66. See Fitch v. Bunch, 30 Cal. 208; Wellborn v. Weaver, 17 Ga. 267.

67. Stanton v. Miller, 58 N. Y. 192.

68. Anderson v. Messenger (C. C. A.) 158 Fed. 250, citing James v. Vanderheyden (N. Y.) 1 Paige, 385; Cook v. Brown, 34 N. H. 460; and Prutsman v. Baker, 30 Wis. 644, 11 Am. Rep. 592, none of which three cases supports the statement in the slightest degree. 69. If the condition is satisfied, the operation of. the conveyance is obviously not prevented by the fact that the grantor reacquires possession of the instrument. Wymark's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 74; Regan v. Howe, 121 Mass. 424; Baum's Appeal, 113 Pa. St. 58, 4 At!. 461.

70. Price v. Pitsburg, Ft. W. & C. R. Co., 34 111. 13; Hoyt v. Mclagan, 87 Iowa, 746, 55 N. W. 18; Mohr v. Joslin, 162 Iowa, 34, 142 N. W. 981; Baker v. Snave-ley, 84 Kan. 179, 114 Pac. 370; Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185, 60 Am. Rep. 291; Simpson v. Mc-glathery, 52 Miss. 723; Frost v. Beekman, 1 Johns. Ch. 288; Craddock v. Barnes, 142 N. C. 89, 54 S. E. 1003; Shirley v. Ayres, 14 Ohio, 307, 45 Am Dec. 546; May v. Emerson, 52 Ore. 262, 16 Ann. Cas. 1129, 96 Pac. 454, 1065; Landon v. Brown, 160 Pa. 538, 28 Atl. 921; Foxley v. Rich, 35 Utah, 162, 99 Pac. 666; Spring Garden Bank v. Hulings Lumber Co., 32 W. Va. 357, 3 L. R. A. 583; Sheppard's Touchstone,

59, 72

71. Davis v. Clark, 58 Kan. 100, 48 Pac. 563; Cook's Adm'r v. Hendricks, 4 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 500; Wheelwright v. Wheelwright, 2 Mass. 447, 3 Am. Dec. 66; Tharaldson v. Everts, 87 Minn. 168, 91 N. W. 467; Schooler v. Schooler, 258 Mo. 83, 167 S. W. 444; Webster v. Kings County Trust Co., 145 N. Y. 275, 39 N. E. 964; Jackson v. Jackson, 67 Ore. 44, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 873, 135 Pac. 201; Gammon v. Run-nell, 22 Utah, 421, 64 Pac. 958; Bronx Inv. Co. v. National Hank of Commerce, 47 Wash, 566, 92 Pac. 380; Perryman's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 84.

72. Perkins, Conveyancing, Sec.Sec. 10, 140; Jennings v. Bragg, Cro.

Eliz. 447; Butler's Case, 3 Co. Rep. 25; Davis v. Clark, 58 Kan. 100, 48 Pac. 563; Wheelwright v. Wheelwright, 2 Mass. 447, 3 Am. Dec. 66; Simpson v. Mc-glathery, 52 Miss. 723.

73. Perryman's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 84; Prewitt v. Ashford, 90 Ala. 294, 7 So. 831; Stone v. Duvall, 77 111. 475; Lindley v. Groff, 37 Minn. 338, 34 N. W. 26; Webster v. Kings County Trust Co., 145 N. Y. 275, 39 N. E. 964; Perry v. Perry, 170 App. Div. 525, 155 N. Y. Supp. 954.

74. Mcdonald v. Huff, 77 Cal. 279, 19 Pac. 499; Whitmer v. Schenck, 11 Idaho, 702, 83 Pac. 775; Leiter v. Pike, 127 111. 287; 20 N. E. 23; Wright v. Astoria Co., 45 Ore. 224, 77 Pac. 599; Wil-kins v. Somerville, 80 Vt. 48, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1183, 130 Am, St. Rep. 906, 66 Atl. 893. As against equities accruing before the conditional delivery, the grantee in the deed conditionally delivered, like any other grantee, cannot claim as a bona fide purchaser for value unless he paid value before receiving notice. See Baker v. Snavely, 84 Kan. 179, 114 Pac. 370.

75. Whitfield . v. Harris, 48 Miss. 710; Simpson v. Mcglath-ery, 52 Miss. 723; Hall v. Harris, (N. C), 5 Ired. Eq. 303; see Dettmer v. Behrens, 106 la. 585, 68 Am. St. Rep. 326, 76 N. W. 853; Shirley's Lessee v. Ayres, 14 Ohio, 307. Contra. Jackson v. Rowland, (N. Y.), 6 Wend. 66; Wolcott v. Johns, 7 Col. App. 360, 44 Pac. 675 (dictum); Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185, 60 Am. Rep. 291.

76. See May v. Emerson 52 Ore. 262, 16 Ann. Cas. 1129, 96 Pac. 454; Riddle v. Miller, 19 Ore. 468, 23 Pac. 807.

Pass as of the time of the conditional delivery, a distress levied by the grantor before the satisfaction of the condition is valid.77 And the grantor is entitled to the rents and profits of the land until the condition is satisfied,78 except when, owing to the payment by the grantee of interest on the purchase price, the court, in the equitable adjustment of the rights of the parties, gives the rents and profits to the grantee.79 And the grantor has been properly considered the owner of the land for the purpose of signing a petition for the organization of a drainage district,80 as well as for the purpose of imposing upon him a liability for taxes.81 Decisions to the effect that, upon the satisfaction of the condition, the grantee's title, that is, his ownership, relates back to the time of the delivery, for the purpose of validating an intermediate quit-claim conveyance by the grantee,82 appear to be questionable, as are, it is submitted, decisions that, while a conveyance to a non-existent corporation is ordinarily invalid, such a conveyance is valid if its delivery is conditional upon the formation of the corporation named, and such a corporation is subsequently formed.83

As the death of the grantor before the satisfaction of the condition does not affect the validity of the

77. Oliver v. Mowat, 34 Up. Can. Q. B. 472.

78. Perkins. Conveyancing, Sec. 10.

79. Price v. Pittsburg R. Co., 34 111. 13; Scott v. Stone, 72 Kan. 545, 84 Pac. 117.

80. Hull v. Sangamon River Drainage District, 219 111. 454, 76 N. E. 701.

81. Mohr v. Joslin, 142 N. W. 981.

The decision in Mcmurtrey v. Bridges, 41 Okla. 2C4, 137 Pac. 721, that a warranty against taxes at the "time of delivery" of the conveyance meant taxes at the time of the delivery, so called, involved in the manual transfer of the instrument by the depository to the grantee, appears questionable.

82. Beekman v. Frost (N. Y.) 18 Johns. 544, 9 Am. Dec. 246; Tooley v. Dibble (N. Y.) 2 Hill. 641. That it does not relate back for this purpose, see 2 Williams, Vendor & Purchaser (2d Ed.) 1251, note (d), referred to in 10 Halsbury's Laws of England, 390, note (m).

83. Spring Garden Bank v. Hulings Lumber Co. 32W. Va, 357. 3 L. R. A. 583; Santaquin.

Delivery made by him, so one may make delivery subject to a condition which cannot, by its terms, be satisfied until after his death. A judicial statement to the effect that if the condition cannot be satisfied until after the grantor's death, the instrument is necessarily testamentary in character,85 appears to be based on the mistaken view that such a condition makes the transfer revocable so long as the grantor lives.