Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register
Register

Strong v. Whybark

Law Dictionary
CASE BRIEFS

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
AA
Font size

Property Law Keyed to Cribbet

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 22 Ill.204 Mo. 341, 102 S.W. 968 (1907)

Brief Fact Summary. In this case, Seth Hayden conveyed the same land to two separate persons.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Courts have repeatedly held that if the subsequent purchaser either had notice of the prior unrecorded deed or if he was a purchaser without having paid good and valuable consideration for the land, then he would take nothing by his purchase and deed.


Facts. Seth Hayden was the common source of title claimed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this quiet title action. On March 6, 1861, Seth Hayden, for consideration of $640 conveyed by warranty deed, the land in question to William Moore, which was not recorded until December 14, 1874. On August 26, 1863, Seth Hayden, for consideration of natural love and five dollars, conveyed the same land to Josephine Hayden, which was recorded April 11, 1868. The Plaintiff’s title is derived from Josephine Hayden, while the Defendant’s title is derived from William Moore. The lower court found for the Defendant and the Plaintiff appealed from the lower court’s denial of her motion for a new trial.

Issue. Did the deed to Josephine Hayden, because it was recorded prior to the deed to William Moore, render the Moore deed invalid and inoperative?

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following