(y) See Stat. 45 & 46 Vict. c. 39, s. 8; below, Chap. XII. Sec. 5.

(z) See Stat. 45 & 46 Vict. c. 39, s. 9; below, Chap. XII. Sec. 5.

(a) See note (x), above.

The documentary evidence in support of a title may be of two kinds. First, private writings which are kept in the custody of the parties interested, and which the purchaser can require to be handed over to him on completion; of this kind are the ordinary deeds of conveyance. And secondly, documents which are kept in public or official custody and to the possession of which the purchaser can have no right. Such are Acts of Parliament public or private, records, orders of proceedings of the Courts of justice, the court rolls of a manor, and wills, if proved. With regard to the latter kind of evidence, the vendor cannot require the purchaser to go and verify the abstract for himself by inspection of the original document; he is bound to produce, at the proper place for verification of the abstract, such evidence of any document in public or official custody as it is the practice for conveyancers to accept; and the purchaser will be entitled prima-facie to have this evidence delivered over to him on completion (b). At common law, the vendor had to bear all the expense of procuring any such evidence (c). But under the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (d), the purchaser, in the absence of stipulation to the contrary, must bear the expense of procuring all such evidence, if not in the vendor's possession. The vendor, however, is not released from the obligation of procuring such evidence; he is merely exonerated from the expense of discharging it.

Documents of title may be in private or official custody.

Vendor must produce evidence of documents in official custody.

Expense of proving documents not in vendor's possession.

Here it may be mentioned that, in litigation, the contents of any public document may be proved, at common law, either by production of the original document or its equivalent, or by an examined copy, that is, a copy proved by oral evidence to have been examined with the original and to correspond therewith (e). An exemplification, which is a copy of a record set out either under the great seal or the seal of a Court, is equivalent to the original document exemplified (f); and a copy made by an officer of the Court, who is bound by law to make it, is equivalent to an exemplification (g). Office copies, or copies made by an officer of the Court, who is authorised by rule of Court but not required by law to make them, are not at common law equivalent to an exemplification, save in the same Court and cause, in which the proceeding recorded occurred (A). But many documents of a public nature are provable under particular Acts of Parliament by copies certified as authentic under some official seal or signature or otherwise (i); and in such cases the certified copies are admissible in evidence if they purport to be authenticated as prescribed by law, without proof of the official stamp, seal or signature required or of the official character of the certifier (k). And by the Evidence Act, 1851 (l), whenever any book or document is of such a public nature as to be admissible in evidence on its mere production from the proper custody, and no Statute exists which renders its contents provable by means of a copy, any copy thereof or extract therefrom shall be admissible in evidence if it purport to be signed and certified as a true copy or extract by the officer to whose custody the original is entrusted. On sales, however, it has always been the practice to receive office copies and extracts in evidence, whether the same would be admissible as evidence in litigation or not (m).

Evidence of public docu-ment.

(b) Halkett v. Dudley, 1907, 1 Cb.590, 603, 604.

(c) Sug. V. & P. 131, 448; l Dart, V. & P. 408, 5th ed.; 472.

6th ed.; 482, 7th ed.; 1 Davidson, P'rec. Conv. 550, 555, 4th ed. (d) Stat, 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 3 (6), (9).

Examined copy.

Exemplification.

Office copies.

Certified copies.

(c) Doe d. Gilbert v. Ross, 7 M. & W. 102, 106. 124; Taylor, Evidence, Sec. 1333, 1368, 1389 sq., 5th ed.; Stephen, Evidence, Arts. 73 sq. The rule extends to any document or book which is of such a public nature as to be admissible in evidence on its mere production from the proper custody; R. v. Bains, Comb. 337; Lynch v. Clerke, 3 Salk. 154; R. v. Gordon, 2 Doug. 590, 593 and note; Taylor, Evidence, Sec. 1436, 1437, 5th ed.

(f) Bac. Abr. Evidence (F); Taylor, Evidence, Sec. 1378 - 1381, 5th ed.; Stephen, Evidence, Art. 77.

(g) Appleton v. Lord Braybrook, 6 M. & S. 34, 36 - 39; Doe v. Lloyd, 1 Man. & Gr. 671, 684-6; Bac. Abr. Evidence (F); Taylor, Evidence, Sec. 1384, 5th ed.; Stephen, Evidence, Art. 77.

(h) Taylor, Evidence, Sec. 1378 - 1391, 5th ed.; Stephen, Evidence, Art. 78.

(i) Taylor, Evidence, Sec. 1440, 5th ed.

(k) Stat. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 1; Taylor, Evidence, Sec. 7, 1441, 5th ed.; Stephen, Evidence, Art. 79.

(l) Stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14; Taylor, Evidence, Sec. 1437, 5th ed.; Stephen, Evidence, Art. 79.

The proper place for verification of the abstract is either at the vendor's residence, or near the land sold, or in London (n). If the title-deeds be produced at any one of these places, the purchaser must, at common law, bear the expense of his solicitor's examination of them and of any journey for this purpose (o). The vendor may however discharge his obligation by production of all or some of the title-deeds at some other place or places: but in that case he would at common law be bound to pay any additional expense incurred by the purchaser in the examination of the deeds, beyond what would have been incurred if the deeds had been produced at the proper place (p). But under the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (q), the purchaser, in the absence of stipulation to the contrary, must bear the expenses of the production and inspection of all documents, which are not in the vendor's possession, and of all journeys incidental thereto. The vendor therefore must still produce all documents of title, which are in his own possession, at the proper place for verification of the abstract; or pay the extra expense incurred by their examination elsewhere (r). But in the absence of stipulation to the contrary, he can produce any documents of title, which are not in his possession, at whatever place they may happen to be, without being called upon to bear any extra, expense so caused. It has been held that, under the last-mentioned enactment, a purchaser must pay all the expense of the examination on his behalf of title-deeds, which are in the possession of the vendor's mortgagees, and are in consequence produced at the office of the mortgagees' solicitors; including the mortgagees' solicitors' costs of such production and examination (s). The purchaser must equally bear all the expense of the production and examination of any title-deeds, which are produced at the office of the solicitors to some person, by whom the vendor is entitled to require production of the deeds under some statutory acknowledgment or covenant.