Swanstrom v. Washington Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 02 February 1906
• Citation: 83 P. 1112,41 Wash. 561
• Parties: SWANSTROM et ux. v. WASHINGTON TRUST CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

83 P. 1112

41 Wash. 561

SWANSTROM et ux. v. WASHINGTON TRUST CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 2, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Geo. C. Hatch, Judge.

Action by Frederick E. Swanstrom and wife against the Washington Trust Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. R Clise, for appellant.

Peters & Powell, for respondents.

RUDKIN J.

The question of priority between two deeds for the same property from the same grantor is the only question presented on this appeal. On the 5th day of December, 1903, one Angus W. Young conveyed certain property to the appellant, by warranty deed to secure the payment of the sum of $8,000. This deed was not filed for record or recorded until the 10th day of June 1904. On the 27th day of May, 1904, said Angus W. Young conveyed, by deed, a portion of the same property to the respondents, for a valuable consideration. The respondents purchased the property, paid the purchase price, and received their deed, without either actual or constructive notice of the prior deed to the appellant. This deed was not filed for record or recorded until the 7th day of March, 1905. On these facts the respondents contend that their deed has priority, because they were bona fide purchasers without actual or constructive notice of the prior and unrecorded deed. The appellant, on the other hand, contends that its deed has priority because it was first in time and was first recorded.

The decision of this question depends upon our registeration laws. Section 4535, Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St provides that 'all deeds, mortgages, and assignments of mortgages, shall be recorded in the office of the county auditor of the county where the land is situated, and shall be valid as against bona fide purchasers from the date of their filing for record in said office, and when so filed shall be notice to all the world.' It is not necessary that the subsequent conveyance should be first recorded in order to gain priority, unless the statute so provides. The rule is thus stated in Webb on Record of Titles, § 13: 'The statutes of nearly one-third of the states and territories provide that an unregistered conveyance shall be void as against a subsequent purchaser in good faith 'whose conveyance shall be first recorded.' Where the statute does not by such express terms make the rights of the subsequent purchaser depend on priority of record...