Fanshaw v. Rotherham, Fawell v. Heelis Fielder v. Higginson Fillingham v. Bromley Finch v. The Earl of Winchelsea Flower v. Lord Bolingbroke Forth v. The Duke of Norfolk v. Wright Foxcraft v. Lister 468, 479] Harmwood v. Oglander 156, 168, 169 Heaphy v. Hill 422 Heath v. Heath 67 Hitchcock v. Giddings 415, 446 43, 365 87 160 352 295, 296 350 18 17,385 157 459 132 212, 220 347 167 521 190 106 372 74 110 418-507 185, 367 177 146 Gowland v. De Faria 179, 181, 212, 216 Hyde v. Wroughton 152 8 480 v. Price v. Strange Prosser v. Watts Pulvortofte v. Pulvertofte Randall v. Errington Roberts v. Massey Robinson v. Page v. Cunynghame Rowe v. Hasland v. Teed Ryles v. Swindells Saberton v. Skeels Savage v. Carroll v. Taylor Saunders v. Leslie v. Hanson 540 Spratt v. Jeffrey 436 Spurrier v. Fitzgerald 198 Squire v. Baker 54 Stace v. Mabbott 36, 39 Stafford (Lord) v. Llewellyn 324 Stanhope's (Lord) case 35 Stapleton v. Scott 443 Star v. Elliott 354 Staveley v. Ullithorne 411 Stewart v. Alliston 71 v. Careless v. Nicholls 103, 107 557 13, 14, 408 402 460 222,* 627, 654 103, 126 73 427 61 56 542 456, 459, 462 207 276 585 565 529 269, 270 287, 361 37 152 46, 49, 300 280 340 423, 424 522 40, 291 557 78 Wakeman v. The Dutchess of Rutland 384 Winch v. Winchester Walker v. Barnes 111, 113 624 Winchester, Ex parte 287 v. Moore 141 Windsor (Dean and Canons of,) case Wall v. Bright 40 of 464 Wallenger v. Hibbert Walters v. Pyman v. Upton Walwyn v. Coutts Warden and Canons of St. Paul's v. v. Downs 198 AN ESSAY ON MARKETABLE OR DOUBTFUL TITLE S. CHAPTER I. Introductory Observations on the nature of Doubtful Titles. In attempting to take a view of the present state of the law relative to what shall be considered a marketable title, it is obvious that the subject might be limited to a consideration of the equitable doctrine of doubtful titles. A more practical, however, and comprehensive survey of the subject will soon show, that so closely is the doctrine of marketable titles interwoven with the general law applicable to the transactions between vendor and purchaser, that the former cannot be adequately treated apart from the latter. It is proposed, therefore, *in the following [ *2 1 pages, to treat the subject of marketable titles on a broad and comprehensive foundation; and to employ in it a copious and detailed exposition of the present state of the law relative to vendors and purchasers. The subject of marketable titles involves a doctrine, which is peculiar to the laws of this country, and which is recognized only in our Courts of Equity; and constitutes one of those numerous branches of equitable jurisdiction which have been brought into existence during the last century. The ordinary acceptation of the term marketable title, would convey but a very imperfect notion of its legal and technical import. To common apprehension, unfettered by the technical and conventional distinctions of lawyers, all titles being either good or bad, the former would be considered to be marketable, the other non-marketable. But this is not the way in which they are regarded in our courts of equity, the distinction taken there being,-not between a title, which is absolutely good, or absolutely bad, but between a title, which the court considers to be so clear that it will enforce its acceptance by a purchaser, and one which the court will not go so far as to declare it a bad title, but only that is subject to so much doubt that a purchaser ought not to be compelled to accept it.(a) In short, whatever may be the private opinion of the court, (a) See Jervoise v. The Duke of Northumberland, 1 Jac. & Walk. 568, APRIL, 1838.-B |