Assignment by a party to the contract.

Assignment by the vendor of the land sold.

(n) Stat. 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, ss. 6 - 8; and see sect. 30.

(o) Sects. 9 - 14; Carr v. Anderson, 1903, 2 Ch. 279. The administrator of a convict has, however, no power to bar an estate tail vested in the convict: but the convict himself can execute a disentailing deed; Re Gaskell & Walters' Contract, 1906, 2 Ch. 1; see above, p. 532, n. (p); below, Chap. XVI.

(p) See below, Chap. XVI.; Wms. Real Prop. 48, 11.'), 301, 21st ed.; Wms. Pers. Prop. 90, 153, 160, 16th ed.

(q) See Jansoii v. Driefontein, etc, 1902, A. C. 484. 505, 506.

(r) See below, Chap. XVI.

(s) Above, pp. 504 sq., 5l9.

To purchaser for value without notice.

(t) Main's ease, 5 Rep. 20b; Lovelock v. Franklyn, 8 Q. B. 371; Synge v. Synge, 1894, 1 Q. B. 466, 471; see below. Chap. XVIII. Sec. 2.

(u) Above, pp. 504 sq.; 519.

(v) Dawson v. Ellis, L J. & W. 524.

(x) See above, p. 476.

(y) Above, y. 528, n. (x); Fry, Sp.' Perf. Sec. 206, 207, 241, 3rd ed.

See Manselt v. Mansell, 2. P. W. 678, 681: Willoughby v. Willoughby, 1 T. R. 763, 771 - 771; Clemow v. Geach, L. R. 6 Ch. 1 17: Pilcherv. Rawlins, L. R. 7 Ch. 259; Cam v. Cave, 15Ch. D.

639; Joseph v. Lyons, 15 Q. B. D

280: Hallo* v. Robinson, ib. 288 , Synge v. Hymjc, 1894, 1 Q. B. 400, 471

(a) See Wilkes v. Bodinglon, 2 Vera. 599; Willoughby v. Wil-loughby, I T. R. 763, 767 - 772; Stanhope v. Verney, 2 Eden, 81;

Wilmot v. Pike, 5 Hare, 14, 21 - 23; Perham v. Kempster, 1907, 1 Ch. 373, 378.

Tacking by vendor's alienee.

The purchaser is, as we have seen (e), fully entitled to dispose of the land sold as his own, at any time after the making of the contract for sale.

Alienation by the purchaser of the land sold.

(b) Jones v. Stanley, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 685, pl. 9; Story v. Windsor, 2 Atk. 630; Harding ham v. Nicholls, 3 Atk. 304; Tourville v. Naish 3. p. W. 307: Sug. V. & P. 789. In the last case a purchaser who bad taken a conveyance and given a bond for the balance of the price without notice of a prior equitable incum -brance, and received notice thereof prior to payment of the money due on the bond, was postponed to the incumbrancer, as regards such money, on the ground that he would be entitled in equity to avoid payment of the money on the bond. The giving of a bond or covenant for payment of the whole or part of the purchase money may, perhaps, be properly treated as not constituting executed consideration within the meaning of the rule stated above, as any assignee of the debt so secured would take subject to the equities between the debtor and original creditor. But if the sale were made on the terms that a negotiable security should be given for the unpaid purchase money, it appears that the giving of such security ought to be treated as executed consideration, at least where the security has been negotiated before notice of the prior equity is received: for after the negotiable security has come to the hands of a bond fide holder for value the liability thereon can no longer be avoided. (c) Above, p. 180, n. (i); Potter v. Sanders, 6 Hare, 1.

(d) Taylor v. Russell, 1892, A. C. 244; Bailey v. Barnes 1894, 1 Ch. 25, 36, 37: above, pp. 477 - 480.

Above, pp. 506, 541.

Either party to the contract may lawfully assign over his beneficial interest therein (f), and the assignee may sue the other party in his own name in equity for the specific performance of the contract, making the assignor a party to the action (g); and this is the case whether the assignment of the benefit of the contract be made for the purpose of absolutely transferring the assignor's whole interest or of securing some lesser or other advantage to the assignee, such as the repayment of money lent (h). And the assignee of the interest of either party to the contract is entitled, under the Judicature Act of 1878, to sue the other party thereon in his own name at law if the assignment were an absolute assignment in writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only), and express notice in writing of such assignment were given to the other party (i). Notice of the assignment by either party of the benefit of the contract must, of course, be given to the other party, in order to prevent him from further performing the contract for the assignor's own use, which he would otherwise he entitled to do. And, as a rule, when one party to the contract receives notice of the assignment by the other of his interest in the contract, he is thenceforth bound to continue the performance of his part of the contract in favour of the assignee, and must no longer give to the assignor the benefit of the contract (k). But in order to oblige the other party to cease performance in favour of the original contractor, and to complete the contract with the assignee, there must be an effectual assignment of the original contractor's interest and notice of such assignment, and the assignee must show himself ready and willing to take the assignor's place in all respects, accepting the burthen, as well as the benefit, of the contract (l). Thus, where a purchaser of leaseholds deposited his contract with his bankers, together with a written agreement that he would at any time thereafter, at their request, execute to them a valid assignment of the contract, and the bankers gave formal notice to the vendor of the terms of this agreement only, not mentioning the deposit of the contract or expressing any intention to stand in the purchaser's place as regards its completion, and took no further steps to secure to themselves the benefit of the sale, it was considered that the terms of the agreement amounted, not to a present assignment of the benefit of the contract, but only to a promise to assign the same at a future time upon request; and it was held that the vendor was justified in executing, on payment of the purchase money by the original purchaser, a conveyance which took no notice of any interest on the banker's part (m).