Morse v. Curtis
1885 Mass. LEXIS 292, 2 N.E. 929, 140 Mass. 112 (1885)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bona fide purchaser is not charged with constructive notice of a prior conveyance that was recorded after their grantor's deed was recorded. A purchaser is entitled to rely on the record chain of title and is not obligated to search for conveyances from a previous owner recorded after that owner has already parted with title.
Facts:
- On August 8, 1872, Hall mortgaged a parcel of land to the demandant.
- The demandant did not immediately record this mortgage.
- On September 7, 1875, Hall mortgaged the same land to Clark, who had actual notice of the prior unrecorded mortgage to the demandant.
- Clark recorded his mortgage on January 31, 1876.
- The demandant subsequently recorded their mortgage on September 8, 1876.
- On October 4, 1881, Clark assigned his mortgage to the tenant.
- The tenant was a bona fide purchaser who had no actual notice of the demandant's earlier mortgage at the time of the assignment.
Procedural Posture:
- The demandant initiated a writ of entry in a trial court to establish superior title to the land against the tenant.
- The trial court ordered a verdict in favor of the demandant.
- The tenant appealed, and the case was brought before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for a final determination of the legal question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the recording of a prior mortgage, after a second mortgage on the same property has already been recorded, provide constructive notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser who takes an assignment of the second mortgage without actual notice of the first?
Opinions:
Majority - Morton, C. J.
No. The recording of the prior mortgage after the second mortgage was already recorded does not provide constructive notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser. The court reasoned that a purchaser conducting a title search is entitled to rely on the chain of title as it appears in the registry. An examiner follows the chain from grantor to grantee. Once the original owner, Hall, conveyed his interest to Clark and that deed was recorded, Hall became a stranger to the title. A subsequent purchaser from Clark, like the tenant, is not obligated to continue searching the grantor index for conveyances from Hall recorded after that point. Requiring such a search would create a significant and impractical hardship, disrupting the established practice of conveyancers and the purpose of the registry laws, which is to provide clear and reliable title records. The tenant, having found a perfect record title from Hall to his grantor Clark, was protected as a bona fide purchaser without notice.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'chain of title' doctrine, which is fundamental to property law in jurisdictions with recording acts. It clarifies that a recorded instrument only provides constructive notice if it can be located by a reasonably diligent title search. By ruling that a deed recorded 'out of the chain of title' is ineffective against a subsequent bona fide purchaser, the court prioritizes the stability and reliability of public land records. This precedent places the burden squarely on the initial grantee to record their deed promptly to protect their interest against subsequent good-faith purchasers.
