Banner v. Ward
| Decision Date | 26 February 1884 |
| Citation | 21 F. 820 |
| Parties | BANNER and others v. WARD and another. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
W. D Cornish, for complainants.
Warner & Stevens, for defendants.
The complainants insist the relief prayed for should be granted and the title decreed to be in them by virtue of the deeds executed to their devisor and admitted to record four years previous to entry of judgment against Shearman. Shearman is the common source of title, and unless the deeds are notice of title in his grantee by virtue of the record, or his possession is so notorious as to indicate claim of title when the judgment was docketed, the complainants are not entitled to a decree. Two deeds were drawn and executed in England conveying, in the first one, the S.E. 1/4 of section 13, town 101, range 29, and in the second, the W. 1/2 of the same section. It is claimed these deeds were not properly acknowledged, and, although admitted to record, were not constructive notice of title. The complainants' right to relief does not necessarily depend upon the registry of the deeds, and this question will not be discussed. They transferred the title; but the defendants urged that, by virtue of the law of the state, the deeds are void as to them. The defendants obtained judgment against Shearman January 3, 1878, and execution issued May 17, 1879, and the sheriff levied upon and sold the land July 5, 1879, giving the defendants a certificate as purchasers, which was duly recorded.
It may be conceded that the defendants can invoke for their protection chapter 58, Minn. St. 1858, which enacts, in substance, that 'a conveyance not recorded shall be void against judgment creditors' unless the facts proved in regard to possession are sufficient to warn all persons asserting liens or suggest inquiry into the condition of the title at that time. Banner, after his purchase, sent one Sutherland as his agent from England to make improvements and manage the property; and the evidence is clear that he took all the necessary steps to hold the S.E. 1/4 of section 13 town 101, range 29, and his possession as Banner's agent was notice of the latter's rights. Morrison v. March, 4 Minn. 422, (Gil. 325.) The defendants have no better standing in court than a bona fide purchaser without actual knowledge of Banner's possession; and the failure to make inquiry to obtain knowledge of the facts about the land is willful neglect, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrett v. Belmont Land Co.
... ... 158-161; Buck v. Holt, 74 Iowa, 294, 37 N.W. 377; ... Hatch v. Bigelow, 39 Ill. 546; Krider v ... Lafferty, 1 Whart. 303; Banner v. Ward, 21 F ... 820; Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135, 46 N.W. 299 ... In these several cases it was held that digging sand, digging ... ...
-
Betts v. Letcher
...is sufficient. Wickes v. Lake, 25 Wis. 71. The growing and cutting willows upon land every year, for basket-making, is sufficient. Banner v. Ward, 21 F. 820. The running a furrow around a tract of prairie land will suffice. Buck v. Holt, 74 Iowa, 294, 37 N.W. 377. The question then, of noti......
-
Phillis v. Gross
... ... purchaser is charged with notice of the vendee's rights, ... though his title is not of record. Banner et al. v. Ward ... et al. (C. C.) 21 F. 820 ... Appellant ... assigned a number of errors based upon the admission and ... ...
-
Huffman v. Cooley
...a plowed furrow around a tract of prairie land, is sufficient. Betts v. Letcher, supra; Wickes v. Lake, 25 Wis. 71; Banner v. Ward (C. C.) 21 F. 820; v. Holt, 74 Iowa, 294, 37 N.W. 377. Actual possession entitles the occupant to the same rights he would acquire by the recording of the instr......