Filed Date: 10/15/1770
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/14/2024
SEISED in Fee of Land in Cambridge, by his Deed, in Consideration of £50, bargains and sells it to B., who enters and improves the Land as his own for several Years; and, while he is fo possessed thereof A., for £50 more, paid by C., by another Deed, bargains and sells ye Land to him, acknowledges the Deed, and it is recorded before the first; after which the first Deed is recorded, — whereupon these Questions arise:
1. If, by ye 2d Deed, ye Land, or any Estate in it passed to C.
2. If the Land, at y° Time of ye making y® 2d Deed, might have been lawfully taken in Execution by a Creditor of A. for Satisfaction of his Debt.
The Statute of 27 H. 8, 10, commonly called y® Statute of Ufes, after reciting in y® Preamble, that “ by y® common Laws of y® Realm, Lands, “ Tenements and Hereditaments, be not devisable “ by Testament, nor ought to be transferred from “ one to another, but by solemn Livery of Seifin, “ Matter of Record, Writing sufficient made bona “ Fide without Covin or Fraud,” enadts “ that when “ any Person shall be seised of Land,” &c. “ to the “ Use, Confidence or Trust of any other Person or “ Body Politic, the Person, or Corporations intitled “to the Use in Fee Simple, Fee Tail, for Life or “ Years, or otherwife, shall from thenceforth Hand “ and be seised or possessed of ye Land, &c. of and “ in y® like Eilates as they have in the Use, Trust, “ or Confidence i and that the Estate of y® Person “ fo seised to Uses shall be deemed to be in him or “ them that have y® Use, in such Quality, Manner, “Form and Condition, as they had before in y® “ Ufe.”
At common Law, a Bargain and Sale was a real Contract, whereby y® Bargainor, for a pecuniary Consideration, bargained and fold, or rather contracted to bargain the Land to y® Bargainee, and became, by such Bargain, a Trustee for, or seised to the Use of y® Bargainee, and the above Statute of Uses compleated y® Purchase; thus, as y® Bargain veiled y® Use, y® Statute veiled y® Possession in him
But, to prevent clandestine Conveyances of Freeholds, y® Statute of 27 H. 8, 16, commonly called y® Statute of Inrollment, was made, whereby it is enacted, that no Land, &c. shall pass from one to another, whereby any Estate of Inheritance or Freehold shall be made or take Effect, or any Use thereof be made, by Reason only of any Bargain and Sale, except it be made by Writing indented, sealed, and inrolled in one of y® Courts of Westminster or in y® County or Counties where y® Land lies, before the Custos Rotulorum, &c., within fix Months after the Date of y® Indenture.
All Conveyances made by a Bankrupt of his Land, &c. are, by the Statute of Eliz. & James, made void, and y® Commissioners are expressly empowered to sell and convey y® same by Deed indented and inrolled in one of y® Courts of Record, although they may have been conveyed by y® Bankrupt to another; and such Conveyances by y® Commissioners are made good and effectual in Law. But no Time is limited for the inrolling y® Deed.
In 1641, the Massachusetts Colony made an Act, that no Mortgage, Bargain, Sale or Grant made of any Houses or Lands, Rents or other Hereditaments, where y® Grantor remained in Possession of y® Lands, should be of any Force against any other Person, except y® Grantor or his Heirs, unless y® same be acknowledged before some Magistrate
By y® Province Law 9 W. 3, 8, (
Upon y® Whole, it is observable, that there is a material Difference between y6 Statute of Inrollment and y® Statute of Bankrupts, as to Time of inrolling y® Deed; y® latter limiting no Time, but y® former making it absolutely necessary to be done within fix Months from y® Date of y® Deed; else no Estate passes or Use arises by y® Deed. If y® Indenture of Bargain and Sale be such as would have raised a Use at common Law,
Upon a Question, whether y® Vendee of y® Commissioners on y® Statutes of Bankrupts, of Lands, by Deed indented, could maintain, by his Lessee, an Ejectment before Inrollment of y® Deed, though it was inrolled after Action brought, it was held by y® King’s Bench, that he could not, because y® Conveyance must be by Deed indented and inrolled, and that it would be very inconvenient and dangerous to admit of Relation, no Time being prefixed
Whether y® Makers of ye Old Colony Law or y° Province Law knew of these Determinations is not certain, but it is highly probable some of them did, and, to avoid y® Inconveniences that might attend a Relation, they thought it belt to prefix no Time for recording y® Deed, and, for that Reason, among others, did not do it: But, instead of it, the Province Law requires the Register to note y® Time when y® Deed is received by him into y® Office, and that y® Record shall have that Date; which, to be sure, is altogether vain, if the Recording is to have y® like Relation to y® Execution of y® Deed, as y® Inrollment within six Months has; but is necessary, where y® Estate is not to pass, to every Purpose, untill y® Deed was recorded : and, was it not for y® Exception in y® restrictive Clause of y® Province Law, as well as y® Old Colony Law, of “ y® Grantor and his Heirs,” there would be y® same
But, although y® Estate doth not pass, here, fo as to avoid all mesne Conveyances, untill y® Deed is recorded, it doth not thence follow, that it doth not pass before to some particular Purposes, and yet not to others, — as, in all fraudulent Conveyances, y®
The Vendee cannot, with any Propriety, be said to hold y® Estate, until he has it; the Estate don’t remain in y® Vendor untill y® Deed is recorded: The Grantor, between the Execution and recording y® Deed, has no Right of Entry into y® Land, nor can he recover it by Action, nor will it descend to his Heirs, y® Deed being effectual in Law, without recording, to hold y® Land against y° Grantor or his Heirs. But, on the other Hand, if, upon y® Delivery of y® Deed, y® Grantee enters into y® Land, as he has a Right to do, he may convey it, and, if he doth not, but dies seised of y® Land, it will descend to his Heirs, although y® Deed be not recorded ; which would not be the Case if y® Estate never vested in him; for he could not convey that which he had not; and very great Part of y® People of y® Province hold their Estates by such Titles.
If, upon y® Delivery of y® Deed, y® Grantee enters, holds and improves y® Land as his own, while he is fo possessed thereof y® Grantor cannot, by a
That Rule holds good here. The second Bargain and Sale cannot be better than it would have been, had there not been a first. And “ that no Man can, by Deed, convey Land to another, which a third Person is in Possession of, claiming it as his own”
The restrictive Clause in y® Old Colony Law is expressly confined to Deeds made by a Grantor remaining in Possession after y® Grant, and y® Deed not recorded. A second Conveyance, in such Case, ought to take Place, because y® Grantor then was y® apparent Owner of y® Land, and an honest, fair Purchaser ought reasonably suppose him to be fo.
The first Deed may be deemed fraudulent upon y® same Principles y* a Bill of Sale of Goods is, where they remain in Possession of y® Vendor; but when y® Deed is recorded or y® Grantee enters into
The restrictive Clause in y® Province, though not in y® very Words of y® Colony Law, is of y® like Import, and establishes y® same Rule ; it is designed to prevent clandestine Conveyances, operating to y® Prejudice of bona Fide Purchasers; and it will have y® desired Effect, if it be fo construed, as that a Deed of Conveyance, not accompanied with Possession, nor recorded, may not prevent Houses and Lands or any Estate therein falling by such an after Conveyance as would have been effectual for that Purpose, had y® first Deed never been made. The Words of y® Act will well bear such Construction, y® Act, fo expounded, will stand with y® Reason of y® Common Law, and, therefore, ought to be fo expounded : — If it is, it is plain, that Land will not pass by a second Bargain and Sale thereof, made while y® first Bargainee is in Possession of y® Land, claiming it as his own; and, consequently, that the second Bargainee cannot recover or hold y® Land.
Nor can y® Land, in such Case, be taken in Execution by a Creditor of y® Bargainor for Satisfaction of his Debts; because it is not, in Fact, his Land, nor is it apparently fo. Pie has no Estate, Right or Interest, in or to y® Land, nor Possession of it, by himself or his Tenant. The Bargainee is not a Tenant at Will to y® Bargainor, nor doth he hold
Nor is y® Conveyance fraudulent in Fact, but is a bona Fide Purchase, and y® Land is liable to be taken in Execution for satisfying y® Bargainee’s Debts. — Surely, it is not y® Estate of both, and liable to be taken in Execution for y® Debts of both, at the same Time.
If it be objected, “ that y® Conveyance will be effectual against other Persons besides y® Grantor and his Heirs, if y® Land may not be attached by his Creditors, against y® Intent as well as express Words of y® A6t,” — in Anfwer thereto, it may be said;—lit, That y® Objection is of equal Force, upon the Supposition that y® Land may be attached as the Bargainee’s Estate, by his Creditors; for y® Deed, though not recorded, secures y® Land against y® Bargainor and his Heirs, fo that y® Bargainee cannot be removed by them; and, if his not recording y® Deed will also secure it against y® Bargainee’s Creditors, then y® Conveyance will not only be" effectual against other Persons besides the Grant or and his Heirs, but be a strong Inducement to many Purchasers not to record their Deeds, left
2. It is not by Force of ye Deed of Conveyance only, that y° first Grantee is enabled to hold ye Land against ye Creditors and Vendee of y® Bargainor; but by that accompanied with an Entry and continued Possession, which Blackstone says is of equal Notoriety with Livery of Seisin; and that was ye common Evidence of ye Alteration of Property at Common Law.
(2) Anc. Chart. 86.
(3) Anc. Chart. 85.
(4) Anc. Chart. 303.
2 Inst. 673.
Qu. If ye Estate is not in them ; and alio, if ye Matter of ye Exception would not have been implyed. See 3 Co. 82 b.
9 Inst. 266.
Under the early registration acts, it was constantly held that open and notorious possession constituted such implied notice of a conveyance as to preclude a subsequent vendee or creditor of the grantor from taking advantage of a neglect to record the same. 2 Mass. 506. 4 Mass. 637. 6 Mass. 487. 10 Mass. 60. 1 Pick. 164. 3 Pick. 149. But since the Rev. Sts. c. 59, § 28, actual notice only will have this effect, which possession alone, however notorious, will not prove. Pomroy v. Stevens, 11 Met. 244. As to what degree of knowledge will amount to actual notice of a prior deed, see Curtis v. Mundy, 3 Met. 403.