50. Mcdonald v. Norton, 123 Ark. 473, 185 S. W. 791, 1199; Herndon v. Kimball, 7 Ga. 432, 50 Am. Dec. 406; Donalson v. Thomason, 137 Ga. 848, 74 S. E. 762; Harris v. Reed. 21 Idaho, 364, 121 Pac. 780; Sinclair v. Gunzenhauser, 179 Ind. 78, 98 N. E. 37, 100 N. E. 376; Blackmail v. Henderson, 116 Iowa, 578. 56 L. R. A. 902, 87 N. W. 655; Ferrell v. Childress, 172 Ky. 760, 189 S. W. 1149; Cockey v. Milne's Lessee, 16 Md. 200; Graves v. Graves, 6 Gray (Mass.) 391; Tinnin v. Brown, 98 Miss. 378, Ann. ('as. L913a, 1081, 53 So. 780; Bishop v. Schneider, 16 Mo. 472, 2 Am. Rep. 533; Bradley v. Walker, 138 N. Y. 291. 33 X. E. 1079; Indian Land & Trust Co. v. Scott, - Okla. - , 158 Pac. 1164; Fleschnor v. Sumpter, 12 Ore. 161, 6 Pac. 506; Heist r's Lessee v. Fortner. 2 Minn. (Pa.) 40, 4 Am. Dec. 417; Phillis v. Gross, 32 S. D. 138, 143 N. W. 373; Childers v. Win. H. Cole man Co., 122 Tenu. 109, 118 S. W. 1018; Hayden v. Moffatt, 74 Tex. 647, 15 Am. St. Rep. 886, 12 S. W. 820; Raines v. Walker, 77 Va. 92; South Penn. Oil Co. v. Blue Creek Development Co., 77 W. Va. 682, S8 S. E. 1029; Girardin v. Lampe, 58 Wis. 287, 16 N. W. 614.

51. Evans v. Russ, 131 Ark. 335, 198 S. W. 518; Chamberlain v. Bell, 7 Cal. 292, 68 Am. Dec. 260; Touchstone v. Ford, 146 Ga. 797, 92 S. E. 524; Thorpe v. Helmer, 275 111. 86, 113 N. E. 954; Bailey v. Galpin, 40 Minn. 319, 41 N. W. 1054; Simmons v. Hutchinson, 81 Miss. 351,

21; Baker v. Bartlett, 18 Mont 446, 56 Am. St. Rep. 594, 45 Pac. 1084; Banks v. Amnion. 27 Pa. St. 172: Merritt v. Bunting, 107 Va. 174, 12 Ann. Cas. 954. 57 S. E 567; Bright v. Buckman ( C. C.) 39 Fed. 247.

52. Parkside Realty Co. v. .MacDonald, 166 Cal. 426. 137 Pac. 21; Walter v. Hartwig, 106 Ind. 123, 6 N. E. 5; Musick v. Barm 49 Mo. 458; Woods v. Garnett, 72 Mass. 78, 16; So. 390; Hastings v Cutler, 24 N. H. 481; Mdsrove v. Bonser, 5 Ore 313, 20 Am. Rep. 737; Phillis v. Gross,

But occasionally a directly contrary view has obtained, to the effect that the purchaser may entirely ignore the record in such case.53

- (d) Instruments not in chain of title. The recording acts have been construed as charging a pur-under which the grantor or mortgagor claims, that as having been executed by a person in the chain of title is, if there is another and independent chain of title affecting the land, but of those only which appear there theory that, if he exercised proper diligence, he would, chaser with notice of a recorded instrument on the is no clue calling his attention to such instruments. For by searching the records, discover the existence and terms of such instrument, and he has, on the same upon the records, a purchaser is not affected with mortgagee is ordinarily regarded as charged with notice, notice of the instruments contained therein, since there not of all the instruments which appear on the record as theory, been held not to be charged with notice when his failure to discover the recorded instrument was not owing to lack of diligence. Accordingly, a grantee or instance, A purchasing from B is not affected with notice of a conveyance, previously recorded, from C to D, unless B's title appears on the record to be derived through C.54 And, if a conveyance is not recorded, the

32 S. D. 438, 143 N. W. 373, Gilbert v. Jess, 31 Wis. 110.

And so where an instrument was recorded in the wrong county, but the subsequent purchaser saw it on record. Perrin v. Reed, 35 Vt. 2.

53. Nordman v. Rau, 86 Kan. 19, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 400, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1068, 119 Pac. 351; Kerns v. Swope, 2 Watts (Pa.) 75.

54. Abbott v. Parker, 103 Ark. 425, 147 S. W. 70; Standard Oil Co. v. Slye, 164 Cal. 435, 129

Pac. 489; Harris v. Reed, 21 Idaho, 364, 121 Pac. 780; City of Chicago v. Witt, 75 111. 211; Sinclair v. Gunzenhauser, 179 Ind. 78. 98 N. E. 37, 100 N. E. 376; Gardner v. Jaques, 42 Iowa, 577; Ora v. Bane. 92 Kan. 567, 141 Pac. 303; John T. Moore Planting Co. v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co., 126 La. 840, 53 So. 22; Roberts v. Bourne, 23 Me. 165, 39 Am. Dec. 614; Baker v. Griffin, 50 Miss. 158; Page v. Waring, 76 N. Y. 463: Blake v. Graham, 6 Ohio St. 580, 67 fact that a conveyance or mortgage by the grantee therein is recorded will not affect with notice a person who subsequently obtains a conveyance from the same grantor.55 And the fact that there is of record a mortgage from B to A does not charge a subsequent purchaser from A with notice of a prior conveyance by A to B which was not recorded.55a Likewise, the record of the conveyance of an equitable title from one who has such title only, while notice to a subsequent purchaser of the same title from the same grantor, is not notice to one who purchases from the holder of the legal title,56 provided at least he has no notice, actual

Am. Dec. 360; Perkins v. Cissell. 32 Okla. 827, 124 Pac. 7; Advance Thresher Co. v. Esteb, 41 Ore. 469, 69 Pac. 447; Hethering-ton v. Clark, 30 Pa. St. 393; Smyly v. Colleton Cypress Co., 95 S. C. 347, 78 S. E. 1026; White v. Mcgregor, 92 Tex. 556, 71 Am. St. Rep. 875, 50 S. W. 564; Webb v. Ritter, 60 W. Va. 193, 54 S. E. 484. In Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Tinker, 22 S. D. 427, 18 Ann. Cas. 11, 118 N. W. 700, the decision to the contrary is based on the fact that the register of deeds was required to keep an index, which would show in one place all the conveyances which might be made of any particular piece of property.

55. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Gardner. 131 Ala. 599, 32 So. 622; Rowe v. Henderson Naval Stores Co., 139 Ga. 318. 77 S. E. 17; Booker v. Booker, 208 111. 529, 100 Am. St. Rep. 250, 70 N. E. 709; Roberts v. Bourne, 23 Me. 165, 39 Am. Dec. 614; Board of Education of Minneapolis v. Hughes, 118 Minn. 404. 41 L, R. A. (N. S.) 637.

136 N. W. 1095; Hart v. Gardner, Si Miss. 650, 33 So. 442; Page v. Waring, 76 N. Y. 463; Hether-ington v. Clark, 30 Pa. St. 393; Sayward v. Thompson, 11 Wash. 706, 40 Pac. 379.

It has been said that a purchaser from one in possession can not assert ignorance of a prior recorded conveyance by his vendor, merely because no conveyance to his vendor appears of record, and that he is chargeable with notice of any recorded conveyance made by his vendor in possession. Eversole v. Virginia Iron, Coal & Coke Co., 122 Ky. 649, 92 S. W. 593. But he would be chargeable with notice of a previous recorded conveyance by his vendor even if his vendor is not in possession.