CONDITIONS AS TO TITLE AND EVIDENCE. Statements in registers not evidence except by stipulation. Stipulations as to the length of title a purchaser may require. IV. That all statements in parochial registers, [or in registers kept by any society of dissenters of baptisms or burials,] shall, as to the identity, day of birth, or death, parentage, or relationship of any person named in such register, be deemed conclusive evidence thereof (d). V. That the title to lot riage articles, dated the lot shall commence with marday of, and the title to with indentures of lease and release, dated reand days of ; and no pur spectively the chaser shall, on any account whatever, be entitled to call for the production of, or to investigate, or to make any objection whatever in respect of, the earlier title to either of the said lots (e). law, or a suit for specific performance, that it is needful expressly to stipulate that such evidence shall be deemed conclusive. The condition in the text will, of course, when necessary, be altered to suit the nature of the register, and the society or persons by whom it is kept. (d) The advantage of employing this condition in the cases for which it is intended, is fully explained in the first volume of this work, p. 176, and by the cases there cited. The part of the condition referring to the dissenters can be omitted, if the registers are exclusively parochial; or may be altered like the preceding condition to meet the case of other societies or persons. This condition, likewise, is framed chiefly with a view to proceedings in a court of law or equity. With respect, generally, to secondary evidence of pedigree, and to other evidence of descent, and to the late act for the registration of births, marriages, and deaths, see ante, Vol. 1, bk. 1, ch. 3, sect. 1. (e) A purchaser has a right to require a title commencing at least sixty years before the date of his conveyance. (Ante, Vol. 1, pp. 139, 144). But as it often happens that, from the loss of deeds and other circumstances, a vendor cannot give a title commencing so long before the purchase, he must have recourse to a special stipulation to preclude the purchaser from requiring the production of the title, prior to the period from which it can be furnished. Precedents of such stipulations suited to different cases are given in the text. It should, however, be observed, that in cases in which the difficulty simply is that the earlier title is altogether wanting, it is useless to stipulate that the purchaser shall not investigate or make any objection in respect of the earlier title; it is enough to preclude him from calling for its production. But if the earlier title is objectionable or defective, then the purchaser should be precluded from investigating or objecting to it, even if he chooses to examine it at his own expense. (See Shepherd v. Keatley, 1 Cro, Mee. & Ros. 117). shall commence with CONDITIONS AS VI. That the title to lot indentures of lease and release, dated respectively the and days of —, whereby the property comprised in with a will, dated in the year of a testator who died VIII. That, as to lot the title to which commences with a general devise of real estate, made by a will dated IX. That, as to part of the property comprised in lot to A. B. in the year spect of his common lands and rights in the parish of This may happen when the (f) It is sometimes the case, that a vendor wishes to shew or can shew no title, except the conveyance to himself. property has formerly been part of a large very voluminous and intricate, or when the vendor himself has purchased without a title, and in other circumstances. In such cases, the condition in the text will be applicable. If, however, the property has formerly been part of a large estate, of which the title has been often investigated and is well known, it will be prudent to state that fact in the condition, for the condition in its present form will seriously prejudice a sale. (g) The way in which seisin may be proved, is stated ante, Vol. 1, pp. 173, 174. When evidence of seisin cannot be procured, the sale should be made subject to the seventh or eighth condition in the text, or to such similar condition as the circumstances of the case may require. If the will with which it is intended that the title shall commence, is dated, or the testator has died, within sixty years, these conditions must be combined with the forms given in the fifth and sixth conditions, so as to preclude the purchaser from requiring the earlier title. TO TITLE AND EVIDENCE. CONDITIONS AS the purchaser shall presume the validity and regularity of the said award, and that A. B. had then no other common lands or rights in the said parish, than those to which a title will be shewn by the vendor (h). Titles under suance of inclosure acts. X. That the title to lot award made in the year shall commence with an under an inclosure act; and the purchaser of that lot shall not be entitled to call for the production of, or to investigate, or to make any objection in respect of, the title to the lands or rights in respect whereof the land comprised in that lot was awarded, and shall presume that the said award was in every respect duly and regularly made according to the provisions of the said act, and shall in nowise whatever question the validity of such award (i). XI. That the title to lot shall commence with an under an inclosure award, made to A. B. in the year XII. That, as to lot, the property comprised in which was taken under an exchange effected in the year the purchaser shall not be entitled to call for the production of, or to investigate, or to make any objection in (h) If there be no stipulation to the contrary, the vendor must shew awards in pur- that the award was made in strict conformity with the provision of the act of inclosure, and with all other statutory requisitions. (Ante, Vol. 1, p. 165). But as it is often desirable to relieve the vendor from so difficult a task, recourse is had to special conditions, of which precedents will be found in this and the two succeeding conditions. The latter part of this condition will be useful, in case the award has been made to A. B. in respect of his common lands and rights, generally. Titles under awards in pursuance of inclosure acts. (i) A vendor of lands held under an award must (unless there be a stipulation to the contrary) shew a good title to the lands or rights in respect of which the award is made. (Ante, Vol. 1, p. 164). But as this is frequently impossible or very inconvenient, the vendor protects himself from the liabilities, by a special condition. The tenth and eleventh conditions in the text are precedents of that kind. They may also be employed with advantage, where an entire award has been made in respect of land held under different titles. (See ante, Vol. 1, p. 164; and infra, CONDITIONS AS TO IDENTITY, Cond. III.) TO TITLE AND respect of, the title to the said property, prior to the said CONDITIONS AS exchange, or the title to the property given in exchange (k). XIII. That, as to lot, the property comprised in which was formerly of copyhold [or, customary] tenure, and was enfranchised in the year, the purchaser shall not be entitled to call for the production of, or to investigate, or make any objection, in respect of the title of the lord by whom the said land was expressed to be enfranchised, or require any evidence of his right or power to make such enfranchisement, or of the validity of such enfranchisement (1). XIV. That the vendors shall not be required to produce or procure copies of any grants from the crown, under which any of the property described in the particular is or may have been held (m). (k) As an exchange confers a right of re-entry on the lands given, in Titles under case of eviction from those taken in exchange, it becomes necessary, on exchanges, a sale of any lands which have been taken in exchange, to shew the title, not only of the lands sold, but also of those which were given in exchange for them. (Ante, Vol. 1, p. 170). When this is likely to be expensive or troublesome, the necessity of it is removed by a special stipulation; which, however, has the effect of precluding the purchaser from obtaining a safe title. In exchanges effected under inclosure acts, the difficulty seldom arises; (ante, Vol. 1, p. 171); but, in every case, the inclosure act should be examined before the sale, and a condition, if need be, adapted thereto. Some further information on the subject of exchanges will be found in the first volume of this work; Art. EXCHANGES. (1) If the title depends on an enfranchisement, it is requisite to pro- under enduce and prove, not only the copyholder's title, but also the title of the franchisements, lord to enfranchise. (Ante, Vol. 1, p. 169). But, as the title of the lord is frequently from settlements, and other arrangements incident to large properties, long and intricate, and is, moreover, not always accessible to the owner of the enfranchised property, he generally protects himself against being called on to produce it to a purchaser. The condition in the text is framed with that view. (m) If the title depends on a grant from the crown, it is usual for the grants from purchaser to require the production of the grant, or an attested copy of the crown, it, and the usual deduction of title, for a period of not less than sixty years before the date of the purchase. (Ante, Vol. 1, p. 157). The deduction of the intermediate title cannot be required. It is probable, that occasion will seldom arise for the employment of the condition in the text, since a grant from the crown can generally be found and examined. As CONDITIONS AS TO TITLE AND -grants of wastes of manors, -to strips of land by the side of the road. XV. That the title to lot shall commence with a grant by the lord of the manor of, [by his steward] out of the waste of the said manor, by copy of court roll, dated the day of, and the purchaser shall not be entitled to call for the production of, or to investigate, or to make any objection, in respect of any prior title to that lot, or to require any evidence of the right or power of the lord [or steward] of the said manor, to make grants by copy, of the waste thereof (n). XVI. That, as a [small] part of the property comprised in lot consists of an addition made thereto, in the year -, by inclosing a strip of waste land, which lay between the old inclosure, and the high road, the purchaser shall not be entitled to call for the production of, or to investigate, or to make any objection in respect of, any prior title to such new inclosure, or to require any evidence of the right of the owner of the old inclosure to make such new inclosure (o). the precedent given does not preclude the purchaser from examining the grant, he will, generally, be advised to obtain an inspection of it, at his own expense: but, if it be deemed better, to prevent any question being made respecting the grant, a form of condition should be used, similar to the precedents given in other cases. (n) Lands, which are parcel of the waste of a manor, if newly granted by copy of court roll, by virtue of an immemorial custom to demise parcels of the waste as copyhold, are as much copyhold in tenure, as though they had been immemorially holden by copy of court roll; (Lord Northwick v. Stanway, 3 Bos. & Pull. 346); but if there be no such immemorial custom, such a grant of the waste as aforesaid is invalid to create either a copyhold estate, or an estate in fee simple. (Rex v. Hornchurch, 2 B. & Ald. 189; Rex v. Wilby, 2 Mau. & Selw. 504). In practice, it is extremely difficult to make proof of a custom, which, from its nature, is seldom exercised; and, therefore, in a sale of lands, which have been granted out of the waste, a vendor should always protect himself by the condition in the text, or some similar stipulation. (0) It is the prima facie presumption of law, that waste land on the sides of, and the soil to the middle of, an ancient highway, belongs to the owner of the adjoining land, whether such adjoining land be freehold or copyhold, and not to the lord of the manor, or the crown. (Steel v. Prickett, 2 Stark. 463; Doe d. Pring v. Pearsey, 7 B. & C. 304; Goodtitle d. Chester v. Alker, 1 Burr. 133). But such presumption does not arise, where the highway is modern, and defined by a newly created |