The doctrine of bona fide purchase is of ancient origin. It has had many significances and interpretations attached to it. At one time it was explained entirely by the special nature of equity and equitable remedies. Maitland used it to show that equities were rights in personam. That the doctrine is no gauge for the quality of the prior estate was shown by Dean Pound, since legal titles may also be cut off. The doctrine has been criticized as anomalous. Two other writers have taken rather different views of the rule. Mr. J. E. Hogg suggests that the bona fide purchase doctrine is a substitute for an adequate recording system of equities, while Mr. Huston puts the doctrine upon what is perhaps a slightly broader basis of general policy.5 There seems to be an agreement however, that the subsequent purchaser must get an equity plus the legal title without notice. This is subject to the exception that in certain cases the "best right to call" for the legal title Is equivalent to title; it is at least doubtful how far this exception will be extended.