Login

Login

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

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register
Register

Wineberg v. Moore

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.194 F. Supp. 12 (N.D. Cal. 1961)

Brief Fact Summary. In this case, the Plaintiff, Wineberg (Plaintiff), sued to quiet title and for other relief to 880 acres of land, which the Plaintiff alleged that he purchased from Barker in May 1948 for $6,000. However, the Plaintiff failed to record his deed until May 1951. In the interim between the Plaintiff’s purchase and recording, Barker made a contract for the sale of timber on the land to the Defendant, Construction Engineers (Defendant No. 1), the contract recorded in 1950. In 1951 Barker sold the property again deeding the property to the Defendant, Natural Resources, Inc. (Defendant No. 2) and that deed was likewise recorded prior to the Plaintiff’s deed. Also, several judgment creditors had obtained judgments against Barker during this period, some of which were also made Defendants.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Possession is notice not only of whatever title the occupant has, but also of whatever right he may have in the property. Also, the knowledge chargeable to a person after he is put on inquiry by possession of land is not limited to such knowledge as would be gained by examination of the public records.


Facts. In this case the Plaintiff sued to quiet title and for other relief to 880 acres of land, which the Plaintiff alleged that he purchased from Barker in May 1948 for $6,000, but the Plaintiff failed to record his deed until May 1951. In the interim, between the Plaintiff’s purchase and recording, Barker made a contract for the sale of timber on the land to Defendant No. 1. This contract was recorded in 1950. In 1951 Barker sold the property again deeding the property to Defendant No. 2 and that deed was likewise recorded prior to the Plaintiff’s deed. Also, several judgment creditors had obtained judgments against Barker during this period, some of which were also made Defendants.

Issue. Was the Plaintiff’s possession sufficient to impart notice to Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2?

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following