Peters v. Huff
| Decision Date | 04 December 1901 |
| Citation | 88 N.W. 179,63 Neb. 99 |
| Parties | PETERS v. HUFF ET AL. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Whether, in matters pertaining to the title of real estate, a person may rely on an abstract of title duly made and certified, and without making an examination of the public records in order to free himself from the charge of culpable neglect, when relief is asked in a court of equity on the ground of mistake, quære.
2. When the record discloses that a person seeking relief in a court of equity, on the ground of mistake as to the condition of title to real estate with respect to which he had acted, relied on an abstract of title of which there is no evidence showing it to have been prepared by a competent and qualified abstracter, or to include or purporting to include information regarding the condition of the title as affected by pending suits regarding which the mistake occurred, and on account of which the relief is prayed, it cannot be said the party asking the relief was free from culpable neglect, and a decree denying him such relief will not be disturbed on appeal.
3. Judgment of affirmance on former hearing (83 N. W. 920, 60 Neb. 625) adhered to.
On rehearing. Affirmed.
For former opinion, see 83 N. W. 920.
On a former submission of this cause a decision was rendered affirming the judgment of the trial court. Hayden v. Huff, 60 Neb. 625, 83 N. W. 920. Appellant, Hayden, applied for, and was successful in obtaining, a rehearing. Since the order granting the rehearing the action has been revived in the name of Edwin T. Peters as administrator of the estate of Hayden, now deceased. The rehearing was granted solely for the purpose of further investigating the question of whether, in matters pertaining to the transfer of real estate, a party may rely on an abstract of title to such real estate, without examination of the public records affecting the title thereto, and be free from the charge of culpable negligence entitling him to equitable relief, on the ground of mistake, by way of subrogation to the rights of a mortgagee whose mortgage had been satisfied in ignorance of other incumbrances attaching to the land, inferior to such mortgage, but which became effective and collectible by the satisfaction of such mortgage lien. A full statement of the case is contained in the decision first rendered, and need not here be repeated. From the statement of the case therein made, and the opinion following, the logical deduction is that in no instance can reliance be had on an abstract of title properly made and certified to by a competent and qualified abstracter, but resort must be had in all cases to the official records showing the condition of the title, and of which construction notice is always imputed, in order to free one dealing with respect to such title from negligence which will preclude any relief by a court of equity on the ground of mistake. From this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ayres v. Thurston Cnty.
- Peters v. Huff
-
Buck v. Hogeboom
...1901. Presumably this was because of the distinction between a dismissal and striking from the docket, which is mentioned in Peters v. Huff, 63 Neb. 99, 88 N.W. 179. defendant's death has been called to the attention of the court by both parties, and no steps to procure an administration ta......