In England, a purchaser may, it seems, require to be furnished with an abstract of the seller's title, even though he may already have agreed to accept the same, and he may retain such abstract during the negotiations upon, and even after the rejection of, the proffered title, until the dispute is finally settled, for the purpose of showing the grounds of such rejection. It will be remembered, however, that an English abstract is generally only a digest of the title deeds and muniments relied on by the vendor to establish his claim, and which usually accompany the abstract for examination and comparison. The abstract so furnished, therefore, is rather in the nature of an index to accompany documents, and is prepared primarily for their more convenient and systematic perusal. An American abstract, on the contrary, is intended to furnish within itself a full exposition of title, and to obviate the necessity of referring to the original sources of information. In the former case the deeds and muniments are in the hands or under the control of the vendor, and the reason of the English rule is apparent from this fact alone. But in the United States the changed conditions of the evidences of title, the system of registration, the actual and constructive notice imparted thereby, and the access which the purchaser has to information concerning the title, would seem to render inoperative the English rule by removing the reason which occasioned it; and, while it is customary in this country, as in England, for the vendor to prepare and furnish an abstract of title, either pending or after consummation of the sale, it does not appear that this can be demanded as a matter of right, but is rather the result of the contract or conditions of sale.

In England, where titles are not registered as in this country, the vendor, in order to show performance or an offer to perform on his part, whether in an action at law for the purchase money or a suit in equity to compel performance by the vendee, must affirmatively prove his title. In this country, where titles are matters of record, and at all times open for inspection, a different rule prevails. This doctrine has often been announced in actions by the vendor for the purchase money,11 and it has been expressly held in equity that a vendor may rely upon his tender of a deed without producing the evidences of his title, the burden being upon the purchaser to show such a defect as would justify him in refusing to accept such deed.12

But while the furnishing of an abstract cannot be said to be demandable as a matter of legal right, even where a custom to that effect may prevail, it is nevertheless made a condition precedent, in most sales, by the express agreement of the parties. Where parties make a contract for sale or exchange of lands which provides for the exhibition of an abstract showing title in the proposing parties by a day named, this is a condition precedent to be performed before either party in case of an exchange, or the vendor in case of sale, can call upon the other to perform the agreement; and, if the abstract is not satisfactory or fails to show the title agreed to be produced, the other may elect to consider the contract at an end.13

11 Little vs. Paddleford, 13 N. H.. 167.

12 Espy vs. Anderson, 14 Pa. St., 308.

If, on the sale of land, it devolves on the vendor to furnish an abstract, on the delivery and acceptance of the deed it becomes the property of the purchaser,14 and so, where the owner of land, about to execute a mortgage, delivers to the mortgagee an abstract of title to the premises, it becomes a part of the security for the loan, and the mortgagor is not entitled to the possession of it until the mortgage is paid or discharged.