Atwood v. Bearss

• Decision Date: 19 October 1881
• Citation: 47 Mich. 72,10 N.W. 112
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ATWOOD and another v. BEARSS.

10 N.W. 112

47 Mich. 72

ATWOOD and another v. BEARSS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 19, 1881

Possession and occupancy of land by a grantee is not sufficient notice to subsequent purchasers to answer the purpose of reading the deed, if it is not open, manifest, unequivocal and apparently by virtue of the unrecorded conveyance. So held where the grantee was the grantor's husband and continued to live on the premises with her.

The design of the records and laws is to prevent fraud in real estate transactions by securing certainty and publicity in such dealings, and purchasers should have their conveyances securely recorded.

Error to Tuscola.

Atwood & Markham, for plaintiffs in error.

Tarsney & Weadock, for defendant in error.

GRAVES, J.

At the last January term a judgment in this action which had been recently given for defendant in error was affirmed. 45 Mich ----. The plaintiff in error then obtained a new trial under the statute and Mrs. Bearss again recovered, and we are now asked by the plaintiffs in error to review that determination. Only a single point appears for contending that there is any distinction in substance between the present and the former record and we have no occasion at this time to do more than to indicate our opinion on the merits of that point. The plaintiffs in error now claim title through a deed from the judgment debtor, Mrs. Weldon, to her husband Alfred Weldon, dated April 29, 1876, but not recorded until the day of the trial; and having given evidence tending to show that he continued on the premises until the conveyance to Mrs. Orr in the fall of 1877, they now insist that his being on the premises was as effectual notice of his title under his wife's deed to him as a valid record of that deed would have been, and hence that defendant in error was not a purchaser in good faith within the meaning of the statute. We cannot accede to this view. The design of the statute requiring transactions relative to real estate to be recorded is to prevent fraud by securing certainty and publicity in such dealings, and the first purchaser ought to take care and have his conveyance seasonably recorded. Still if the second grantee has notice of the previous disposition the fundamental purpose is satisfied and his purchase thereafter is infected with bad faith and will not be allowed to prevail against the prior one. The notice to answer this purpose may be express or it...