And it is provided, by the 55 Geo. III. c. 184 (o), that "where any deed or instrument operating as a conveyance shall operate also as a conveyance of any other than the property sold, by way of settlement or for any other purpose, or shall also contain any other matter or thing besides what shall be incident to the sale and conveyance of the property or relate to the title thereto, the same shall be charged with such further duty as any separate deed containing the other matter would have been chargeable with, exclusive of the progressive duty."

Thus, where the conveyance operates also as a mortgage, the double duty is payable; however, in a very recent case (p), where a purchaser of a copyhold estate from parties entitled thereto as equitable tenants in common, agreed with a third party for a loan upon a mortgage of the estate in order to enable him to complete the purchase, and the conveyance and mortgage were effected by the vendors surrendering the estate to the use of the mortgagee, and subject thereto to the use of the purchaser, (which surrenders, it is presumed, bore the proper ad valorem stamps,) a cotemporary deed, by which the vendors to the extent of their respective shares entered into covenants for title with the purchaser and also separately with the mortgagee, and which contained the usual covenant by the purchaser with the mortgagee for payment of principal and interest, and to insure against fire, and a power of sale, was held to be sufficiently stamped with a single deed stamp and followers; the case, of course, was not within the above clause of the 55 Geo. III., but it was contended that it was a multifarious deed, and fell within the general provisions of the 12 Anne, sess. 2, c. 9, s. 24 (q); but a contrary doctrine was laid done very broadly by the Court (r).

Conveyance by several owners, what stamps are necessary.

Further duty when deed has a double operation.

As on a conveyance and mortgage.

(l) 48 Geo. III. c. 149, ss. 33 and 34.

(m) Sug. 698.

(n) The Queen v. Eton College, 8 Q. B. 526.

(o) See Schedule, tit. Conveyance; see, too, Schedule to 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97, tit. Settlement.

(p) Rushbrook v. Hood, 5 C. B. 131; 11 Jur. 931.

Sir E. Sugden (citing Mr. Coventry) remarks that the clause above cited from the 55 Geo. III. c. 184, "does not seem to affect a conveyance of the property sold to such uses as the purchaser may choose to direct" (s).

And a covenant to produce title deeds, or an assignment of a term in trust to attend, does not involve the payment of additional duty (t); nor is it payable in respect of an agreement for a lease of the property to the vendor being included in the conveyance, such agreement being considered as forming part of the contract (u).

And a deed stamp is not necessary by reason of the ad valorem duty being less than the amount of a deed stamp (w).

In counting a deed for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of progressive duty, the schedules (if any), and indorsed receipt, and indorsed attestation (x), are included;as are also the words and figures contained in any indorsed or annexed map or plan referred to in the deed; but not of a plan neither indorsed nor annexed but only referred to (y): and it is by the late Act declared (z), retrospectively and prospectively, that progressive duty does not attach in respect of the contents of any deed or instrument liable to stamp duty and duly stamped, and which may be or may have been put or indorsed upon or annexed to the principal instrument, or in any manner incorporated with or referred to in or by the same.

But on a conveyance to uses directed by purchaser.

Matters which do not involve additional duty.

Deed stamp unnecessary although ad valorem duty under 1l. 15s.

Indorsed receipts, etc, count as part of deed.

(q) See Tilsley, 357. (r) 11 Jur. 932; see the observations of Maule, J., and Wilde, C. J. (s) Sug. 699. (t) Sug. 699; Wolseley v. Cox, 2

Ad. & El., N. S., 321.

(u) Doe v. Phillipps, 11 Ad. & El. 796.

(w) Sug. 700.

(x) Sug. 699.

An instrument bearing stamps of sufficient amount but improper denominations, is sufficiently stamped unless they have been specially appropriated to some other description of instrument (a); under this provision the lease for a year stamp upon a conveyance or mortgage may often be applied to make good a deficiency in the progressive duty, upon the ground of the freehold having been in reversion, by reason either of an outstanding term for years or of a subsisting tenancy.

We have seen (b) that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Courts will presume that a conveyance which was duly executed was also duly stamped.

As to whether fresh stamps become necessary by reason of alterations in the instrument, the general rule appears to be (c), " that where by reason of an alteration made in it, an instrument becomes a new one, a fresh stamp is requisite," but not in any other case: it has been held that where the only conveying party to a marriage settlement had executed it, and then, upon the objection of other parties, a clause was struck out, and the deed was re-executed by the conveying party, the execution was only in fieri, and no new stamp was necessary (d); and it appears that, where only some of the parties to a deed have executed it, the filling up of blanks, or even making alterations which solely affect the interests of the parties who have not executed, will not involve the payment of additional duty (e): but this would not extend to a substitution of the name of a sub-purchaser, in place of that of the original purchaser, after the conveyance had been executed by the vendor (f).

Stamps of adequate amount, but improper denomination, when sufficient.

Presumption in favour of instruments having been stamped.

Fresh stamps not necessary if instrument altered while in fieri.

(y) 1 Jarm. Conv. by S. 726. (z) 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97, s. 11. (a) See 55 Geo. III. c. 184, s. 10.

(b) Supra, p. 161.

(c) See Tilsley, 366.