Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Purchase-Real-Estate-2/Matters-necessary-to-insure-the-full-effect-of-the-executed-Conveyance-Part-5.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:37:22+00:00

Document:
But vendor pays for his own admittance if necessary.
Where an allotment under an Inclosure Act had been made generally in respect of the landowner's several copyhold tenements, and the custom of the manor was to pay the same fee on admission to part as on admission to the whole of a tenement, the steward, upon the subsequent admittance of a purchaser to part of the allotment, was held to be entitled to as many fees as the allottee had tenements at the time of the inclosure (t).
Steward's fees on admittance to an allotment held under several titles.
(m) L. P. Act, 1925, s. 48 (1). (n) lb. s. 42 (3).
(o) lb. s. 42 (2). (p) lb. s. 43 (1).
(q) Sec L. P. Act, 1922, ss. 129 (2) and 130; sup. p. 591.
(r) Bradley v. Munton, (1852) 16 Beav. 294. Steward's fees are now fixed by the Enfranchised Land (Steward's Fees) Regulations, 1926 (S. R. & O., 1926, No. 3).
(s) See Drury v. Man, (1746) 1 Atk. 95; Paramore v. Greenslade, (1854) 1 S. & G. 541; 23 L. J. Ch. 34.
(t) Evans v. Upsher, (1847) 16 M. & W. 675; 16 L. J. Ex. 185; Scriven, 7th ed. 205.
The lord is not entitled to any fine or compensation upon a conveyance by a copyholder under s. 95 of the L. C. C. Act, 1845: or upon the enrolment of such conveyance (u). Nor is the lord entitled to a fine upon the creation of a mortgage after 1925, unless a licence to create such mortgage would formerly have been required, or unless the mortgagee sells or transfers the mortgage without the concurrence of the mortgagor or unless the equity of redemption becomes extinguished (x). But in certain circumstances a double fine becomes payable (y).
Upon the grant of a lease the lessor's solicitor usually, but not invariably, prepares the lease; and the lessee must pay the expenses of the lessor incurred in its preparation (z); and the lessor must pay for a counterpart if he requires one (a).
Upon a sale under the L. C. C. Act, 1845, the company must pay the vendor's costs, either under s. 80 or 8. 82, according as the land has been taken (b) in exercise of their compulsory powers, or by agreement with the landowner. By the latter section, which is applicable to purchases by agreement, the company must pay the vendors all their costs of the conveyance, and the costs of making out and proving their title (c): such costs (if the parties differ) to be taxed by the Master (d). This section provides simply for the legal expenses of making out the title to, and of conveying, the property, taking these expenses in their largest sense: but not for any costs of ascertaining what that is which is to be put into the document (e): thus, the costs of apportioning an entire ground-rent between houses taken by the company and others retained by the vendor, have been held not to fall upon the company (f). As respects, therefore, such preliminary and other expenses of sale as are not provided for by this section, the vendor should either expressly stipulate for their payment, or he may make them a ground for claiming larger compensation if he goes before a jury. And the costs payable by the company under s. '82 include the expense of getting in any outstanding legal estates, terms, or interests (g). In the case just referred to, the costs of taking out administration, which was necessary in order to obtain a legal assignment of the property, were held to fall within this section. The vendor has no lien for the amount of his costs upon the moneys deposited under s. 85 (h).
Purchasers pay vendor's costs on sale under L. C. C. Act.
As to costs of conveyance, etc. under s.82.
(u) Eccl. Comm. v. L. & S. W. R. Co., (1854) 14 C. B. 743; 23 L. J. C. P. 177.
(x) L. P. Act, 1922, s. 130 (2) and (3).
(y) lb. s. 130 (4).
(z) Grissell v. Robinson, (1836) 3 Scott, 329; 3 Ring. N. C. 10; Re Gray, 1901, 1 Ch. 243; 70 L. J. Ch. 133, and cases there cited.
(a) See Grissell v. Robinson, sup.; Webb v. Rhoades, (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. 732; Sutherland v. Briggs, (1841) 1 Ha. 26, 39; 11 L. J. N. S. Oh. 36; Re Negus, 1895, 1 Ch. 73, 81 - 82; 64 L. J. Ch. 79; Re Gray, 1901, 1 Ch. 239, 244.
(b) Lands upon which the company has entered under s. 85 are lands "taken" within the meaning of s. 80, so as to render the company liable to pay the costs of ascertaining the amount of compensation: Charlton v. Rolleston, (1884) 28 Ch. D. 237; 54 L. J. Ch. 233.
(c) Re Spooner, (1854) 1 K. & J. 220.
(d) S. 83. The company cannot get the costs taxed after they have paid them. Taxation. if required, must be obtained before payment; Ex v. Somerville. (1883) 23 Ch. D. 167; 52 L. J. Ch. 438.
It has been considered that general expressions referring to costs to be incurred in consequence of the sale, or the proposal for the sale, or the taking of the land, whether occurring in an Act of Parliament or a private agreement (i), would not throw upon the purchasers the cost of re-investment: out it has been decided that such costs are included in a provision for payment of costs "attending the application for re-investment" of money paid into Court (k).
General expressions, whether sufficient to throw costs of re-investment on purchasers.
Under s. 80, where the land is taken by the company in the exercise of their compulsory powers, and the purchasemoney has been deposited in the bank under the provisions of the Act, the company is liable to pay the costs of the purchase or taking of the land, or which shall have been incurred in consequence thereof (other than such costs as are otherwise provided for by the Act); and the costs of the investment of such money in government or real securities; and of the re-investment thereof in the purchase of other lands; and also the costs of obtaining the proper orders for any of the above purposes; and of the orders for payment of income, and for payment out of Court of the principal, and of all proceedings relating thereto, except such as are occasioned by adverse claimants: but the section excepts those cases where the money is so deposited by reason of the wilful refusal of the party entitled thereto to receive the same, or to convey or release the lands, or by reason of the wilful neglect of any party to make out a good title to the land required: e.g., where the owner failed to make out his title within the time prescribed by the statutory notices (l)..

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.