any fact, sufficient to put him on enquiry as to the existence of some right or title in conflict with that he is about to purchase, he is presumed either to have made the inquiry, and as- certained the extent of such prior right, or to have been guilty of a degree of negligence equally fatal to his claim, to be considered as a bona fide pur- chaser. The presumption, however, is a mere inference of fact, and may be repelled by proof that the purchaser failed to discover the prior right notwithstanding the exercise of proper diligence on his part.” Per Selden J., in Williamson v. Brown (1857) 15 N.Y. 354, 362. See further Joyce J. in Berwick v. Price (1905) L.R. 1 Ch. 632. Constructive notice is founded on the assumption that the purchaser had no personal knowledge of the prior interest or equity affecting the property which he proposes to buy. It is enough if it can be established that he, the purchaser, would have had notice had he made reasonable inquiry required in the circumstance of the transaction. Where there are sufficient facts calling for an en- quiry which would have disclosed the incumbrances affecting the property, and such enquiry is not made, the purchaser is bound by constructive notice of the incumberances. Failure to make such inquiry is attributed to want of good faith or gross negligence on the part of the purchaser, which in each case, destroys his bonafide. First, a prudent purchaser will call for and investigate the title of his vendor. A purchaser who fails to make such inquiries will be fixed with notice of all incumbrances affecting the title, for, such incumbrances would have come to his notice had he made necessary inquiries. In Oliver v. Hinton (1899) 2 Ch. 264, the proceedings arose from an action to