Scope and Content
(h) Ppty first occurring in the agreement of 14 Feb 1873
Cock & Magpie No.33 Cottages next Unicorn No.52
51. This ppty appears in the above agreement as a "freehold or long leasehold". In this case as in the case of the Melson Arms the abstracted convce to the Vendor is subsequent to the agreement of 14 Feb 1873 & it does not appear (except from that agreement as above stated) what was then the vendor's interest. Perhaps there was some long leasehold interest which became merged by the convce of 1877. I think this latter deed had better be the root of title & I do not think that any serious difficulty ought to be caused by the ppty appearing in the agreement of 1873 & no intermediate title being shown between that agreement and the convce of 23 Mar 1877. This is not a matter for a condition in my opinion.
52. The cottages next the Unicorn are distinct in title from the Unicorn & first occur in the above agreement for sale which accordingly better be the root of title. After the covce of 29 Jany 1878 No.1 they next appear in the mtge to Elizabeth Jones abs III p.20
(i) Ppty in mtge to J.Anstee 1 Apr 1855
The Spread Eagle No.49
53. The root of title will be the above mtge.
54. Office copy will of J.Anstee to be produced if in Vendor's posson
(k) Ppty in mtge to J.Sworder 23 Nov 1860
Railway Hotel No.50 (not including the land as to which see (a) above)
55. By commencing the title with the above mtge any difficulty as to proving the rules & appointment of the trees of the Building Society will be avoided.
56. The vendor should be prepared to prove the discharge of the mtge for £4,000 to the Phippses (abs II p.84). The Railway Hotel was made collateral security for this sum which was primarily charged on the Throcking & Layston ppty. The recital that Messrs T & R & J.Sworder considered the latter sufficient security for the Phippses does not of course exonerate the Railway Hotel ppty. I do not think it is necessary to abstract the Phipps mtge & reconvce & intermediate title (which I suppose exists) in the first instance but the purchaser will be entitled to call for this & if it is not forthcoming a condon ought to be inserted
57. There appears to be some error in the abstract of this mtge (p.85) where the Vendor acknes the debt of £1,000 which he is securing & is said at the same time to release J.Sworder his creditor from it.
58. In this case also (as in the case of group (c) above) the reconvce (in this case 23 Mar 1877) to the Vendor is ignored in the convce 29 Jany 1878 No.1 from which it would appear (contrary to the fact) that the mtge to J.Sworder was still subsisting.
59. The title to this ppty joins that of the Cross Keys & Inkerman Arms in the mtge of 14 May 1890 abs II p.92
(l) Ppty in mtge to Anstee, Cook & Bennett 10 May 1864
The Green Man No.51
60. The title will commence with this mtge, so that he copyhold title will not appear nor any question arise as to the quantity of the old copyhold portion being one acre or one rood. the latter appears to be right.
61. The title to this ppty joins that of the ppty under head I in the mtge of 5 July 1889 to Messrs T.J.Sworder & C.E.Longmore abs II p.46. A reference to this mtge in the main abstract should be inserted in the abstract of the title to the Green Man
(m) In mtge to Abbot & Sworder 30 May 1851
The Railway Hotel No.54
62. The title will commence with the convce of the equity of redemption to the Vendor I Nov 1862. I understand that there will be no difficulty about identifying the "Swan, Linslade" with the "Railway Hotel, Leighton".
63. The death of W.Cherry is proved by the recital in the reconvce of 23 July 1873
III.
64. All the titles under this head are at first isolated from the receipt of the ppty & from each other. They remain isolated with the exceptions of the Cross Keys & Inkerman Arms as to which see below.
(i) Mineral Water Factory No.2
Albion No.38
65. The convce to Swain 31 July 1869 does not make it clear that the vendors were the duly constituted trees of Lord Bute's will & had the ppty properly vested in them. I therefore think it better to commence this title with the mtge Swain to Taylor 2 Aug 1869
66. Office copies of the wills & codicils of C.Swain & will of W.Taylor if in the vendor's posson will have to be produced.
67. Evidence may possibly be required to show that the recitals in the two transfers of 24 Dec 1883 that the mtge moneys belonged to Elizabeth Taylor were correct. Apparently the £500 and £200 due on the original mtge & further charge belonged to Hester's estate. This point is not I think sufficiently serious to justfy a condition & I understand that the evidence may be forthcoming if required.
68. Certificate of the death of C.Swain the younger 30 Mar 1891 must be obtained.
69. It does not seem to me at all clear that all ppty now known as the Albion & the Mineral Water Factory passed under the devise in Swain's will as abstracted; the abstracted demise relates only to the Albion & an adjoining cottage. It appears from the abstract that there were other devises so that perhaps the whole ppty passed but the parcels in the mtge of 6 Aug 1891 and the schedule to the appointment of new trees 2 Apr 1895 show clearly that the Mineral Water Factory is distinct from the Albion & cottage. On the abstract as it stands the title to the Mineral Water Factory under Swain's will is not made out & unless the will contains a devise of that ppty to the devisees of the Albion the Mineral Water Factory must be got in from Swain's devisees or heirs. I do not think that any condition would bar the purchaser from requiring title to be shown to the Factory.
I have already called attention to the dimensions of this ppty as stated in the abstract & parlars resply (see preliminary remarks 4 (26).
70. Mary A.Ellis was a married woman & the convce by her together with the other trees of Swain's will (19 Nov 1896) ought to have been with the concurrence of her husband by acknowledged deed. The Married Woman's Ppty Act 1882 does not enable a married woman tree to convey real estate as a feml sole whether she was married or acquired the ppty before or after the Act. See re Harkness 1896 2.Ch.358. I have accordingly inserted a condition as to this.
71. The certificate of the discharge of the estate duty presumptively payable on Mary Swain's death must be produced.
72. I notice that the Vendor has obtained a covenant for the production of Grace's securities & the reconveyance from him 10 Nov 1896. These will probably be asked for.
(ii) The Stables No.4
73. There are two distinct titles here! As to the first part the title will commence with the convce to Hurst 31 Dec 1877.
74. The identity of the ppty shown in the abstract with the parlars is fairly well made out: see my preliminary remarks 4 (8).
75. The convce to the vendor by the Bank 20 Sept 1892 contains no recital of what sum was the due to the Bank: the purchase money of £79.10 was all paid to the Bank nothing being received by Hurst's heir although Hurst had paid £230 for the ppty: but I do not think that this is any objection in view of the concurrence of the heir in the convce.
76. Certificate of the death of Hurst must be obtained & evidence given that he died intestate leaving F.Hurst Junr his heir at law. Were letters of admon to his estate taken out? If not a condition should be inserted making a statutory declon (if possible by F.Hurst Junr) evidence of these facts. The convce of 20 Sept 1892 does not even recite that Hurst was intestate.
77. I think that for the 2nd part of this ppty the convce to A.P.Welch 28 Jany 1888 will be the best root: This will avoid any questions as to the Welch partnership affairs & as to mistakes in dates &c which occur in the earlier deeds.
78. The convce of 6 Oct 1884 does not affect this ppty & should be omitted from the abstract.
79. I presume the wall has been erected according to the covenant in the convce of 14 Sep 1888
(iii) The Harrow & Cottage No.9
80. In this case I think a title beginning with the convce to the vendor 9 Oct 1882 will be long enough. A difficulty might arise as to the reconvce of 10 Aug 1882. The mtges (12 Aug 1864) contain no joint account clause. J.Gates' will contains no devise of mtge estates, but by S.4 of the Vendor & Purchaser Act 1874 his legal prsal representative was empowered to reconvey! the reconvce however is by one exor only out of two or more & I doubt if this was valid.
(iv) The King Harry No.10
81. This tttle is intricate but I do not think it presents any impenetrable difficulties I think the best course will be to give the whole title as shown on the abstract commencing with the convce to H.Sibley 1 Mar 1851
82. The restrictive stipulation referred to in that deed are not of serious importance & do not require to be mentioned in the parlars or conditions
83. Office copies of the wills and codicils of the Sibleys (Henry, Thomas, Robert, Joseph & Henry junior) if in the vendor's posson must be produced
84. Certificate of the death of Catherine Sibley (4 Aug 1863) must be obtained: the death of Frances Best in her father H.Sibley's lifetime is proved by the recital in Thomas Sibley's will.
85. The heirship of Thomas to Henry (whereby the lapsed shares of Mrs.Best became vested in him) is not proved but the recital in the reconvce (1 May 1867) that ½ the ppty was then vested in Joseph renders proof of the heirship of Thomas unnecessary.
86. Joseph Sibley's moiety seems to have been charged by his will with certain annuities. I can find no information as to these in the old requisition & I think a condition will be necessary as to this.
87. Succession duty seems to have been payable after the death (29 Jany 1889) of Sarah the wife of Joseph upon two-fourths of the ppty. I cannot find that this had been paid & I think a condon is advisable as to this.
88. The parties were evidently in error in treating of G.F.Gage as interested in his wife's share in the ppty Henry Sibley Jr under whose will her share was devised having died after the M.W.Ppty Act 1882. But I do not think this is any objection to the title both Mr.& Mrs.Gage having joined in all the deeds.
89. The mtge of 21 July 1887 contains no joint a/c clause; a condon that the recital in the transfer (21 Dec 1888) as to this point shall be accepted will be advisable)
90. I do not think that the release of 10 Dec 1889 need be abstracted
91. The receipt for the commuted succession duty payable on Emma Sibley's death (which would appear to be in the vendor's posson see abs VI p.17) must be produced
92. Probably the convce to R.G.Sibley of even date with the abstracted partition deed can be produced if required & no condon need be inserted as to this
(v) The Cross Keys No.16
93. This title may begin with the convce to Deacon (30 Sept 1861)
94. Office copies of the wills of the two Mortlocks & of T.Deacon & R.Smith to be produced if in vendor's posson
95. As the widow & all the beneficiaries under Deacon's will joined in the convce of 5 Jany 1880 I do not think that any serious objection ca be taken on the ground that the sale took place in the widow's lifetime before the trees power of sale arose. The bond which seems to have been intended to cover this point is taken by the purchaser
96. An office copy of the certificate of acknowledgement by Mrs.Timberlake must be obtained. The endorsed memo is not sufficient
97. Certificate of the marriage the Timberlakes should be obtained
98. The title of this ppty joins that of the Bull & Half Moon (head I) in the mtge 5 July 1889 (abs II p.79) & afterwards that of the Railway (H.Regis) and Inkerman Arms (ib p.92): cross references in the abstracts will be necessary.
(vi) The Royal Standard No.32
99. The title will begin with the convce to R.Smith 10 Dec 1851
100. Office copy will of R.Smith to be produced if in vendor's posson
101. The following evidence will be required to be given by statutory declon of someone acquainted with R.Smith's family with certificates of births, deaths & marriages annexed: -
(1) The marriage of R.Smith the testator
(2) The deaths of C.P.Smith a bachelor 19 May 1893 & of J.B.Smith & Mary A.Smith the trees
(3) The births of all R.Smith's children
(4) The marriages of all such of these children as were married viz: John, Thomas, J.B. & Mrs.Chapman
(5) The births of all the children of the last mentioned marriages
(6) The deaths of all such of the last mentioned children (grandchildren of the testator) as died before 19 May 1893
(7) The marriages of Mrs.Sheaf & Mrs.Osborn
I understand that this evidence is procurable & I have inserted a condon offering it & making it conclusive if the vendor has an existing statutory declon as to these facts that might itself be made evidence
102. The endorsed memo of acknt of the convce of 22 Dec 1893 is sufficient evidence: Conveyg Act 1882 S.7
(vii) The Royal Oak No.31
103. The title will commence with the convce in the foreclosure suit to Mary Austin 16 Feb 1852
104. This ppty appears in the agreement 14 Feb 1873 (with T.Sworder of Hertford) as a leasehold of T.Sworder's (of Luton) with 7½ years to run. In the leasehold schedule of the convce of 29 Jany 1878 No.1 it is bracketed with the Duke's Head as a leasehold having 88 years to run & is stated to be subject with other ppty to mtges amounting to £5,400. This must I think be a mistake this ppty being confused with the Royal Oak Dunstable which with the Duke's Head appears in the agreement of 14 Feb 1873 to be subject to the mtges for £5,400. This is one reason why I think the leasehold schedule to the deed of 1878 ought not to be abstracted.
105. I do not think the convce of 22 June 1888 required acknt by Mrs.Woodhouse who exercised by it power of appointment given to her by the voluntary convce of 8 April 1876
(viii) The Fox No.36
106. The convce to the vendor 23 Mar 1879 will be a sufficiently early root of title. This will avoid the difficulties of showing that the Building Society transactions were in order & also one or two errors in the recitals of the earlier title deeds
107. Office copy will & codicils of Cozens to be produced if in vendor's posson.
108. I understand that the vendor wishes to reserve a right of way over part of this ppty - see parlars. It does not seem to be at present subject to any right of way.
(ix) The Inkerman Arms No.37
109. This title will begin with the mtge 6 Jany 1868
110. The words in the will of T.Taylor are in my opinion sufficient to pass mtge estates
111. Office copies of the wills of T.Taylor, Elizabeth Taylor & Worsley to be produced if in vendor's posson
112. In my opinion Mrs.Worsley the tenant for life ought to have joined in the convce of 5 June 1888. the will contains no trust for sale until after that lady's death & that being so I think the case falls within S.56(2) of the Settled Land Act 1882 & not within S.6 of the Act of 1884. I have therefore inserted a condon as to this.
113. The later title to this ppty joins that of the Cross Keys & Railway (H.Regis) in the mtge of 14 May 1890 (abs II p.92) a reference to this mtge should be given at the end of the title to this ppty.
(x) The Bridge Hotel No.39
114. The title will commence with the convce to Sikes 1 Dec 1846
115. Office copy will of Sikes to be produced if in vendor's posson
116. If the shop & house adjoining the Bridge Hotel is still the "Railway Coffee Tavern" (as it was at the date of the convce 24 June 1889) it had better be as described in the parlars
(xi) The George (41) & Royal Oak & Cottage (42)
117. The convce by the Commissioner of Woods & Forests seems to be in order. The power of sale is contained in 10 Geo4.C.50 SS.34-35, purchase money over £100 being payable into the Bank of England. One Commissioner to whom the management of the Woods & Forests in a particular locality has been assigned by The Treasury may act & a deed purporting to be made by him & duly enrolled is binding without proof of his authority so to act 14 & 15 Victor C42 S.5. As to enrolment by deposit of the duplicate see 15 & 16 Victor C.62 SS. 7 & 8.
118. I have inserted condons affecting the purchaser with notice of the [blank] of the lease under which the vendor holds the wine & spirit stores & also of the lease of the Saracens Head & of the agreements with the other tenants & barring objections as to the term of these agreements
119. Any requons & replies or correspondence as to points raised at the time of the acquisition of the various ppties by the vendor ought to be examined with a view to covering by condons any points which were not then satisfactorily disposed of & which are not met by the present condons as drawn.
120. I presume that the purchase money for the freehold & leasehold ppty is to include the goodwill trade marks &c & that these are not to be included in the valuation. The conditions are drawn on this footing & if I am wrong as to this they will require alteration
121. The ppty appears to be subject to the inces mentd in the list below. The incumbrancers will no doubt join in the convce & be paid off out of the purchase money
Key: Date of original mortgage - Date of last transfer - ppties affected - Present Mtgees - Principal now due
1. 27 July 1853 abs.I.19. - 5 July 1889 abs.I.49 - Nos I (part), 5 17 = T.J.Sworder, C.E.Longmore - £5,000;
2. 5 July 1889 abs.II.55 - Nos 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 40 - W.Anstee - £14,000
3. 1 Oct 1883 abs XVIII.9 - by death only - No.9 - Keeling (survor of Oliver & Keeling) - £400
4. 12 June 1879, 13 June 1879 abs.XVII 7.8. - 11 Feb 1876 - No.12 - Lawford's exors - £400
5. 5 July 1889 abs.II 79, 14 May 1890 - none - Nos.16, 37, 50 (part) - Woodhouse & Longmore - £2,000
6. 5 July 1889 abs II.53 - none - Nos 25, 26, 27, 30, 34, 47 - Longmore & Lawrence - £4,500
7. 22 Feb 1858 abs VII 6 - 24 July 1875 abs VII 8 - Nos 28, 35 - Caroline Sworder - £1,000
8. 5 July 1889 abs XII 8 - 28 Dec 1894 abs XII 10 - No.36 - H.Cozens - £1,000
9. 3 June 1887 abs III.17 - none - Nos 43, 44, 50 (part), 53 - Elizabeth Jones - £2,000
10. 5 July 1889 abs II.46 - none - Nos 51, 55, 58, 59, 60, 62 - T.J.Sworder, C.E.Longmore - £2,000
11. 30 May 1851 abs XI.2 - none - No.54 - Abbot & Sworder - £500
T.R.Colquhoun Dill, Lincoln's Inn 29 April 1897