Price v. McDonald

Eccleston, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The instrument on which this suit is founded, bears date the 21st of November 1808, and was executed as a deed of trust, or mortgage, for the purpose of conveying certain lands to Henry Dangeriield, by John McDonald, in trust, to secure the payment of the sum of $453.85, to William McGuire; giving the trustee, power to sell the land and pay the claim, provided it should not be paid, on or before the 21st of November 1811. On the 5th of September 1817, after the decease of Henry Dangerfield, the original bill was filed, praying for the appointment of a new trustee, and for the sale of the land, to pay the claim. In the original bill, Wm.

McGuire was complainant, and John McDonald, the only defendant. On the 16th of April ⁴¹² 1823, after the decease of Wm. McGuire, his administrator, Wm. Naylor, filed a bill of revivor; in which it was stated, that the intesest of John McDonald, in the land, included in the deed of trust, had been sold by George Bruce, as sheriff of the county, and by McDonald to John Folck; and that Andrew Bruce as sheriff, had sold the same land to William Harness.

The said John Folck, William Harness, George Bruce and Andrew Bruce, were made parties. In April 1825, an amended bill was filed, alleging that John Folck, had knowledge of the deed of trust; that he was told of it by John McDonald, and that he consulted an attorney at law, about the deed. That he purchased the land, from the sheriff, after taking advice in regard to the deed. That after the land was struck off to him, and before he paid for it, he was informed, that such a paper, purporting to be a deed of trust, existed.

Notwithstanding which information, he paid the money, and took a deed from the sheriff, subject to the claim of Wm. McGuire. And that the circumstances of the deed of trust, were known to Folck and the sheriff, before Folck bought the land. In the argument, it was admitted by the solicitor for the appellants, that he must abandon all claim, to any benefit-from the Us pendens, in consequence of the exceedingly dilatory manner in which this case was conducted.

It is therefore unnecessary to make any reference to what is said in the-amended bill, or in the answers, in relation to a knowledge on the part of Folck, as to the pendency of this suit, at the time of his purchase. By an agreement filed, it is admitted, that the land sold to Harness, is no part of the land, included in the deed of trust; and his answer is not sent up in the record. On the 24th April 1827, John Folck filed his answer. In which he alleges that he had no personal knowledge of the execution of the deed of trust from John McDonald to Henry Dangerfield, mentioned in the bill.

He admits that he purchased all the right, title and interest of John McDonald, in and to a tract of land at sheriff’s sale, which land he believes ⁴¹³ lo be the same land conveyed by deed from McDonald to Dangerlield. He admits also that he had heard some person or persons, whose names he does not recollect, speak of the existence of this deed of trust before his purchase; hut he asserts that he has no recollection of bis ever having taken counsel about the effect and operation of the deed of trust, prior to the sale; and that he had no knowledge of the existence of the deed before his purchase, except that collected from the conversation above mentioned. He states, that on day of the sale of McDonald’s interest in the land he purchased the same, at the instance of McDonald and George M. Swann; that on the same day, and just prior to the sale, he, (Folck,) enquired of Bruce, the sheriff, if any such deed of trust from McDonald to Dangerlield did exist, and Bruce informed him that he had no knowledge of any such deed; that then the land was offered for sale, and he (Folck,) became the purchaser. He denies that John McDonald ever did, at any time before the sale of the land, disclose the existence of any such deed of trust; hut admits, that shortly after the sale, and before the payment of the purchase money, John McDonald did inform him of the existence of such a deed.

He states, however, that at the same time, McDonald, assured him that the money secured by such deed of trust was fully paid, and that there was no claim against the land for any money due and unpaid under said deed of trust. The agreement of counsel shews that the deed from McDonald to Folck, which is referred to in the hill of revivor, was executed as confirmation of the sheriff’s deed. After the decease of Wm. Naylor, the appellants, as administrators de bonis non of Wm McGuire, were made parties complainants, on the 7th of March 1848.

On the 19th of April 1830, John Folck filed a further answer,, which is very much the same as the one already mentioned. John Folck died in January 1841, and his administrators and heirs at law were made parties defendants. The heirs at law of Henry Dangerfield were also made parties. ⁴¹⁴ As the decision of the case must rest almost exclusively upon the bills, the answer of John Folck, and the proof in regard to the execution of the instrument, (which by common consent has been called the deed of trust,) it is unnecessary to notice the other answers in the cause. The proof offered to establish the execution of the deed of trust is quite sufficient.

This was not denied by the solicitor for the defendants. But it was conceded by the counsel on both sides, that the acknowledgment was defective ; and that although the instrument had been actually recorded among the land records of the county, it must be considered in every respect, as if it never had been put upon record. Two principal objections were urged against this claim. The 1st, that the deed is defective, because it was not acknowledged and recorded according to the provisions of our registry laws; and even in a court of equity the complainants can have no relief as against the defendants, except upon the principle recognized in the act of 1785, ch. 72, sec. 11.

And as the purchase by Folck was, since the deed, and the original cause of action, on which the judgment was rendered, under which the sale was made to Folck, came into existence after the deed of trust, his title under the sheriff’s deed cannot be affected by the claim of the complainants. The second objection is, that if the deed of trust is not rendered nugatory upon the grounds taken in the first, it still cannot avail the complainants, because Folck was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, without notice. It is very true that our registry laws would seem strongly to sustain the position assumed in the first objection. But whatever weight it might have been entitled to formerly, it is now too late to be relied upon as a ground of defence.

The decisions in England, in the different States of the Union, and in our own State, are too numerous and too pointed in the opposite direction to require an argument, to shew, that an equitable claim, like the one under the present deed of trust, will be enforced in a court of equity, except against a bona fide purchaser without notice. See 2 White and Tudor’s ⁴¹⁵ Equi. Ca., in 71 L. L., top-p., 163, in notes to the case of Le Neve vs. Le Neve. 2 H. & G., 415 , Hudson vs. Warner and Vance. 1 G. & J., 216 , Tiernan vs. Poor, et ux. 5 Gill, 180 , Alexander, et al, vs. Ghiselin. 5 Gill, 468 , Baynard vs. Norris, et al. 5 Gill, 59 , Wilson vs. Turpin. The second objection is one of more difficulty, and will require some examination.

It involves the question whether Folek had notice of the prior equity of McGuire. On this subject, the authorities are not uniform, and especially in regard to the precise point arising in this case, which is, whether information given to a purchaser, which ought to put him on inquiry, will, in equity, be considered sufficient notice? The decisions in some of the States have held, that to set up an outstanding prior equity against a recorded deed, constructive notice would not avail, hut actual notice clearly proved, would be required. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, have said in Vattier vs. Hinde, 7 Peters, 271 : “Vattier’s original purchase then, cannot avail him, because lie was bound to notice the equity of Doyle.

But there is, we think, much reason to believe, that he had actual notice of that equity, or at any rate, was informed of circumstances which ought to have led to such inquiry as would have obtained full notice.” And this is the language of Chief Justice Marshall. The same principle is fully recognised in Graff, &c., vs. Castleman, &c., 5 Randolph, 207. Pendleton vs. Fay, 2 Paige, 202, and Hardy and Talburt vs. Summers and Wife, 10 G. & J., 324 . The three last cases are cited in Baynard vs. Norris, et al., 5 Gill, 483 .

And immediately following the reference to those cases, the Court of Appeals manifest their decided approval of them, by saying: “For the establishment of so well settled a principle, a reference to further authorities cannot be necessary.” Although this species of notice may be opposed by the decisions of distinguished judges in some of the States, we do not feel authorised to go in opposition to the Supreme Court of the United States and our own express adjudications. The complainants having offered no proof on the subject ⁴¹⁶ of notice, we must look to the answer of Folck, to ascertain whether it contains any thing which will supply the want of evidence on the part of the complainants. We there find it admitted, that after the sale, but before payment of the purchase money, Folck was informed of the existence of the deed of trust by McDonald, but immediately following that information, McDonald declared, that the money intended to be secured by the deed had been fully paid. Here there is positive and actual notice as to the existence of the deed.

Did the accompanying information as to the payment of the money, release Folck from the necessity of making further enquiry in relation to the truth of that matter? is the important question. Can it be supposed, that a man of ordinary prudence would have made the purchase, under the circumstances, without obtaining more satisfactory information as to the payment of the money ? The man by whom he was informed of the payment, was, of all others, most likely to be tempted to misrepresent. The fact of his land being sold under execution, is evidence of his embarrassed condition, and, of course, of the improbability of his having paid or discharged the incumbrance, intended to have been created by the deed.

His situation rendered it highly important that the land should bring as much as possible at the sale. And he was urging Folck to purchase, as the answer shews. There is not a word about having any receipts for the money, nor is there any excuse or reason assigned for not having them. In Jones vs. Smith, 1 Phillips, 244 , in 19 Eng.

Ch. R., T. Smith, the intestate of the defendant, lent David Jones, the father of the plaintiff, a sum of money, and took a mortgage for the same on Jones’ land. Whilst the treaty for this loan was going on, David Jones informed Smith that there had been a marriage settlement, which included his wife’s estate, but not his own. This assertion, both Jones and his wife offered to verify, by swearing to it, if necessary.

And when Smith asked to see the settlement, Jones told him that it was in the posses ⁴¹⁷ sion of his wife’s brother, and he was afraid he could not get it without displeasing his aunt, who was a rich old lady. The lord chancellor held, that - this evidence did not constitute notice to the mortgagee. He considered the question before him to be, whether, where a party is informed of the existence of a deed, which may, but does not necessarily affect the property about to be mortgaged, and it is stated at the time that the property is not affected by the instrument, but that it relates to some other property, whether, acting fairly and honestly, he believes the statement is true, but he is misled, and, in reality, the instrument does relate to the property, he is to be considered as having notice of the contents of the instrument? On this point he says: “Undoubtedly, where a party has notice of a deed, which, from the nature of it, must affect the property, or is told at the time that it does affect it, he is considered to have notice of the contents of that deed, and of ail other deeds to which it refers ; but where a party has notice of a deed which does not necessarily — which may or may not — affect the property, and is told, that in fact it does not affect it, hut relates to some other property, and the party acts fairly in the