Excerpt from An Essay on Marketable or Doubtful Titles to Real Estate P Hardey v. Pehall (peake's N P. C. 178) was an action by the vendor to recover damages for breach of the contract: the purchaser resisted on the ground of a defective title, the ques tion being, whether a certain covenant was or was not valid! Lord Kenyon refused to decide the point. Saying that he thought this a question of some nicety, but whether it was or not he thought it equally a defence to the action. When a man buys any commodity he expects to have a clear undisputable title, and not such a one as may be questionable at least in a court of law. N 0 man is obliged to buy a law suit. The same doctrine was recognised and acted upon in Wilde v. Fort, 4 Taunt. 341, where also it was held that the purchaser was entitled to recover his deposit. Because it was doubtful whether a person under whom the vendors claimed was liable to account to the crown, and whether on the construction ofa deed 30years old, the wife of a party to that deed was barred of her dower it was also held that the latter objection was not answered by evidence at the trial that the wife hath died previously to the contract of purchase, for though the title of the dowress had accrued 30 years back, it was not clear that it had then ceased. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.