Of the statutes in reference to the recording of conveyances,

Some provide that a conveyance, if not recorded, shall be invalid as against a subsequent purchaser without notice, some, that it shall be invalid as against a bona fide purchaser or purchaser in good faith, and some omit any reference to the matter of notice or good faith. The statutes almost invariably, however, without reference to the particular language used, have received the same construction, as affording protection to a subsequent purchaser only when he is without notice of the unrecorded conveyance.41 This appears to be merely a logical result of the construction put upon the recording acts, as making the record of an instrument equivalent to notice thereof on the part of a subsequent purchaser, since this construction implies that notice otherwise obtained will have the same effect.42 In a considerable number of cases, however, the rule that notice obtained otherwise than from the record excludes a purchaser from the protection of the act, is based upon the theory that one taking a conveyance with the purpose of impairing prior rights in another of which he has notice is guilty of fraud,43 a view which was originally adopted from the decisions of the English courts in connection with the local registration acts of that country.44

37. The provisions of the recording acts, as regards their operation in favor of creditors, are conveniently summarized in a note in 13 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 539.

38. See Mcghee v. Importers' & Traders' Nat. Bank, 93 Ala. 192, 9 So. 734; Martin v. Dry-der, 6 111. 187; Campbell v. Remaly, 112 Mich. 214. 67 Am. St. Rep. 393, 70 N. W. 432; Hall v. Sauntry, 72 Minn. 420, 71 Am. St. Rep. 497, 75 N. W. 720; Nugent v. Priebastch, 61 Miss. 402; King v. Fraser, 23 S. C. 543; Grace v. Wade, 45 Tex. 522.

39. See e. g.. Sixth Ward Building Ass'n v. Willson, 41 Md. 506; Henderson v. Mcgheo, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 55.

40. See, e. g., Clift v. Williams, 105 Ky. 559, 49 S. W. 328; Dyson v. Simmons, 48 Md. 207; Brown v. Brabb, 67 Mich. 17, 11 Am. St. Rep. 549, 34 N. W. 403. Contra, Price v. Wall, 97 Va. 334, 75 Am. St. Rep. 788, 33 S. E. 599.

41. See cases cited, 24 A. & E. Encyc. Law (2d Ed.) 131; 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 649; Webb, Record of Title, Sec. 201; 2 White & T. Lead. Cas. Eq., Judge Hare's rotes, 213. Occasionally the statute has been construed as so absolutely requiring the record of a mortgage as to make it invalid, if not recorded, even as against a subsequent purchaser having actual notice thereof. May-ham v. Coombs, 14 Ohio, 428; Building Ass'n v. Clark, 43 Ohio St. 427, 2 N. E. 846; Dodd v. Parker, 40 Ark. 536; Moore v. Ollson, 105 Ark. 241, 150 S. W. 1028. And in North Carolina this is so in the case of a conveyance as well as a mortgage. Quinnerly v. Quinnerly, 114 N. C. 145, 19 S. E. 99; Moore v. Johnson, 162 N. C. 266, 78 S. E. 158; Allen v. Roanoke Railroad & Lumber Co., 171 N. C. 339, 88 S. E. 492. As also in Louisiana. Mcduffie v. Walker, 125 La. 152, 51 So. 100; Somat v. Whitmer, 141 La. 235, 74 So. 916.

42. 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 665.

43. 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec.Sec. 659, 660; 2 White & T. Lead. Cas. Eq. 213; Webb, Record of Title, Sec. 215.

44. See Le Neve v. Le Neve,

Notice of one defect in a title is obviously not sufficient to charge one with notice of an entirely different defect.45

In states in which lien creditors are protected as against an unrecorded conveyance,46 the protection does not ordinarily exist if the creditor, at the time of acquiring the lien, had actual or constructive notice of the conveyance.47