313; Seaman v. Vawdrey, 16 Ves. 393; Bainbridge on Mines, 41.

(s) Flower v. Hartopp, 6 Beav. 476.

(t) Esdaile v. Stephenson, 6 Mad. 366.

(u) S. C. as reported in Sug. 412.

(w) 6 Mad. 367; Danl. Ch. Prac. by H. 1169.

If the report be in favour of the title, and be not excepted to, a decree for specific performance will be made on the hearing on further directions, unless, in the interim, any matter appear which affects the title, in which case, although the report have been confirmed, a reference back to the Master will be ordered on motion (y).

If exceptions are taken to the report in favour of the title, the cause should be set down for hearing on further directions at the same time with the exceptions (z), in order that, if the exceptions are allowed and the vendor do not request a reference back to the Master, the purchaser may at once take a decree (a): if, on hearing the exceptions, the Court considers the report erroneous, on the ground of a mistake by the Master as to the title which the purchaser can require (b), or as to the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the title (c), or as to the construction of an instrument (d), the title will, at the vendor's request, be again referred, in order that he may have an opportunity of removing the defect: it was held by Sir J. Wigram, V. C., in a recent case, that the reference back is not a matter of course, but depends on the vendor satisfying the Court that he has a fresh case to bring before the Master (e); but in a later case before Lord Cottenham, his Lordship laid down, as a general rule, that no special case need be made by the vendor, but that where the report is in favour of the title, and the Court holds a different opinion, and he desires an opportunity of making out a better title, the Court will deal with the report in the view that the Master has not fully performed the duty imposed on him, but has prematurely come to a conclusion in favour of the title, and will therefore send it back to him for further investigation; that there is no reason why the same practice should not prevail whether the original reference be made on motion or by decree; but that, in both cases, if the vendor wishes for an opportunity of making a better title, the Court should give him the option of doing so, and only conclude the matter when he says he can go no further (f). Upon the fresh reference, the purchaser seems not to be restricted to his original objections (g). Exceptions, it appears, should not be general, but should specify the objections to the title (h).

Report in favour of title, and no exception, decree for plaintiff unless new matter appear.

Exceptions taken; cause should also be set down on further directions.

If exceptions allowed, a fresh reference will be directed at vendor's request.

(x) See Sug. 419; Magennis v. Fallon, 2 Mol. 575.

(y) Jeudwine v. Alcock, 1 Mad. 597.

(z) Sug. 412.

(a) See V. C. Wigram's remarks in the judgment in Dawes v. Belts, 12 Jur. 416.

(b) Fildes v. Hooker, 2 Mer.; see p. 429.

(c) Andrew v. Andrew, 3 Sim. 390; Curling v. Flight, 2 Ph. 613.

(d) Egerton v. Jones, 3 Sim. 392, 409; 1 Russ. & M. 694; and see Portman v. Mill, ibid. 696.

(e) Dawes v. Belts, 12 Jur. 412; the exceptions were overruled on appeal, 12 Jur. 709.

If the exceptions are allowed, and no reference back be asked by the vendor, his bill will be dismissed at the hearing; or, if the title be considered doubtful, the dismissal may be without giving judgment on the exceptions (i): but the purchaser if plaintiff may in general elect to take the defective title (k).

If all the exceptions are overruled, the purchaser cannot make other objections to the title (l), except, it is conceived, in the case of fresh matter, which affects the title, being discovered subsequently to the date of the Master's report (m).

Otherwise bill is dismissed.

Exceptions overruled, purchaser how far precluded from other objections.

(f) Curling v. Flight, 2 Ph. 616; and see S. C, 12 Jur. 423; and see Dawes v. Belts, on appeal, 12 Jur. 709.

(g) Fildes v. Hooker, 3 Mad. 193; Sug. 411.

(h) Flower v. Hartopp, 6 Beav. 476.

(i) Willcox v. Bellaers, Turn. & R. 491; Robinson v. Milner, 1 Ha. 578, n.

(k) Infra, 533.

(l) Brooke v. Anon. 4 Mad. 212.

(m) See Jeudwine v. Alcock, 1 Mad. 597.

If the report be against the title and be not excepted to, the vendor's bill may be dismissed with costs on motion (n): if exceptions are taken and are overruled, the Court, it appears, will at once discharge the purchaser, without motion (o).

If exceptions are taken to the report against the title, and are overruled, the Court will sometimes send the case back to the Master (p); but not, it is conceived, upon mere speculation, nor unless the vendor can satisfy the Court of the probability of the title being perfected (q) within a reasonable time (r); and long previous delay, of course, could be a reason for less additional time being allowed (s); "and the Court will not allow a seller to lie by, before the Master, and then upon further directions, attempt to make a title (t)"; nor will it show any favour to a vendor, who, or whose solicitor, has improperly concealed a defect in the title (u); nor allow further time, when, owing to the long interval which has elapsed since the contract and the altered situation of the parties, substantial justice would not be done by decreeing specific performance (w).

So, if, no exceptions being taken, the cause comes on for further directions, or for original hearing if the reference (in a suit commenced by bill) were made before hearing, and the vendor can satisfy the Court that he can remove the objection on which the Master reported against the title, - as where he can procure the concurrence of a party having an interest, - specific performance will be decreed without a reference back to the Master (x).