Generally the first party will be the grantor (vendor, mortgagor, lessor,
donor, etc) and the second the grantee (purchaser, borrower, lessee, donee,
etc.). On a transfer of mortgage, the old lender may be first, the borrower
second, and the new lender third. 18th century settlements often had
several parties, but the order was often similar, but trustees under the
settlement are often towards the end. These were conventions, not rules. I
have seen cases, where a member of the nobility was placed first despite
being the purchaser.
In multi-partite transactions, it is dangerous to rely merely on the order
of the parties: a respected historian published something gravely misleading
by only reading a National Library of Wales calendar and not checking the
documents: he interpreted what is in fact a partnership between A B C And D
as a lease by A and B to C and D.
A sitting tenant who was not involved in the transaction would not normally
be a party, but there may be exceptions to this. However he might be named
in the text of the document, by this saying in describing the property that
it was in the tenure (or possession or occupation) of E. Details of a lease
to him may also appear in a covenant against encumbrances, in the latter
part of the document which is largely common form and which I (and many
other historians) often do not read, but I would regard this as an advanced
level topic for specialists.
Peter King
49, Stourbridge Road,
Hagley,
Stourbridge
West Midlands
DY9 0QS
01562-720368
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: From: Local-History list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Mike Syer
Sent: 20 October 2007 12:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Parties to an indenture
Please can some one advise, where deeds of a property refer to an
Indenture between Person 1 of the first part, Person 2 of the second
part and Person 3 of the third part, is there any easy way of knowing
which of these is the vendor and which is the purchaser (and what the
role of the other one was)?
Were sitting tenants ever included as named parties to such
transactions?
Thanks
Mike
|