Satisfied terms.

Proviso for cesser.

(n) See 1 Davidson, Prec. Conv. 696, n. (l), 4th ed.: 1 Key & Elph. Prec. Conv. 284, 4th ed.; 290, 8th ed.; Encyclopedia of Forms and Precedents. xii. 344.

(o) See authorities cited in last note but two. It appears, however, that if it be expressly stated in the contract or conditions of sale that the lease sold was granted in consideration of the surrender of a prior lease, it would be sufficient to stipulate that the title shall commence with the new lease; see stat. 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 3 (3); above, pp. 108, n. (o), 193 sq., 209.

(p) Stat. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 112 , s. 2; Wins. Real Prop. 413 - 421, L3th ed.; 534 - 545 21st ed.

(q) See Lyle v. Yarborough, John. 70, 74,77, 78; Sug. V. & P. 616 sq.; 1 Dart, V. & P. 289, 5th ed.; 329, 6th ed.; 326, 7th ed.

Merger.

Trustees of a term should surrender it themselves.

Cesser under Satisfied Terms Act.

(r) See 3 Davidson, Prec. Conv. 116.5, 1251, n., 1261, 3rd ed.

(s) Hughes v. Robot ham, Cro. Eliz. 302; Sug. V. & P. 619.

(t) Co. Litt. 337 b; Shep. Touch. 303 sq.; 2 Black. Comm. 326; Burton, Comp. 287, 2nd ed.; Sug. V. & T. 617 sq.

(u) See Whitchurch v. Whitchurch, 2 P. W. 326; 9 Mod. 124: Scott v. Fenhoullet, 1 Bro. C. C. 69; Hooper v. Harrison, 2 K. & J. 86, 110 - 115; Burt. Comp. 287, 2nd ed.; Sug. V. & P. 625.

(x) See Davidson, Prec. Conv. vol. ii. part i. p. 310, n., 4th ed.; of. Davidson, Prec. Conv. vol. v. part ii. p. 178, 3rd ed., where the point as to costs is not mentioned.

(y) Stat. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 112, s. 2. As to the cesser under that Act of satisfied terms, which were on the 31st Dec. 1845, attendant on the inheritance, and the protection afforded by such terms, see Doe v. Price, 16 M. & W. 603; Doe v. Monsdale, ib. 689; Cottrell v. Hughes, 15 C. B. 532; Plant v. Taylor, 7 H. & N. 211.

The rules as to terms becoming satisfied are not applicable to terms granted for the purpose of reserving rent and subject to the performance of lessee's covenants, but questions often arise upon titles whether such terms have been extinguished by reason of the ownership of the term and of the fee simple becoming united in one person; as where the termor has purchased the fee simple or the freeholder the term. Under the common law such a term merged at law if by any means it became vested in the tenant of the freehold in his own right and not en autre droit (c). But if in such case merger would be prejudicial to any equitable interest in the term, or the owner had expressed the intention of keeping the term alive, the term would be treated in equity as still subsisting (d). On the other hand a term not merged at law would be treated in equity as attendant on the inheritance if the equitable ownership of the term and the fee simple became united and an intention of extinguishing the term were expressed or implied (e). Thus if the termor contracted to buy the fee simple, or vice versa, it was considered that the term would be extinguished in equity, unless a contrary intention were shown (f). But where the intention of keeping the term on foot was expressed, as where the termor took a conveyance of the fee in the name of a trustee for himself and his heirs with a declaration against merger (g), or the freeholder in fee took a conveyance of the term to a trustee on trust for himself, his executors, administrators and assigns (h), the purchaser's interest in the term remained distinct, in equity as well as at law, from his ownership of the fee simple. Since the commencement of the Judicature Acts (i) merger does not take place by operation of law only of any estate, in which the beneficial interest would not be deemed to be merged or extinguished in equity. And since that time, when the owner of the term purchases or takes a conveyance of the fee simple, or vice vera, the term does not merge, if an intention of keeping it on foot be shown, notwithstanding that the term and the inheritance be vested at law in the same person (j).

Whether terms subject to rent and lessee's covenants become extinct when acquired by the freeholder.

Old law of merger.

Rules of equity as to merger.

Anderson v. Pignet, L. R.

8 Ch. 180, 188 - 190. (a) Above, p. 366. (b) See Doe d. Clap v. Jones, 13 Q. B. 774; Freer v. Hesse, 17 Jur. 177, reversed on other grounds, it.. 703, 4 De G. M. & G. 495; Shaw V. Johnson, 1 Dr. & Sm.

412, 7 Jur. N. S. 1005 (where the dates are given); . Anderson v. Pignet, L. R. 8 Ch. 180, 189; Sug. R. P. Stat. 278-281, 2nd ed.; Sug. V. & P. 626; 1 Dart, V. & P. 507, 508, 5th ed.; 577, 578, 6th ed.

(c) Co. Litt. 338 b; 2 Black. Comm. 177; Sug. V. & P. 617 sq; 1 Wins. Exors. 641, 642, 7th ed.: Wins. Real Prop. 251, 283, 414 - 416, 13th ed.; 341, 371, 535 - 538, 21st ed.

(d) See Thorn v. Newman,:; Swanst. 603; Nurse v. Yerworth, ib. 608. 618: Philips v. Philips 1 P. W. 34. 41; Sug. V. & P. 620, 621: Chambers v. Kingham 10 Ch. D. 743; also Adams v. Angell, 5 Ch. D. 634, 645, 646 and cases cited below, p. 368, n. (j).

Purchase of fee by termor or of term by-freeholder.

Present law as to merger.

Where land sold is held for a long term of years enlarged into a fee simple under the Conveyancing Acts of 1881 and 1882 (k), and the enlargement has taken place within the period for which the; title is to be investigated, the vendor must remember that the deed of enlargement is not in itself a good root of title (l), and that, in the absence of stipulation to the contrary, he will be bound to show title to the term down to the date of the enlargement, that is, to abstract and produce the instrument which created the term, and so much of the subsequent title prior to the enlargement as will carry the abstract back to a date at least forty years before the sale (m). And he must not forget that it lies on him to prove that the enlargement purported to be made was warranted by the powers given by the Acts (n). The purchaser's advisers should see that the vendor's duties in these respects are duly discharged; except of course so far as he is by special stipulation in the contract exonerated from performing them.