11. Bell v. Pleasant, 145 Cal. 410, 104 Am. St. Rep. 61, 78 Pac. 958; Gardner v. Early, 72 Iowa, 518, 34 N. W. 311; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288, 144 N W. 965; Shraiberg v. Hanson, 138 Minn. 80, 163 N. W. 1032; Brown v. Tuschoff, 235 Mo. 449, 138 S. W. 497; Dundee Realty Co. v. Leavitt, 87 Neb. 711, 30 L R. A. (N. S.) 389, 127 N. W. 1057; Kimball v. Houston Oil Co., 100 Tex. 336, 99 S. W. 852; Ryle v. Davidson, 102 Tex. 233 115 S. W. 28; Scott v. Farnham, 55 Wash. 336, 104 Pac. 639.

In Bruce v. Overton, 54 Okla. 350, 154 Pac. 340, the burden of proof is placed on the subsequent purchaser on the ground that the facts are peculiarly within bis knowledge.

In Texas, apparently, while the burden of proof rests on a subsequent purchaser, it doer, not rest on a subsequent creditor. Rule v. Richards, - Tex. Civ. App. - , 159 S. W. 386. A subsequent mortgagee is a purchaser and not a creditor within this rule. Turner v. Cochran, 94 Tex. 480, 61 S. W. 923.

12. Gratz v. Land & River Imp. Co., 82 Fed. 381, 27 C. C.

A. 305, 40 L. R. A. 393; Center v. Planters' & M. Bank, 22 Ala. 743; Richards v. Steiner Bros., 166 Ala. 353, 52 So. 200; Osceola Land Co. v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., 84 Ark. 1, 103 S. W. 609; Jones v. Ainell, 123 Ark. 532, 186 S. W. 65; Fein-berg v. Stearns, 56 Fla. 279. 131 Am. St. Rep. 119, 47 So. 797; Anthony v. Wheeler, 130 111. 128, 17 Am. St. Rep. 281, 22 N.

B. 494; Lowden v. Wilson. 233 111. 340, 84 N. E. 245; Mcguire v. Gibbert, 270 111. 160. 110 N.

Casionally been in terms based on the theory that one who was negligent in having his conveyance recorded cannot thereby impose a burden upon another,13 and occasionally on the theory that one who purchases with notice of the prior conveyance is guilty of fraud, and that this will never be presumed.14

It has been held that, even though the burden is on the adverse claimant as against a purchaser to show notice to the latter, a purchaser who admits notice has the burden of showing that the one from whom he purchased was a bona fide purchaser, so that he would be protected as a purchaser with notice from a purchaser without notice.15

One claiming as a purchaser for value without notice has, in the majority of jurisdictions, the burden of proving the payment of a valuable consideration, this being regarded as a matter peculiarly within his knowledge.16 In some states, however, a contrary view has

E. 377 (in suit in equity); Citizens' Bank v. Julian, 153 Ind. 655, 55 N. E. 1007; Hoskins v. Carter, 66 Iowa, 638, 24 N. W. 249; Butler v. Stevens, 26 Me. 484; Shotwell v. Harrison, 22 Mich. 410; Sheldon v. Powell, 31 Mont. 249, 107 Am. St. Rep. 429, 78 Pac. 491; Mcgrath v. Norcross, 78 N. J. Eq. 120, 79 Atl. 85, 82 N. J. Eq. 367, 91 Atl. 1069; Brown v. Volkenning, 64 N. Y. 76; Advance Thresher Co. v. Esteb, 41 Ore. 469, 69 Pac. 447; Wilkins v. Mccorkle, 112 Tenn. 688, 80 S. W. 834; Daly V. Rizzutto, 59 Wash. 62, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 467, 109 Pac. 276; South Penn. Oil Co. v. Blue Creek Development Co., 77 W. Va. 682, 88 S. E. 1029; Olm-stead v. Mccrory, 158 Wis. 323, 148 N. W. 871. 13. See Boggs v. Warner, 6

Watts. & S. (Pa.) 439; Hoyt v. Jones, 31 Wis. 389.

14. Bush v. Golden, 17 Conn. 594; Rogers v. Wiley, 14 111. C5, 56 Am. Dec. 491; Holmes v. Stout, 10 N. J. Eq. 419; Brown v. Volkenning, 64 N. Y. 76 (semble); Kimball v. Houston Oil Co., 100 Tex. 336, 99 S. W. 852; Vest v. Michie, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 149, 31 Am. Rep. 722; Sheffey v. Bank of Lewisburg, 33 Fed. 315.

In Advance Thresher Co. v. Esteb, 41 Ore. 469, 69 Pac. 447, the burden is regarded as resting on the claimant under the unrecorded conveyance, apparently on the theory that he has merely an equitable title.

15. Biggs v. Hoffman, 60 Wash. 495, 111 Pac. 576.

16. Lake v. Hancock, 38 Fla. 53, 56 Am. St. Rep. 159, 20 So.

Been asserted as regards a purchaser claiming as against a prior unrecorded conveyance,17 especially when the later conveyance recites the payment of a substantial consideration.18 And in one state, apparently, one asserting an equity as against a subsequent purchaser has the burden of showing the non payment by the latter of a valuable consideration.19 But even though A, claiming as against a prior unrecorded conveyance by the same grantor, may reasonably be subjected to the burden of proving his payment of a valuable consideration, it does not seem that one claiming under A should be subjected to a like burden of proving such payment by A, it not being a matter peculiarly within his knowledge, as it is within A's knowledge.

By the weight of authority, the subsequent purchaser does not satisfy the requirement that he show payment of a valuable consideration by showing a recital to that effect in his conveyance, such a declaration not being regarded as sufficient to affect the rights of third persons.20 But, as above indicated, a different view has in some states been asserted in reference to a purchaser claiming as against a prior unrecorded conveyance.21

811; Mcguire v. Gilbert, 270 111. 160, 110 N. E. 377; Roseman v. Miller, 84 111. 297; Kruse v. Conklin, 82 Kan. 358, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1124, 108 Pac. 856; Perkins v. Gregory, 87 Kan.. 303, 124 Pac. 168; Shotwell v. Harrison, 22 Mich. 410; Lloyd v. Simons, 90 Minn. 237. 95 N. W. 903; American Exchange Nat. Bank v. Fockler, 49 Neb. 713, 68 N. W. 1039; King v. Mc-rackan, 168 N. C. 621, 84 S. E. 1027, 171 N. C. 752, 88 S. E. 226; Morris v. Daniels, 35 Ohio St. 406; Weber v. Rothchild, 15 Ore. 385, 3 Am. St. Rep. 162, 15 Pac. 650; Union Canal Co. v. Young, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 410, 30 Am. Dec. 212; Lloyd v. Lynch, 28 Pa. 419; Bugg v. Seay, 107 Va. 648, 122 Am. St. Rep. 877, 60 S. E. 89; Harvey v. Mutter, 66 W. Va. 208.

17. Gratz v. Land & River Imp. Co., 27 C. C. A. 305, 82 Fed. 381, 40 L. R. A. 393; Kim ball v. Houston Oil Co., 100 Tex. 336, 99 S. W. 852; Hoyt v. Jones, 31 Wis. 389.

18. Ryder v. Rush. 102 111. 338; Hiller v. Jones, 66 Miss. 646. 6 So. 465; Harrison v. Moore, - Mo. - , 199 S. W. 188; Mullins v. Butte Hardware Co., 25 Mont. 525, 87 Am. St. Rep. 430, 65 Pac. 1004; Jackson v. Mcchesney, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 360; Wood v. Chapin, 13 N. Y. 509, C7 Am. Dec. 62; Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake Guano & Fertilizer Co., 82 N. Y. 476. See Mcconnell v. Citizens' State Bank, 130 Ind. 127, 27 N. E. 616.

19. Teagarden v. R. B, Godley Lumber Co.. 105 Tex. 616. 151 S W. 973; Kenedy Pasture Co.

It is not infrequently stated that upon proof by the subsequent purchaser of payment by him of a valuable consideration, the burden of proof shifts to the prior claimant to show notice to the purchaser.22 The statement referred to in effect regards tha burden of producing evidence both of payment of value and lack of v. State, - Tex. Civ. App. -, 196 S. W. 287.

20. Langley v. Pulliam, 162 Ala. 142, 50 So. 365; Galland v. Jackman, 26 Cal. 79r 85 Am. Dec. 172; Black Eagle Oil Co. y. Belcher, 22 Cal. App. 258, 133 Pac. 1153; Lake v. Hancock, 38 Fla. 53, 56 Am. St. Rep 159, 20 So. 811; Roseman v. Miller, 84 111. 299; Sillyman v. King, 36 Iowa, 207; Minneapolis & St. L. R. R. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. R., 116 Iowa, 681, 88 N. W. 1082; King v. Mead, 60 Kan. 539, 57 Pac. 113; Shotwell v. Harrison. 22 Mich. 410; Bishop v. Schneider, 46 Mo. 472, 2 Am. Rep. 533; Ranney v. Hardy, 43 Ohio St. 157; Adams Oil & Gas Co. v. Hudson, 55 Okla. 386, 155 Pac. 220; Richards v. Snyder, 11 Ore. 501, 6 Pac. 186; Lloyd v. Lynch, 28 Pa. 419, 70 Am. Dec. 137; Davidson v. Ryle, 103 Tex. 216, 124 S. W. 616 (but recital may be considered); Bugg v. Seay, 107 Va. 648, 122 Am. St. Rep. 877, 60 S. E. 89; Johnson v. Georgia, L. & T. Co., 72 C. C. A. 639. 141 Fed. 593.

21. Ante, this section, note 18.

22. Barton v. Barton, 75 Ala. 400; Coskrey v. Smith, 126 Ala.

120, 28 So. 11; Kendrick v. Colyar, 143 Ala. 597, 42 So. 110; Osceola Land Co. v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., 84 Ark. 1, 103 S. W. 609; Williams v. Smith, 128 Ga. 306, 57 S. E. 801; Walter v. Brown, 115 Iowa, 360, 88 N. W. 832; Kruse v. Conklin, 82 Kan. 358, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1124, 108 Pac. 856; Hooper v. De Vries, 115 Mich. 231, 73 N. W. 132; Wright v. Larson, 51 Minn. 321, 38 Am. St. Rep. 504, 53 N. W. 712; Ward v. Ishill, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 550, 26 N. Y. Supp. 141 (sent-ble); Morris v. Daniels, 35 Ohio St. 406; Varwig v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 54 Ohio St. 455, 44 N. E. 92. See Wood v. Chapin, 13 N. Y. 509, 523, 67 Am. Dec. 62; Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake Guano & Fertilizer Co., 82 N. Y. 476; Smith v. Pure Strains Farm Co., 180 N. Y. App. Div. 703, 167 N. Y. Supp 877; Atkinson v. Greaves, 70 Miss. 42, 11 So. 688; Adams Oil & Gas Co. v. Hudson, 55 Ckla. 386, 155 Pac. 220; Daly v. Rizzutto, 59 Wash. 62, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 467, 109 Pac. 276.

"For it is not consistent with the ordinary conduct of men, who notice as in the first place upon the subsequent purchaser, who may, however, by introducing evidence of payment of value, shift to the prior claimant the burden of introducing evidence to show the existence of notice. This does not, however, affect the burden of convincing the jury, by a preponderance of evidence, that the purchase was not only for value but that it was also without notice. The burden in this regard remains, as it was at the commencement of the action, upon the subsequent purchaser.23