Hastings v. Brooker
| Decision Date | 31 October 1884 |
| Docket Number | 11,846 |
| Citation | 98 Ind. 158 |
| Parties | Hastings v. Brooker |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Marion Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed.
I Klingensmith, for appellant.
J. S Harvey, for appellee.
The appellant leased the real estate in controversy from Christopher Hilgenberg, and entered into possession as his tenant. After he had been in possession for several months, and had paid rent to Hilgenberg under the contract demising the premises, the appellee demanded possession and brought this action to evict the appellant. The latter resisted the demand, insisted by his answer and evidence, that he was in possession as the tenant of Hilgenberg, the rightful owner of the property. The important issue, therefore, was as to the ownership of the real estate, for if Hilgenberg was the owner, then the appellee had no case.
The appellee read in evidence a warranty deed executed to him by Elisha T. Reddick and wife, on the 9th day of September, 1881, but not recorded until the 24th day of March, 1883. The registry was not within the time prescribed by law, and the deed did not become effective, as against purchasers who bought in good faith and without actual notice, until it was recorded. The appellant, at the proper time, offered in evidence a quitclaim deed, executed by Reddick and wife, on the 26th day of August, 1882, and recorded on the 28th day of that month, but the court refused to admit it.
A quitclaim deed is effective to convey title. It is a vehicle of title conveying to the grantee such title as the grantor has, and to that extent is as operative as any deed can be. R. S. 1881, sec. 2924; Rowe v. Beckett, 30 Ind. 154. It is held by respectable courts that one may become a bona fide purchaser under a quitclaim deed. McConnel v. Reed, 4 Scam. 117; Fash v. Blake, 38 Ill. 363; Graff v. Middleton, 43 Cal. 341. Other courts, however following English authors, declare a different rule. It is difficult to perceive why a grantee in a quitclaim deed may not hold as a bona fide purchaser in countries where there is a registry law, for it appears equitable that as the deed conveys title it should be deemed effective in favor of one who has paid full value, has acted in good faith and without notice, as against one who has kept his deed off of record for an unreasonable length of time. The object of the registry law is to make grantees record their deeds and to impose upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. McClain
...to convey all the existing interest of the grantor in the land described, and to that extent is as operative as any deed can be. Hastings v. Brooker, 98 Ind. 158, and cases cited. There is nothing in the deed to the widow to indicate that it was not the intention of the grantors that it sho......
-
Smith v. McClain
...transfer title to land as a deed of bargain and sale. Sections 3343, 3347, 3348 (2924, 2928, 2929), supra; Davidson v. Coon, supra; Hastings v. Brooker, supra. there is some conflict in the authorities upon this question, we think the correct doctrine under the recording acts is that, one m......
-
Meikel v. Borders
... ... The ... question thus presented is a troublesome one, which, although ... somewhat discussed in Hastings v. Brooker, ... 98 Ind. 158, has never been decided by this court. Outside of ... this State the authorities are said to be in a ... "distressing ... ...
-
Meikel v. Borders
...under which the appellants claim title. The question thus presented is a troublesome one, which, although somewhat discussed in Hastings v. Brooker, 98 Ind. 158, has never been decided by this court. Outside of this state the authorities are said to be in a “distressing conflict.” SPEER, J.......