Tucker v. Gibson

Decision Date10 April 1909
Docket Number15,955
Citation101 P. 633,80 Kan. 90
PartiesT. P. TUCKER v. CHARLES E. GIBSON
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Decided January, 1909.

Error from Greeley district court; CHARLES E. LOBDELL, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

W. M Glenn, for the plaintiff in error.

W. H Russell, and Frank V. Russell, for the defendant in error.

OPINION

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff, Gibson, holds the land in question under a quitclaim deed made after, but recorded before, a warranty deed to the defendant, Tucker, made by the same grantor. The plaintiff purchased in good faith, after exercising all reasonable diligence in making inquiries and in the examination of the records. It is conceded that the plaintiff had no notice of the outstanding unrecorded deed held by the defendant, unless it should be held that one Rhodes, who had such knowledge, was his agent in the purchase of the land.

The question, then, is whether Rhodes was in fact the plaintiff's agent. Upon an examination of the evidence it clearly appears that the plaintiff dealt with Rhodes as the owner of the land and made the purchase directly from him although the naked legal title was in another, who executed the deed. In these circumstances Rhodes was not the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Hart v. Adair
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 20 Agosto 1917
    ...Armor Co. v. Bruner, 19 N.J.Eq. 331; Samson v. Beale, 27 Wash. 557, 68 P. 180; Mayo v. Wahlgreen, 9 Colo.App. 506, 50 P. 40; Tucker v. Gibson, 80 Kan. 90, 101 P. 633; v. Feller, 70 Or. 140, 140 P. 735. Nor can we sustain the Land Company's contention that the evidence does not support the f......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT