and to hold the same unto the said Bass, his heirs and assigns: To the use of such person or persons, and for such estate or estates, and in such manner as he the said Topham, during his life, should by any deed appoint, and for want thereof, To the use of the said Topham and Bass, and the heirs and assigns of the said Topham for ever; the estate of the said Bass being in trust for the said Topham, his heirs and assigns for ever, The lease for a year was made between the said Thickston, of the one part, and the said Bass, of the other part; and thereby the said Thickston, in consideration of five shillings to him paid by the said Bass, did bargain and sell to the said Bass, his executors, administrators, and assigns, all the said premises, to hold the same to the said Bass, his executors, &c. from the day next before the day of the date thereof, for the term of one year at a pepper-corn rent; to the intent, that by virtue thereof, and of the statute for transferring uses into possession, he the said Bass might be in actual possession of the premises, and be thereby enabled to take a grant and release of the reversion and inheritance thereof, to him and his heirs; to and upon such uses, &c. as should be declared by the said indenture of 'release,

It was admitted, that the only objection to the defendant's title was in the insertion

of the name of J. Topham, as releasee instead of G. Bass, in the indenture of 24th March, 1781. The question for the court was, whether the defendant could make a good title to a purchaser? if he could, a verdict to be entered for the defendant; if not, the verdict for the plaintiff to stand.

The case cited for the plaintiff was Cro. ́Eliz. 903, 4 ; and the cases cited for the defendant were Co. Litt. 7. a. Shep. Touch. 75. Butler v. Elton, Cary's Rep. in Cha. 122, and Erles v. Lambert, Alleyn, 41, to shew that a grant is good, although the name of the grantee be omitted in the premises of the deed, provided it be mentioned in the habendum.

Lord Ellenborough, Ch. J. gave the judgment of the court; declaring the cases cited were perfectly satisfactory in authorising the court to put a construction on the deed, in support of it, which from the reason and good sense of the thing, the court would probably have done, without such authorities.

In Trethewy v. Ellesdon (c), the indenture was made the 29th day of September, &c. between Nicholas Cossen, &c. of the one part, and Elizabeth Cossen, &c. and Nicholas Cossen, the younger, son of the said Elizabeth, of the other part; and it witnessed,

(c) 2 Ventris, 141.

that whereas the said Elizabeth Cossen had given and surrendered into the hands of the said Nicholas Cossen, one indenture of lease of an annuity, dated the 15th March, 1657, of ten pounds yearly, going out of all that his barton and demesne called Mulden, for a term yet to come, as in and by the said indenture of lease more fully and at large appeareth, hath given, granted, and confirmed, and in and by these presents, doth give, grant, and confirm unto the said Elizabeth Cossen, her heirs and assigns, by these presents, one annuity, &c, to have, receive, and take yearly the said annuity to the said Elizabeth Cossen and Nicholas Cossen, the younger, and the survivor and survivors of them at the usual feasts, &c.

And it was argued for the plaintiff, that there was no sufficient grant by this indenture; for it is said to be made between Nicholas of the one part, and Elizabeth and Nicholas Cossen, junior, of the other part, and then recited the surrender of a former grant; after which came these words, "hath "given and granted, and by these presents "doth give and grant, &c." and no grantor named.

But the court were of opinion as to the matter, that it was a good grant, the indenture being between Nicholas Cossen, of the one part, and Elizabeth of the other part;

and then after a recital saith, "hath given " and granted to Elizabeth, &c." that must be taken that Nicholas Cossen hath given and granted.

The usual words of grant in this assurance are as to trustees, "bargain, sell, and "release," and as to persons beneficially interested as owners, 66 grant, bargain, sell, "release and confirm."

The formal and more efficient words are "release and confirm." Either of these expressions will be effectual for the object to be attained: even if both these words should be omitted, either of the other words would, it is apprehended, enable the grantee, being the owner of a particular estate capable of enlargement, to plead the deed as a release.

When the grant is made at the request or under the direction, &c. of any person, the request, &c. are generally introduced in this form:

"The said at the instance and re"quest, and by the direction and appoint"ment of the said A. B. and with the pri"vity, consent, and approbation of the " said C. D. testified by their respectively

executing these presents, hath granted, "&c. and by these presents doth, &c."

Formerly it was usual to repeat this clause after the words of grant in the past and also in the present tense.

But by adding the words of direction, &c. immediately before the words of grant in the past tense, the language of direction, &c. equally governs the words in the pre

sent tense.

This is then the more neat, and now the more usual mode of introducing the clause of direction, &c. It avoids a repetition which is always ungrateful to those who read legal instruments.

When there are several grantors, the clause of grant is, in more correct practice, introduced by words of joint and several grant, viz. the said A. B. C. D. and E. F. have, and each and every of them hath granted, &c. and by these presents do, and each and every of them doth, &c. And frequently different grantors are arranged in classes, so as to shew the different circumstances under which, and the different characters in which, the grantors act. A complex form is added, as best illustrating the utility and even the object of this arrangement. In exercising powers given to several persons jointly, no words of severance, as in the case of a joint and several grant, are used.

In this clause also, the releasee ought to be named. This is proper, though not absolutely necessary. It was formerly the opinion, that though a grant might be good without an habendum, an habendum could not be good without a grant. As far