Page images
PDF
EPUB

chaser may rely upon the title as it appears of record, and that he will be protected against unrecorded conveyances, outstanding equities, secret liens and conditions of which he has no notice.1 This proposition embodies the general result of benefit and protection afforded by the recording acts. The rule that a perfect record title affords protection does not obtain where the purchaser is chargeable with actual notice. Nor does it obtain when the apparent title of record consists in part of a void deed, for such an instrument being a nullity can acquire no effect by registration, and its record charges no one with notice. The rule, how

1 Quick v. Milligan, 108 Ind. 419; s. c. 58 Am. Rep. 49; Williamson v. Jackson, 107 U. S. 478; Testart v. Belot, 31 La. Ann. 795; Hathorn v. Maynard, 65 Ga. 168; The Conn. Ins. Co. v. Talbot, 113 Ind. 373; s. c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 655; Harrington v. Erie Co. Bank, 101 N. Y. 257; Newton v. McLain, 41 Barb. 285; Cogan v. Cook, 22 Minn. 137; Ramsey v. Jones, 41 O. St. 685; Pancake v. Cauffman, 114 Pa. St. 113; s. c. 7 Atl. Repr. 67; Bailey v. Myrick, 50 Me. 171; Columbia Bank v. Jacobs, 10 Mich. 495; Hart v. Farmer's Bank, 33 Vt. 252; Farmer's Bank v. Wallace, 45 O. St. 152; s. c. 12 N. E. Repr. 439; Hoyt v. Jones, 31 Wis. 389; Newhall v. Burt, 7 Pick. 157; Ashbrooks v. Roberts, 82 Ky. 298; Hulett v. Mut. Ins. Co., 114 Pa. St. 142; s. c. 6 Atl. Repr. 554; Kearnes v. Hill, 21 Fla. 185; Wright v. Lassiter, 71 Tex. 640; Roll'v. Rea, 50 N. J. L. 266; s. c. 12 Atl. Repr. 905; 11 Cent. Repr. 362; Doherty v. Stimmel, 40 O. St. 294.

2 Ante. $12; post, §§165, 215–222, where the subject of actual notice is treated at length.

3 Stone v. French. 37 Kan. 145; s. c. 1 Am. St. Rep. 237; 14 Pac. Repr. 530; Pry v. Pry, 109 III. 466; Chipman v. Tucker, 38 Wis. 43; s. c. 20 Am. Rep. 1; Van Amridge v. Morton, 4 Whart. 382; s. c. 34 Am. Dec. 517; Harkreader v. Clayton, 56 Miss. 383; s. c. 31 Am. Rep. 369; Smith v. South Royalton Bk., 32 Vt. 341; s. c. 76 Am. Dec. 179; Teft v. Munson, 57 N. Y. 97; Pearson v. Powell, 100 N. C. 86.

Such record may be void and ineffectual, because the deed was never delivered. Woodbury v. Fisher, 20 Ind. 387; s. c. 83 Am. Dec. 325; Steffian v. Bank, 69 Tex. 513, 518; s. c. 6 S. W. Repr. 823; Stone v. French, supra; ante, §144; or because it was executed by a person of unsound mind. Valentine v. Lunt, 51 Hun. (58 N. Y. Sup. Ct.), 544. But where the deed is delivered as an escrow, and fraudulently obtained by the grantee, an innocent purchaser is protected. Quick v. Milligan, supra; Bailey v. Crim, 9 Biss. 95.

So the record may be ineffectual because the deed is a forgery. Pry v. Pry, supra; McGinn v. Tobey, 62 Mich. 252; s. c. 4 Am. St. Rep. 848; 28 N. W. Repr. 818; U. S. v. Samperyac, Hemp. 118; or, by statute, on account of usury, Johnson v. Wheelock, 63 Ga. 623; or because made under a power of sale in a mortgage after the debt had been paid.

[ocr errors]

ever, protects a subsequent purchaser without notice, buying from one who purchased with notice, and whose deed is recorded. In such case the latter purchaser is charged neither by the record, nor by any matter of fact affecting his conscience and rendering his action inequitable. The Shippen v. Whittier, 117 Ill. 282; s. c. 7 N. E. Repr. 642; and where the record is thus from any cause void, it will not impart notice of any equities, which by reason of facts aliunde the record, the grantee may have under it. Loomis v. Bush, 36 Mich. 40.

A deed of

Where, through a mistake of name, land was patented to the wrong person, and the patentee sold the land to one having no notice of the mistake, the purchaser was protected against the claim of the person rightfully entitled to the patent. Lea v. Polk Co. Copper Co., 21 How. (62 U. S.), 493; Robbins v. Moore (Ill.), 21 N. E. Repr. 934. trust by a married woman, her husband not joining therein, to secure purchase money due on the premises, though void as a conveyance, has nevertheless been heid such an instrument relating to real estate as, when recorded, is constructive notice of the lien of the vendor. Morrison v. Brown, 83 Ill. 562.

1 Holmes v. Buckner, 67 Tex. 107, 112; s. c. 2 S. W. Repr. 452; Sydnor v. Roberts, 13 Tex. 593; s. c. 65 Am. Dec. 84; Schuchman v. Homestead, 111 Pa. St. 48; s. c. 1 Cent. Repr. 913; Branch v. Griffin, 99 N. C. 173; s. c. 5 S. E. Repr. 393, 398; Lee v. Cato, 27 Ga. 637; s. c. 73 Am. Dec. 476; East v. Pugh, 71 Iowa, 162; s. c. 32 N. W. Repr. 309; Paris v. Lewis, 85 Ill. 597; Pringle v. Dunn, 37 Wis. 449; s. c. 19 Am. Rep. 772; Demarest v. Wyncoop, 3 Johns. Ch., 129; s. c. 8 Am. Dec. 427; Wood v. Chapin, 13 N. Y. 509; s. c. 67 Am. Dec. 52; Howard v. Selman, 77 Ga. 604; Lane v. Schlemmer, 114 Ind. 296; s. c. 5 Am. St. Rep. 621; 15 N. E. Repr. 454.

In Louisiana a mortgage of realty includes the crops grown thereon. Williamson v. Richardson, 31 La. Ann. 685. So. "all things which the owner of a tract of land has placed upon it for its service and improvement, such as working animals, implements of husbandry, machinery and other appurtenances, are immovable by destination, and are covered by a pre-existing mortgage which attaches to the realty." But where the owner removes such property from the mortgaged premises, one purchasing it from him in good faith takes it clear of the mortgage. Weil v. Lapeyre, 38 La. Ann. 303.

The rule applies as to personal property and protects a bona fide purchaser from a fraudulent vendee. Fawcett v. Osborn. 32 Ill. 411; s. c. $3 Am. Dec. 278; Moody v. Black, 117 Mass. 23; s. c. 19 Am. Rep. 394; Le Grand v. Eufala Bank, 81 Ala. 123; s. c. 60 Am. Rep. 140; 1 South. Repr. 460; Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend. 267; s. c. 32 Am. Dec. 541; and has been held even to protect a purchaser who takes goods for a preexisting debt. Butters v. Haughwout, 42 Ill. 18; s. c. 89 Am. Dec. 401. See Collins v. Cook, 40 Tex. 238; post, $207.

2 Pringle v. Dunn, 37 Wis. 449; s. c. 19 Am. Rep. 772: 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., $754; Westbrook v. Gleason, 79 N. Y. 23; Paris v. Lewis, 85 III. 597; Price v. Martin, 46 Miss. 489; Glidden v. Hunt, 24 Pick. 221; Lamb

only ground upon which his rights can be subordinated to those under the prior unregistered conveyance is where he has not paid a valuable consideration within the meaning of the general doctrine on that subject.1 The rule also protects a subsequent purchaser against a mistake by which a larger amount of land was conveyed in the deed to his vendor than was intended.2

$155. Purchaser Without Notice May Convey Title to One With Notice.

3

A purchaser for valuable consideration without notice may convey a perfect and unimpeachable title to one who has notice of an outstanding title or equity. The grantor in such case being entitled to protection, his grantee will be accorded the same protection; and this although such grantee be not a purchaser for value, and although the prior adverse conveyance be recorded before he purchases. The grantor having purchased without notice, the law has declared the prior conveyance, unregistered at the time he bought, absolutely void as to him, and, therefore, it can be v. Davis, 74 Iowa, 719; s. c. 39 N. W. Repr. 114; Knox v. Silliway, 10 Me. 201, 221; Varick v. Briggs, 6 Paige, 323; Hardin v. Harrington, 11 Bush, 367; Mallory v. Stodder, 6 Ala. 801; Trulock v. Peeples, 3 Kelly (Ga.), 446; Tompkins v. Powell, 6 Leigh, 576; Wood v. Mann, 1 Sumn. 503; Webster v. Van Steenburg, 46 Barb. 211.

1 See post, ch. 8, §§204-208; Wade on Notice, §226; Gardner v. Earley, 72 Iowa, 518; s. c. 34 N. W. Repr. 311; Aubuchan v. Bender, 44 Mo. 560; Setter v. Alvey, 15 Kan. 157; Martin v. Sale, 1 Bail. Eq. 1; Barnard v. Campbell, 58 N. Y. 73: s. c. 17 Am. Rep. 208.

2 Garrison v. Crowell, 67 Tex. 626; s. c. 4 S. W. Repr. 69.

3 Moore v. Curry, 36 Tex. 668; Fargason v. Edrington, 49 Ark. 207, 216; s. c. 4 S. W. Repr. 763; Coggswell v. Griffith, 23 Neb. 334; s. c. 36 N. W. Repr. 538; Douglass v. McCracken, 52 Ga. 596; Pierce v. Faunce, 47 Me. 507; Roll v. Rea, 50 N. J. L. 264; s. c. 12 Atl. Repr. 905; 11 Cent. Repr. 362; Blight v. Banks, 6 Mon. 192; s. c. 17 Am. Dec. 136; Pringle v. Dunn, 37 Wis. 449; s. c. 19 Am. Rep. 772; Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason, 252; Bell v. Twilight, 18 N. H. 159; s. c. 45 Am. Dec. 367; Shotwell v. Harrison, 22 Mich. 410; Mills v. Smith, 8 Wall. 27; Funkhouser v. Lay, 78 Mo. 458.

4 Wood v. Chapin, 13 N. Y. 509; s. c. 67 Am. Dec. 52; Fallass v. Pierce, 30 Wis. 442; Crane v. Turner, 7 Hun. 357; Webster v. VanSteenburg, 46 Barb. 211; Boynton v. Rees, 8 Pick. 329; s. c. 19 Am. Dec. 326.

given no effect whatever against his rights. The value of the property in his hands would be greatly depreciated if the subsequent record of the prior conveyance, or actual notice of it, could deprive him of the power to sell and convey his perfect title to third persons.2 The second purchaser, with notice, takes the title of his grantor unincumbered for the reason that without this, the law does not accord the full measure of protection of which it gives assurance. The jus disponendi would otherwise be clogged by a restraint of indefinite duration. There is, however, one well recognized exception to the rule stated in this section. That exception is that the title cannot be conveyed free from the prior equities, back to a former owner who was charged with notice at the time his interest attached. He cannot clear off the equities by transferring the title to an innocent party, and then re-purchasing it. In such case, all the equities revive and attach to the property in his 1 Coster's Executors v. Bank of Ga., 24 Ala. 37; Mott v. Clark, 9 Barr, 399; Boynton v. Rees, 8 Pick. 329.

2 Wade on Notice, §62, citing. Lowther v. Carlton, 2 Atk. 242.

3 Cook v. Travis, 20 N. Y. 400; Jackson v. McChesney, 7 Cow. 360; Losey v. Simpson, 11 N. J. Eq. 246; Allison v. Hagan, 12 Nev. 38; Bush v. Lathrap, 22 N. Y. 539, 549; Meshirley v. Burt, 44 Ind. 382; Trull v. Bigelow, 16 Mass. 406; Jackson v. Given, 8 Johns. 137; City Council v. Page, Speer's Eq. 159; Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Pet. 252; Bracken v. Miller, 4 Watts & S. 102; Lindsey v. Rankin, 4 Bibb. 282; Bumpus v. Platner, 1 Johns. Ch. 213; Halstead v. Bank of Ky., 4 J. J. Marsh. 554; Blight v. Banks, 6 Mon. 192; Fletcher v. Beck, 6 Cranch, 36; Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pet. 177; Kirby v. Miller, 1 Casey, 264; Holmes v. Stout, 3 Green Ch. 492; Curtis v. Lunn, 6 Munf. 42.

4 The rule stated in this section will not be applied under all circumstances. Thus where the first purchaser, although without notice, was a mere volunteer, and therefore held subject to equities, a purchaser from him with notice also took subject to the same equities. Johns v. Sewell, 33 Ind. 1. A tenant in common, with notice, cannot get a clear title from his co-tenant without notice by partition. Blatchley v. Osborne, 33 Conn. 226.

5 Simpson v. Montgomery, 25 Ark. 365; s. c. 99 Am. Dec. 228; Trentman v. Eldridge, 98 Ind. 525; Ashton's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 153; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 401; Church v. Church, 1 Casey, 278; Church v. Ruland, 64 Pa. St. 432; Bumpus v. Platner, 1 Johns. Ch. 213; Troy City Bank v. Wilcox, 20 Wis. 671.

Schutt v. Large, 6 Barb. 373.

hands. The principle has also been applied where an agent who had been guilty of bad faith in the first sale, 'subsequently purchased the property for himself.2

§156. When Full Record Title Does Not Protect Purchaser in Good Faith.

The rule stated in the preceding section applies only where the first purchaser is a purchaser without notice. If he buys with notice, or without valuable consideration, his conveyance to another who also has notice, will be subject to the rights and equities that attach against the property in his hands. And although such later vendee be without actual notice, yet if the prior outstanding conveyance is recorded before he purchases, he is thereby charged with constructive notice. He is not, in this instance, entitled to protection for his grantor's sake, nor can he claim it on his own account, because the prior deed of the adverse party is on record when he buys. The prior first conveyance, not being void as against a subsequent conveyance with notice, or without valuable consideration, can claim the right and effect of record at any time before the property is conveyed to a 12 Pom. Eq. Jur., §754; Trentman v. Eldridge, 98 Ind. 525; Kennedy v. Daly, 1 Sch. & Lef. 355.

2 A deed and a mortgage of the same property were executed on the same day to different parties, neither referring to the other. The agent of the mortgagor, through bad faith or negligence, failed to record the mortgage until after the deed was recorded, and it was held that a subsequent purchase of the property by him from the grantee in the deed was subject to the rights of the mortgagee. Mitchell v. Aten, 37 Kan. 33; s. c. 1 Am. St. Rep. 231; 14 Pac. Repr. 530.

3 This is but the operation of the general principle of the equitable doctrine of notice. Ante, $12; post, ch. IX; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., §§759, 659666. It applies where a purchaser is affected with knowledge of fraud, as well as of a prior conveyance. See cases cited ante, $89.

4 Mahoney v. Middleton, 41 Cal. 41; Warden v. Williams, 24 Ill. 67; Van Renssellaer v. Clark, 17 Wend. 25; Jackson v. Post, 15 Wend. 588; Sims v. Hammond, 33 Iowa, 368; Cabeen v. Breckinridge, 48 Ill. 91, 95; Morrison v. Kelley, 22 Ill. 610; s. c. 74 Am. Dec. 169; English v. Waples, 13 Iowa, 57; Fallass v. Pierce, 30 Wis. 442; Flynt v. Arnold, 2 Metc. 619; Schutt v. Large, 6 Barb. 373; Ring v. Steele, 3 Keyes, 450; Goelet v. McManus, 1 Hun. 306; 1 Jones on Mort., §§574, 575; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., $760.

1

« PreviousContinue »