Where the conveyance is executed by attorney.

(d) Re Hetling and Merton's Contract, 1893, 3 Ch. 269, 276, 280.

(c) Above, pp. 738, 739.

(f) See above, pp. 738 - 740. If the vendor, being in the service of the Crown, were ordered to go abroad before completion, that would seem to be a case where the purchaser would be bound to accept execution of the conveyance by attorney. (g) Above, p. 740.

It appears that the solicitor referred to in the 56th section of the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (l), is in general the solicitor acting on behalf of the person entitled to give a receipt for the money or other consideration (m). Thus, where the purchase money is partly payable to incumbrancers, the purchaser should not, it is thought, pay over the whole of the purchase money to the vendor's solicitor producing the deed of conveyance duly executed (n), without good independent evidence that he was authorised to act in this respect on the incumbrancers' behalf. But, of course, payment of the amount due to the incumbrancers may be paid to their solicitor on his producing the conveyance executed by them. Where a solicitor, who produces such a deed as is mentioned in that section (o), is ostensibly acting for the person entitled to give a receipt for the consideration money, it appears that the purchaser, in the absence of any ground for suspicion, is not entitled to require any independent proof that the solicitor is indeed authorised to act and is rightly acting as solicitor for that person (p). And if that person in any way held out the solicitor as his agent, he would be estopped from proving that he did not in fact authorise the solicitor to receive the money on production of the deed. Thus, where a solicitor fraudulently induced a client to execute a mortgage of his land and obtained the mortgage money by producing the mortgage deed so executed and made away with the money, but it was proved that the client placed such confidence in the solicitor that he would execute any deed on the solicitor's recommendation without insisting that the transaction should be explained to him, it was held that he was estopped from showing that the solicitor was not in truth empowered to act as his solicitor in the matter of receiving the money (q). But it does not appear that a purchaser would be protected in paying money to a solicitor ostensibly acting under the authority conferred by section 56 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, if the solicitor had no real authority so to act, and the person to whom the money was payable had not by his conduct or otherwise held out the solicitor to be his agent (r). In all cases where money is paid to a solicitor in reliance on this enactment, the deed must be actually produced at the time of payment to justify the purchaser in making payment to the solicitor (s). Where a creditor or other person entitled to receive money authorises payment to be made to his solicitor, it appears that payment to the solicitor's managing clerk is, as a rule, a good payment (t); and this rule seems applicable where the authority to pay to the solicitor is given by virtue of the enactment above cited (a).

Payment should be made to the-solicitor acting for the person entitled to give a receipt.

Payment to solicitor osten sibly acting for a conveying party.

(h) Re Setting and Morton'a Con-tract, 1893, 3 Oh. 269, 280.

(i) Above, p. 741.

(k) Re Bellamy and Metropolitan Board of Works, 24 Ch. D. 387, 394, 400, 403, 101.

(l) Above, p. 741.

(m) Dayv. Woolwich, etc. Socy., 40 Ch. D. 491; Re Hetling and Merton's Contract, 1893, 3 Ch. 269, 280.

(n) Above, p, 741.

(o) Above, p. 741.

King v. Smith.

The deed must be produced at the time of payment.

Payment to the solicitor's clerk.

(p) See Re Hetling and Merton's Contract, 1893, 3 Ch. 269, 280; King v. Smith, 1900, 2 Ch. 425, 432.

(q) King v. Smith, 1900, 2 Ch. 425.

(r) See St Hetling and Merton's' Contract, 1893, 3 Ch. 269, 280; above, p. 743.

(s) Lay v. Woolwich, etc. Sucy., 40 Ch. D. 491.

(t) See Moffat v. Parsons, .3 Taunt. 307; Wilmot v. Smith, 3 Car. & P. 453; Bingham v. All-port, 1 N. & M. 398; Kirton v. Braithwaite, 1 M. & W. 310; Watson v. Hctherington, 1 Car. & K. 36; Hemming v. Hale, 29 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 137; Finch v. Boning, 4C. P. D. 143.

With respect to the vendor's securing for himself proper payment, he is of course only bound to accept banknotes or coins, which are legal tender (x); he may object to take a cheque or any other negotiable security (y). At the present time sales of land are frequently completed by means of bankers' drafts (a), to avoid the risk and inconvenience of carrying about banknotes of large amount; but the vendor is not obliged to accept this mode of payment, and it should be ascertained before the time fixed for actual completion that he will make no objection to it. Where a solicitor is authorised to receive the purchase money or any part of it on behalf of the vendor or any other conveying party (a), he is not at liberty to accept payment otherwise than in cash or notes being legal tender (b). This is another reason for ascertaining beforehand that no objection will be made to a banker's draft, if it be desired to tender such a draft in payment.

What is a proper payment.

The execution of the conveyance gives to the purchaser, in the case of freeholds the legal seisin, and in the case of leaseholds the like possession of the land sold (c); and he is thenceforth free to enter into actual Effect of the execution of the convey ance.

(u)Above, p. 741.

(x) Current gold coin is legal tender for any amount; Bank of England notes for all Bums above 5l., except by the Bank itself, but not in Ireland; current silver coin for not more than 40; bronze for not more than ls.: stats. 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 98, s 6; 8 & 9 Vict. c. 37, 8. 6; 3d Vict. c. 10, as. 1. 20.

(y) Blumberg v. Life Interests, etc . Corpn., 1897, 1 Ch. 171: Johnston v. Boyes, 1899, 2Ch. 73,

(c) I.e., drafts drawn by bankers on themselves or branches of their office.

(a) Above, p. 741.

(b) Pape v. Westaeott, 1894, 1 Q. B. 272.

See Copestakt v. Heper, 1908 2 Ch. 10: articles by the author in 51 Sol J. 178, 196, and 62 Sol. J. 510,527; Wm. Real Prop. 206, 551, 21st ed.; Williams on Seisin, 6, 54. onn the question whether the purchaser obtains a silisin in law or an actual seisin where he is under the Statute of Uses and possession or receipt of the rents and profits of the property purchased (d). On the sale of copyholds, admittance is necessary to vest in the purchaser the legal title to possession: but on admittance being obtained, the purchaser's legal title will relate back to the surrender (e).

Not at common law, see Williams on Settlements, 11 - 16; Wms. Real Prop. 175 and n. (l), 178, n. (z), 21st ed.

(d) Above, pp. 515, 516, 578.

(e) Doe d. Bennington v. Hat?, 16 East, 208; 1 Wat. Cop. 125, 128, 4th ed.