CONVEYANCE. The transfer of the title of land from one person or class of persons to another. Dickerman v. Abrahams, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 551; Abendroth v. Town of Greenwich, 29 Conn. 356.
There is no magical meaning in this word ; it denotes an instrument which carries from , one person to another an interest in land ; Cairns, L. C., in L. R. 10 Ch. App. 12.
The instrument for effecting such trans fer. It includes leases ; Jones v. Marks, 47 Cal. 242 ; and mortgages ; Odd Fellows Sav ings Bank v. Banton, 46 Cal. 603.
When there is no express agreement to the contrary, the expense of the conveyance falls upon the purchaser ; 2 Ves. 155, note; who must prepare and tender the convey ance. But see, contra, Fairfax v. Lewis, 2 Rand. (Va.) 20; Warvelle, Vend. 347. The expense of the execution of the conveyance is, on the contrary, usually borne by the ven dor; Sugd. Vend. & P. 296; contra, Fairfax v. Lewis, 2 Rand. (Va.) 20 ; Cooper v. Brown, 2 McLean 495, Fed. Cas. No. 3,191. See Liv ermore v. Bagley, 3 Mass. 487; Dudley v. sumner, 5 id. 472 ; Eunom. 2, § 12.
The forms of conveyance have varied wide ly from each other at different periods in the history of the law, and in the various states of the United States. The mode at present prevailing in this country is by bar gain and sale.
A lease is a conveyance ; Shinier v. Town of Phillipsburg, 58 N. J. L. 506, 33 Atl. 852 ; Sanford v. Johnson, 24 Minn. 172; Jones v.
Marks, 47 Cal. 242; Crouse v. Michell, 130 Mich. 347, 90 N. W. 32, 97 Am, St. Rep. 479 ; Koeber v. Somers, 108 Wis. 497, 84 N. W. 991, 52 L. R. A. 512; Milliken v. Faulk, 111 Ala. 658, 20 South. 594; contra, Stone v. Stone, 1 R. I. 425 (under a general recording statute; and is it where a married woman's act requires a husband to join in all convey ances?) ; Heal v. Oil Co., 150 Ind. 483, 50 N. E. 482 ; Perkins v. Morse, 78 Me. 17, 2 AU, 130, 57 Am. Rep. 780; Sullivan v. Barry, 46 N. J. L. 1; nor within meaning of an act declaring that no covenants shall be implied in any conveyance of real estate; Tone v. Brace, 11 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 566; Mayor, etc., of City of New York v. Mabie, 13 N. Y. 151, 64 Am. Dec. 538; Shaft v. Carey, 107 Wis. 273, 83 N. W. 288. Where a statute al lowed appeals in cases involving conveyanc es of real estate, it was held that an order directing a lease to be executed was not within the statute; Tuohy's Estate, 23 Mont. 305, 58 Pac. 722.