Brief Fact Summary. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants claimed title to the property in controversy. Both received title originating from the same individual.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A deed in the chain of title, discovered by the investigator, is constructive notice of all other deeds, which were referred to in the deed discovered.
Thus it will be presumed that due inquiry would have disclosed the existent facts.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Whether the Defendants were on constructive notice as to the rights of the Plaintiffs.
Held. Reversed. Defendants were on constructive notice that another missing deed existed and had a duty to inquire of the interests in the missing deed.
It was incumbent upon the Defendants to ascertain through diligent inquiry the contents of the earlier misplaced deed and the interests conveyed therein.
A deed in the chain of title discovered by the investigator, is constructive notice of all other deeds which were referred to in the deed discovered.
Discussion. The court found for the Plaintiffs because the Defendants had constructive notice of another party that may have had an interest in the land. Since the deed from which their interest originated mentioned there had been a lost deed, they were now under a duty to inquire as to the interests in the lost deed. Because they did not, the court found for the Plaintiffs.