by sub-s. 2 to have effect as to leases, sales or other arts authorised by the Court under the Settled Estates Act, 1877, or the Act of 1856, notwithstanding the exceptions therein mentioned stats. 19 & 20 Vict. c. 120, s. 28; 40 .& 41 Vict. c. 18, s. 40.

(l)See Re Hall Dare's Contract, 21 Ch. D. 41; Mostyn v.Mostyn.

1893, 3 Ch. 376; Jones v. Barnett, L899, 1 Ch. 611. 1900, 1 Ch. 370.

(m) It is submitted that any dicta to the contrary effect in Mostyn v. Mostyn (ubi sup.) are erroneous . see Jones v.. Barnett, ubi sup.