Board of Education v. Hughes
118 Minn. 404 (1912)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A deed delivered with the grantee's name left blank becomes a valid conveyance if the grantee inserts their name with implied authority from the grantor, which is presumed when the grantor accepts payment and delivers the deed. Such a grantee will have priority over a rival purchaser from the same grantor if the grantee records their completed deed before the rival purchaser's complete chain of title is recorded.
Facts:
- On May 16, 1906, Carrie B. Hoerger owned a vacant lot in Minneapolis.
- Hoerger accepted a $25 offer from L. A. Hughes for the lot.
- On May 17, 1906, Hoerger and her husband executed and delivered a deed for the lot to Hughes, but left the space for the grantee's name blank. Hoerger accepted and cashed Hughes's check.
- On April 27, 1909, Hoerger executed and delivered a quitclaim deed for the same lot to a real estate firm, Duryea & Wilson, for $25.
- On November 19, 1909, Duryea & Wilson executed and delivered a warranty deed for the lot to the plaintiff.
- Shortly before December 16, 1910, Hughes inserted his own name as the grantee into the blank space on the deed he had received from Hoerger.
- Hughes recorded his deed from Hoerger on December 16, 1910.
- Duryea & Wilson recorded their deed from Hoerger on December 21, 1910.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed an action in a Minnesota trial court to determine adverse claims to a lot, alleging ownership.
- Defendant L.A. Hughes answered, denying the plaintiff's ownership and asserting his own title.
- The trial court entered a decision in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendants' motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed to this court from the order denying their motion for a new trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a deed delivered with the grantee's name left blank, but later filled in by the purchaser under implied authority, a valid conveyance that gives the purchaser priority over a subsequent grantee from the same grantor, if the first purchaser records their completed deed before the subsequent grantee's full chain of title is recorded?
Opinions:
Majority - Bunn, J.
Yes. A deed delivered with a blank space for the grantee's name becomes a valid conveyance upon the grantee filling in their name with the grantor's implied authority, and this conveyance has priority if it is recorded before the complete chain of title of a rival claimant. The court reasoned that while a deed without a grantee is initially a nullity, it becomes operative when the grantee inserts their name with authority. This authority does not need to be in writing; it can be implied from the circumstances. When a grantor accepts consideration and delivers a deed in blank, the grantee's authority to insert their name is presumed. Hughes's deed thus became operative when he filled in his name. This occurred after Hoerger's conveyance to Duryea & Wilson, making Hughes a 'subsequent purchaser' under the recording act. Although the plaintiff's deed from Duryea & Wilson was recorded before Hughes's deed, the deed from Hoerger to Duryea & Wilson was not. Therefore, plaintiff's deed was a 'wild deed' outside the chain of title and did not provide constructive notice. Hughes was the first to duly record a complete chain of title from the common grantor, Hoerger, giving him superior title.
Analysis:
This decision modernizes the law on deeds delivered in blank by shifting from a strict, formalistic requirement for written authority or re-execution to a more flexible standard based on implied authority presumed from the grantor's actions. It reinforces the principle that for a purchaser to be protected by a recording act, they must record a complete and unbroken chain of title. The ruling clarifies that a 'wild deed'—one recorded by a grantee whose grantor has no recorded interest—does not provide constructive notice and will not grant priority over a competing claim that is subsequently properly recorded.
Unlock the full brief for Board of Education v. Hughes