Rex v. Hopper (a), Eagle v. Garrick. (b) [Maule J. in anywise appertaining, or with the same or any part thereof respectively now or at any time heretofore held, used, occupied, or enjoyed, or intended so to be, or accepted, reputed, deemed, taken, or known as part, parcel, or member thereof, or of any part thereof, with their and every of their appurtenances, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, yearly, and other rents, issues, and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, inheritance, use, trust, property, profits, possession, claim, and demand whatsoever, both at law and in equity, of him the said (vendor), into, out of, and upon the said premises, and into and out of every part and parcel thereof, with their and every of their appurtenances: to have and to hold the said piece or parcel of ground, messuage, or tenement, hereditaments, and all and singular other the premises by these presents granted and released, or otherwise assured or intended so to be, with their and every of their appurtenances, in possession immediately from the making hereof, and without any power of revocation, reservation, trust, condition, limitation, clause, or agreement, whatsoever, for the benefit of the said (vendor), or of any person or persons claiming under him, unto and to the use of the said parties hereto of (a) 3 Price, 495. ex the second part, their heirs and assigns for ever: but, nevertheless, upon such and the same trusts, and to and for such and the same ends, intents, and purposes, and with, under, and subject to, such and the same powers, provisoes, declarations, and agreements, as are pressed, contained, and declared or referred to, in and by a certain indenture of release, bearing date on or about the 3d day of July 1832, and made or expressed to be made between John Sutcliffe, Benjamin Garside, Francis Farnell, John Swallow, Thomas Firth, Robert Wilson, Samuel Nayler, John Fearley Sutcliffe, Charles Swallow, John Swallow the younger, Samuel Morley, Joseph Garside, accountant, William Farnell, and Joseph Garside, woodturner, therein respectively described of the first part, the Rev. George Marsden, therein described, of the second part, and James Brown, therein also described, of the third part, and inrolled in His Majesty's High Court of Chancery on the 25th day of July 1832, being . a deed made for the settlement of a piece or parcel of ground and chapel, or place of religious worship, with the appurtenances, situate at Skircoat, in the parish of Halifax, and county of York, for the use of the people called Methodists, in the connection established by the late Rev. John Wesley; 1840. DoE dem. WILLIAMS v. LLOYD. 1840. DoE dem. WILLIAMS ย. LLOYD. directs that the conveyance shall be inrolled in the Court of Chancery within six calendar months next after the execution thereof.] In Compton v. Chandless (a) Lord Kenyon says, "In the case of conveyances by bargain and sale inrolled, I never knew the inrolment proved." The deed is produced with the inrolment indorsed, and that has been held to be sufficient. Matthews, on the same side. It lay upon the defendant to prove that the conveyance was not inrolled. This is not a case of an ordinary negative proposition, in which the proof of the affirmative necessarily lies upon the party asserting the affirmative; because, here, the defendant might have searched the inrolment office; Doe v. Mason (b); which was held to be good law in and to, for, or upon no other use, trust, intent, or purpose whatsoever. In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Practical Observations. It may be as well to observe, that the "model-deed" is so constructed as to admit of reference being made to it in the settlement of copyhold and leasehold, as well as of freehold tenures; but that, though by these means, a full and efficient declaration of trusts, &c. may be secured by the insertion of a few words of reference, yet neither this nor any other plan can dispense with the requisites necessary to make a good legal conveyance of the property to the trustees; or with the strictest compliance with the statute of mortmain. Few cases arise so identical in all circumstances, as to admit of a precedent for one being literally copied for another. The above precedent, therefore, though drawn in as general terms as the subject seems to admit of, will require to be adapted to the particular circumstances of each case; and the operative part varied so as to make it apply to the tenure of the estate (if other than freehold) to be conveyed. The words of reference after the habendum will, however, in all cases, remain the same. Every deed of reference must also be executed with the same forms of acknowledgment, attestation, &c., and must be inrolled in Chancery, as in the case of the model deed; and when the conveyance is for a valuable consideration, a receipt for the purchase-money must be indorsed. (a) 4 Esp. N. P. C. 18. Doe v. Bingham (a), 1 Stark. Evid. 320. (b), Phillipps on As to the second point, the trust was sufficiently declared by the reference to the model-deed, which is an instrument carefully prepared by Sugden, Brodie, Bell, and Atherley. In pages 33. and 41. of the model deed there is, by implication, a clear direction that, of whatever extent the property may be, all shall be absorbed by the charitable objects indicated in the deed. John Wilson, at another day in this term, on the same side. The defendant has applied, not for a new trial but for a nonsuit, he is therefore bound to satisfy the court that there was no evidence whatever to go to the jury. This being a conveyance for a valuable consideration, viz., 490l., it was not necessary to shew that David Lloyd survived the transaction for the space of twelve calendar months. Reece's testimony afforded sufficient proof of inrolment. It was conceded at the trial that if the words "officer of inrolment " had been added, it would have been sufficient. [Tindal C. J. It is not conceded that the insertion of those words would (a) 4 B. & Ald. 672. (b) Second edition. (c) Sixth and seventh editions. 1840. DoE dem. WILLIAMS บ. LLOYD. June 6. 1840. DoE dem. WILLIAMS v. LLOYD. have been sufficient, though it is insisted upon as neces- (a) 2 Roll. Rep. 119. (b) 2 Bac. Abr. 611. v. Orpe (a) it does not appear that the signature of Peregrine Fury, the party who signed as auditor, was proved ; nor was it even shewn that Fury was auditor. At the first trial the objection as to the inrolment was not taken. If the inrolment was well proved by shewing that the deed was inrolled in Chancery in pursuance of an act of parliament, which does not require the inrolment to be in any particular office, or before any particular officer, there is an end of the case. It is objected, that the conveyance was not made to take effect immediately in possession. On referring to the deed it will be seen that the words which follow the habendum are the very words of the statute. Then it is objected, that it lay on the plaintiff to produce, and to prove the execution and inrolment of, the model-deed of 1832. But the conveyance to the lessors of the plaintiff, executed by the ancestor of the defendant, admits both the execution and inrolment of that instrument. And a deed was produced, corresponding in all respects with the description of the deed referred to as the model-deed. It formed no part of the plaintiff's case to prove the execution of a title deed relating to other property. As far as the present title is concerned the model-deed is merely a specification of the trusts, &c., and the parties to that deed are strangers to the property now sought to be recovered. The model-deed was produced from the muniments of the Wesleyan society. It is not necessary to prove the execution of a deed which has been inrolled: Bro. Faits enroll. pl. 11. (b) Sir T. Holland v. Boniss (c) shews that non est factum could not be pleaded to such a deed; it cannot, therefore, be necessary to prove its execution upon deducing title in an action of ejectment; Lady (a) 1 Dougl. 56. (b) Citing P. 7 E. 4, fo. 5, pl. 13, in which that point is (c) 3 Leon, 175. 1840. DoE dem. WILLIAMS v. LLOYD. |