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.
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?
Held. Yes. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
No evidence was adduced at trial to show that Josephine Hayden had any notice or knowledge of the previously executed deed to William Moore. Also, there was no evidence of fraud or collusion between Seth Hayden and Josephine Hayden.
The recording statute provides that “no such instrument in writing shall be valid, except as between the parties thereto and such as have actual notice thereof until the same be deposited with the recorder for record.”
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 a good and valuable consideration for the land, then he would take nothing by his purchase and deed. Thus, the Court here must determine if Josephine Hayden took title with valuable consideration.
Small consideration, such as five dollars here, is sufficient, in the absence of fraud, to support a contract entered into in good faith.
A purchaser for value by quitclaim deed has as much protection under the recording statute as one who purchases by warranty deed.
But a want of consideration cannot be shown against the recitation in the deed for the purpose of defeating the operative words of the deed, as for the purpose of showing a resulting trust in the grantor.View Full Point of Law