What  amounts  to     It  is  by  no  means  an  easy  matter  to  say  what

constructive  no-  ,         , .  i-  j?  l     j  j

tice  depends  on  amounts  to  Constructive  notice;  tor  much  depends

the    circumstan-  <.  i  •      i  t

ces  of  the  case,     upon  the  Circumstances  of  each  particular  case,     in

Jones  V.  Smith.  '^

the  case  of  Jo7ies  v.  Smith,^  Wigram,  V-  C,  states
the  law  on  the  subject  with  great  clearness.  The
facts  of  that  case  were  as  follows  : —  A  person  be-
fore advancing  money  on  a  mortgage,  inquired  of
the  intending  mortgagor  and  his  wife  whether  any
settlement  had  been  made  upon  their  marriage,  and
was  informed  that  a  settlement  had  been  made,  but
of  the  wife's  fortune  only,  and  that  it  did  not  in-
clude the  husband's  estate — the  only  property  which
was  proposed  as  a  security.  He  then  advanced  the
mortgage  money,  without  having  seen  the  settle-
ment or  knowing  its  contents.  Held,  that  the  mort-
gagee was  not,  under  the  circumstances,  affected
with  constructive  notice  of  the  contents  of  the  set-
tlement, or  of  the  fact  that  the  settlement  com-
prised the  husband's  estate.  "  It  is  scarcely  possi-
ble to  declare  a  'priori  what  shall  be  deemed  con-
structive notice,  because  unquestionably  that  which
would  not  affect  one  man  may  be  abundantly  suffi-
cient to  affect  another.     But  I  believe  I  may,  with


1  Plumb  V.  Fluitt,  2  Anst.  438;  Henderson  v.  Graves,  2  A.  &
E.  9.
21  Hare,  55.
THE   MAXIMS   OF   EQUITY.  37

sufficient  accuracy  for  present  purposes,  assert  that  J^°2^*j'^^*^'^^°"
the  cases  in  which  constructive  notice  has  been  es-
tablished,   resolve    themselves    into    two    classes.
