When the draft has been approved, any alteration made in it should be communicated to the other party before engrossment (t); where the alterations merely consist in omissions of passages introduced by such other party, or can otherwise be easily pointed out, it is submitted, that the opposite solicitor (who must be presumed to have retained a copy of the draft) would not be entitled to a general re-perusal; this is a question which sometimes arises in those exceptive cases where the purchaser has to pay the vendor's expenses.

The engrossment is made by and at the expense of the purchaser; the ordinary practice, as to the position of the indorsed receipt and attestation clauses, should be adhered to; as a departure therefrom may give rise to questions with future purchasers (u).

The engrossment is the property of the purchaser; when executed the vendor has a hen upon it for unpaid purchase-money (w), but his attorney has no lien on it for costs (x).

Where the engrossment was executed by the vendors, but the purchase went off in consequence of other material parties refusing to execute, and the vendors made no claim to it as a deed, the purchaser was held entitled at Law to recover it from their attorney, they being allowed to cancel it (y); this decision, however, as observed by Sir E. Sugden, "depended upon the instrument having been imperfectly executed, and upon the sellers not interposing to claim any interest in it" (z): and where the deed has been executed so as to vest the legal estate in the purchaser, there would seem to be a difficulty in holding that he could claim to retain it upon the contract going off, even although he were willing to execute a reconveyance.

Alterations in draft should be communicated.

Engrossment belongs to purchaser.

Executed and then the contract rescinded.

(t) 1 V. & B. 15. (u) Kennedy v. Green, 3 Myl. & K. 699.

(w) Sug. 694.

(x) Oxenham v. Esdaile, 2 Y. & J. 493

(y) Esdaile v. Oxenham, 3 B. & C. 225.

(z) Sug. 695.