In the examination of the abstract with the documents, scrupulous care is requisite on the part of the solicitor. The object of the examination is to ascertain, 1st, that what} has been abstracted is correctly abstracted; 2ndly, that what is omitted is immaterial; 3rdly, that the documents are perfect, as respects execution, attestation, indorsed receipts, registration, acknowledgment, enrolment, stamps (o); and 4thly, that there are not any indorsed notices, or other circumstances attending the mode of execution or attestation calculated to excite suspicion (p). Anything out of the ordinary course - e.g., formerly the unusual position of the indorsed receipt (q) - should be made the subject of inquiry; and every part of every document ought to be read through. Notice of an incumbrance is equally notice whether contained in one or in another part of a deed (r): and if an important point is overlooked, the purchaser, after the conveyance is executed and the purchase-money is paid, will have no remedy (in the absence of fraud) against the vendor unless it falls within the covenants for title; and this, apparently, even though the abstract may have been incorrect (s).,

Points to be attended to in comparing abstract with the deeds.

Erasures and interlineations in a deed are to be presumed to have been made prior to, or at the time of, its execution (t); as, on any other supposition, a crime must be presumed to have been committed (u): but, in the absence of proof to the contrary, erasures and interlineations in a will are presumed to be made after its execution (x); and also after the execution of a codicil, which does not refer to them (y).

Erasures and interlineations.

(o) As to a purchaser's right to have all deeds properly stamped, see sup. p. 167.

(p) See Kennedy v. Green, (1834) 3 M. & K. 699.

(q) Kennedy v. Green, sup., and the judgment in Greenslade v. Bare, (1856) 20 Beav. 284; 1 Jur. N. S. 294.

(r) See Smith v. Capron, (1849) 7 Ha. at p. 189; 19 L. J. Ch. 322.

(s) See M'culloch v. Gregory, (1855) 1 K. & J. 286, 291; 24 L. J. Oh. 246.

(t) Doe v. Caiomore, (1851) 16 Q. B. 745.

(u) Per V.-c. W. in Williams v. Ashton, (1860) 1 J. & H. 115, 118;

3 L. T. 177

(x) Doe v. Palmer, (1851) 16 Q. B. 747; Cooper v. Bockett, (1842)

4 Mo. P. C. 419; Greville v. Tylee, (1851) 7 ib. 320; Freeman v. Steggel,

(1849) 13 Jur. 1030; 14 L. T. (O. S.) 129; Simmons v. Rudall, (1851) 1 Si. N. S. 115, 136; 15 Jur. 162; Gann v. Gregory, (1854) 3D.M.&G. 777; 23 L. T. 136; Re White, (1860) 6 Jur. N. S. 808; 30 L. J. P. 55; and see Williams v. Ashton, (1860) 1 J. & H. 115, 118; 3 L. T. 177, and statement of the rule in the judgment.

(y) Rowley v. Merlin, (1860) 6 Jur. N. S. 1165. Alterations in the will of a soldier on actual military service (including in the term "soldier" a member of the Air Force) or a mariner or seaman being at sea are presumed to have been made during the time that ho was on military service or at sea, as the case may be: Re Tweedale, (1874) L. R. 3 P. & D. 204; 44 L. J. P. & M. 35; see the Wills (Soldiers and Sailors) Act, 1918, s. 5 (2). As to what is "actual military service," see In the Goods of Hiscock, 1901, P. 78; 70 L. J. P. 22; Gattward v. Knee, 1902, P. 99, 103; 71 L. J. P. 3.4; Re Limond, 1915, 2 Oh. 240; Re Grey, 1922, P. 140.

(427)