316 Barney v. Mccarty, 15 Iowa, 510; Lombard v. Culbertson, 59 Wis. 433, 18 N. W. 399. But see Lane v. Duchac, 73 Wis. 646, 41 N. W. 9G2.

317 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Dake, 87 N. Y. 257; Curtis v. Lyman, 24 Vt. 338; Stockwell v. Mchenry, 107 Pa. St. 237; Green v. Garrington, 16 Ohio St 548.

318 Mcpherson v. Rollins, 107 N. Y. 316, 14 N. E. 411; Dexter v. Harris, 2 Mason, 531, Fed. Cas. No. 3,862.

319 White v. Foster, 102 Mass. 375.

320 Heaton v. Prather, 84 111. 330. But see Interstate Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Mccartha, 43 S. C. 72, 20 S. E. 807. Record of an incumbrance on land given prior to the acquisition of the title, is not notice. Calder v. Chapman, 52 Pa. St 359; Oliphant v. Burns, 146 N. Y. 218, 40 N. E. 980.

321 See 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 1611.

322 Ely v. Wilcox, 20 Wis. 523; Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake Guano & Fertilizer Co., 82 N. Y. 476; Burrows v. Hovland, 40 Neb. 464, 58 N. W. 947.

323 Stim. Am. St Law, § 1611 A (1).

324 1 Stim. Am. St Law, § 1611 A (2).

325 Mayham v. Coombs, 14 Ohio, 428; Doe v. Allsop, 5 Barn. & Ald. 142; Bostic v. Young, 116 N. C. 766, 21 S. E. 552; Quinnerly v. Quiunerly, 114 N.

That a conveyance shall be constructive notice from the time of its execution, if it is recorded within a certain time.326 Such a provision seems most pernicious, and certainly is productive of the very frauds which registry acts are designed to prevent.327 In some, at least, of these states, if the instrument is not recorded within the time allowed by the statute, it is then notice only from the time it is actually recorded.328

The record of an instrument is notice only to those who arc-bound to search the records. Consequently no one is affected with notice who does not claim through the same chain of title.329 Nor is the record of a deed of any effect against a prior grantee whose deed is already recorded.330 A subsequent conveyance does not become effectual by record against a prior unrecorded instrument, unless the subsequent conveyance was for value, and without nonce in any way.331 In some states a purchaser by a quitclaim deed is held to take subject to prior unrecorded instruments.332 But in most states the cases hold the contrary.333 A purchaser from an heir takes land free from the unrecorded conveyances of the ancestor, of which he has no notice.334

C. 145, 19 S. E. 99. To the contrary, see Blades v. Blades, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 358, pl. 12; Stroud v. Lockart, 4 Dall. 153; Britton's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 172. 326 1 stim. Am. St. Law, § 1615 B.

327 see Clarke v. White, 12 Pet. 178; Phifer v. Barnhart, 88 N. C. 333.

328 1 stim. Am. St Law, § 1615 B; Northrup's Lessee v. Brehmer, 8 Ohio, 392; Pollard v. Cocke, 19 Ala. 188; Harding v. Allen, 70 Md. 395, 17 Atl. 377; Sanborn v. Adair, 29 N. J. Eq. 338; Anderson v. Dugas, 29 Ga. 440.

329 Webber v. Ramsey, 100 Mich. 58, 58 N. W. 625; Long v. Dollarhide, 24 Cal. 218; Tilton v. Hunter, 24 Me. 29; Crockett v. Maguire, 10 Mo. 34; Losey v. Simpson, 11 N. J. Eq. 246; Rodgers v. Burchard, 34 Tex. 441; Rankin v. Miller, 43 Iowa, 11.

330 George v. Wood, 9 Allen (Mass.) 80; Bell v. Fleming's Ex'rs, 12 N. J. Eq. 13.

331 Adams v. Cuddy, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 460; Jackson v. Page, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 585; Jackson v. Elston, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 452; Mills v. Smith, 8 Wall. 27; Goodenough v. Warren, 5 Sawy. 494, Fed. Cas. No. 5,534.

332 Marshall v. Roberts, 18 Minn. 405 (Gil. 365). See, also, Fitzgerald v. Libby, 142 Mass. 235, 7 N. E. 917; De Veaux v. Fosbender, 57 Mich. 579, 24 N. W. 790.

333 Dow v. Whitney, 147 Mass. 1, 16 N. E. 722; Doe v. Reed, 5 111. 117; Pet-tingill v. Devin, 35 Iowa, 344; Cutler v. James, 64 Wis. 173, 24 N. W. 874; Willingham v. Hardin, 75 Mo. 429; Graff v. Middleton, 43 Cal 341; Johnson v. Williams, 37 Kan. 179, 14 Pac. 537. But see Stivers v. Home, 62 Mo. 473.

Unrecorded deeds and mortgages are, of course, valid against the grantor or mortgagor, his heirs and devisees.335 And they are valid also against his assignee in bankruptcy,336 but not against a bona fide purchaser from such assignee.337 A mortgagee and a trustee under a deed of trust are purchasers within the meaning of the recording laws.338 But in some states one who takes a mortgage to secure a pre-existing debt is not a purchaser, and takes only the mortgagor's equitable interest.339 For example, in these states, if the mortgagor had made a valid contract for the sale of the mortgaged premises, a mortgage, to secure a pre-existing debt, though to one having no notice of the contract, would create a lien only on the part of the purchase price still unpaid.340

Mortgages to secure future advances by the mortgagee are valid,341 and, if properly recorded, have priority over subsequent conveyances and incumbrances, up to the amount expressed in the mortgage.342 The mortgagee is a purchaser from the time the advances are made, if without actual notice of the subsequent conveyance.343 If one who has a mortgage for future advances acquires actual notice of a subsequent mortgage, he is not protected as to advances made after that time,344 unless, by the terms of his contract with the mortgagor, he is bound to make such advances.345 The recording of the subsequent mortgage is not, however, notice to the first mortgagee.346

334 Earle v. Fiske, 103 Mass. 491; Powers v. Meferran, 2 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 44; Kennedy v. Northup, 15 111. 148; Vaughan v. Greer, 38 Tex. 530; Young-blood v. Vastine, 46 Mo. 239; Mcculloch's Lessee v. Endaly, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 346; Hill v. Meeker, 24 Conn. 211. Contra, Harlan's Heirs v. Sea ton's Heirs, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 312; Hancock v. Beverly's Heirs, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 531; Rodg-ers v. Burchard, 34 Tex. 441.

335 1 stim. Am. St. Law, § 1611 B; Secard's Lessee v. Davis, 6 Pet 124; Burns v. Berry, 42 Mich. 176, 3 N. W. 924.

336 Stewart v. Platt, 101 U. S. 731; Mellon's Appeal, 32 Pa. St 121.