LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL.—COMMITTEE.

HL Deb 28 February 1862 vol 165 cc849-50

House in Committee according to Order.

Clause 1. (Restriction on the doctrine of Implied and Constructive Notice, as affecting purchasers for value or mortgages.)

LORD CRANWORTH

objected to the clause. It had already been three times before Parliament and had always been rejected. Nor did he disapprove of constructive notice in all cases.

LORD CHELMSFORD

concurred with his noble and learned Friend. The clause proposed to do away altogether with the law as to constructive notice; to this provision he objected.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

was also understood to object to the clause.

LORD ST. LEONARDS

expressed his surprise that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did not approve the clause, seeing that his noble and learned Friend had assisted him in the preparation of it. He (Lord St. Leonards) on the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend had inserted some words in it of which he did not himself altogether approve. It had been the object of his life to secure bonâ fide purchasers for valuable consideration; and he believed that general regret was felt at the extent to which the doctrine of constructive notice had been carried. With actual notice he did not propose to interfere; the Bill only abolished constructive notice in eases where the Court was of opinion that the conduct of such purchaser or mortgagee amounted to fraud, or to such wilful neglect as amounted to fraud. He was willing to frame the clause in any way that would secure the object he bad in view, and to secure that before a man was made liable he should have real notice, such as a honest man would not desire to evade.

LORD CHELMSFORD

explained his objection to the clause.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

acknowledged the existence of the evil, and concurred in the desirability of correcting it; but thought it would not be corrected by introducing words so difficult of construction that they would generate additional confusion, instead of furnishing a convenient and practical rule for the guidance of the Courts. He was sure that his noble and learned Friend could frame such a rule. He therefore earnestly begged him to withdraw the clause, and bring forward another expressed a little more fully and definitely.

LORD ST. LEONARDS

said, that on the appeal made to him he would not refuse to postpone the clause, with the view of recasting it, if possible, in language better calculated to effect its object.

Clause negatived.

Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next.

House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock