In most states it is sufficient, in order to deprive a person of the right to claim as against a prior unrecorded conveyance, that he has either actual knowledge of such conveyance, or that he has information sufficient to put him on inquiry in regard to such conveyance,48 and this conambl. 436, 1 Ves. Sr. 64; Webb, Record of Title, Sec. 215.

45. Koons v. Grooves, 20 Iowa, 373; Thompson v. Lapsley, 90 Minn. 318, 96 N. W. 788; Rutherford Land & Improvement Co. v. Sanntrock, (N. J. Ch.), 44 Atl. 938, aff'd 60 N. J. Eq. 471, 46 Atl. 648; Todd v. Eighmie. 10 N. Y. App. Div. 142, 41 N. Y. Supp. 1013; Allen v. Anderson & Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.), 96 S. W. 54.

46. Ante, Sec. 567m, note 38.

47. Richards v. Steiner, 166 Ala. 353, 52 So. 200; O'rourke v. O'connor, 39 Cal. 442; Western Chemical Mfg. Co. v. Mq-caffrey, 47 Colo. 397, 107 Pac. 1081; Mcadow v. Wachob, 45 Fla. 482, 33 So. 702; Feinberg v. Stearns, 56 Fla. 279, 131 Am. St. Rep. 119, 47 So. 797; Van Gundy v. Tandy, 272 111. 319, 111 N. E. 1020; Baldwin v. Crow, 86 Ky. 679, 7 S. W. 146; Stanhope v. Dodge, 52 Md. 483; Priest v. Rice, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 164, 11

Am. Dec. 156; Northwestern Land Co. v. Dewey, 58 Minn. 359, 59 N. W. 1085; Loughridge v. Bow-land, 52 Miss. 546; Hutchinson v. Bramhall, 42 N. J. Eq. 372, 7 Atl. 873; Ildvedsen v. First State Bank of Bowbells, 24 N. D. 227, 139 N. W. 105; Britton's Appeai, 45 Pa. St. 172; Brown v. Sartor, S7 S. C. 116, 69 S. E. 88; Freiberg v. Magale, 70 Tex. 116, 7 S. W. 684.

But that notice to the creditor is immaterial, see Edwards v. Brinker, 9 Dana (Ky.) 69; May-ham v. Coombs, 14 Ohio, 428; Lookout Bank v. Noe, 86 Tenn. 21, 5 S. W. 433; Dobyns v. Wraing, 82 Va. 159.

48. Thompson & Ford Lumber Co. v. Dillingham, 223 Fed. 1000, 139 C. C. A. 376; Gamble v. Black Warrior Coal Co., - Ala. -, 55 So. 190; White v. Moffett, 108 Ark. 490, 158 S. W. 505; Lawton v. Gordon, 37 Cal. 202; Bradford v. Carpenter, 13 Colo. 30, 21 Pac. 908; Hunt v. Dunn, 74 Ga. 120; struction has usually been given to statutes which provide that an unrecorded conveyance shall be void except as against persons having "actual notice."49 But in one state at least such a statutory requirement of "actual notice" has been held to involve the necessity of actual knowledge of the prior conveyance.50 That information sufficient to put one on inquiry in regard to an adverse right is prima facie sufficient to charge one with notice of such right is a principle well settled in equity, without reference to the recording acts, and the question as to what constitutes such information in connection with these acts, when actual knowledge is not required, is determined by an application of equitable considerations.

Erickson v. Rafferty, 79 111. 209; Young v. Wiley (Ind. App.), 72 N. E. 54; Clark v. Holland, 72 Iowa, 34, 2 Am. St. Rep. 230, 33 N. W. 350; Price v. Mcdonald, 1 Md. 403, 54 Am. Dec. 567; Baldwin v. Anderson, 103 Miss. 462, 60 So. 578; Lyon v. Gom-bert, 63 Neb. 630, 88 N. W. 774; Nute v. Nute, 41 N. H. 60; Williamson v. Brown, 15 N. Y. 354; Doran v. Dazey, 5 N. D. 167, 57 Am. St. Rep. 550, 64 N. W. 1023; Brooks v. Reynolds, 37 Okla. 767, 132 Pac. 1091; Musgrave v. Bon-ser, 5 Ore. 313, 20 Am. Rep. 737; Alexander v. Fountain, 195 Ala. 3, 70 So. 669; Hingtgen v. Tbackery, 23 S. D. 329, 121 N. W. 839; Levine v. Whitebouse, 37 Utah, 260, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 407, 109 Pac. 2; Lamoille County Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Belden, 90 Vt. 535, 98 Atl. 1002.

49. Hamilton v. Fowkes, 16 Ark. 340; Pope v. Nichols, 61 Kan. 230, 59 Pac. 257; Farris v. Finnup, 84 Kan. 122, 113 Pac. 407; Knapp v. Bailey, 79 Me.

195, 1 Am. St. Rep. 295, 9 Atl. 122; Maupin v. Emmons, 47 Mo. 304; Drey v. Doyle, 99 Mo. 459, 12 S. W. 287; Creek Land & Imp. Co. v. Davis, 28 Okla. 579, 115 Pac. 468; Rector v. Wildrick, - Okla. - , 158 Pac. 610; Musgrovo v. Bonser, 5 Ore. 313, 20 Am. Rep. 737; Manigault v. Lofton, 78 S. C. 499, 59 S. E. 534; Tolland v. Corey, 6 Utah, 392, 24 Pac. 190; Brinkman v. Jones, 44 Wis. 498.

50. Pomroy v. Stevens, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 244; Lamb . v. Pierce, 113 Mass. 72; Toupin v. Peabody, 162 Mass. 473, 39 N. E. 280. See Crassen v. Swoveland, 22 Ind. 427; Wade, Notice, Sec. 14; 2 White & Tudor, Leading Cas. Eq. Amer. Notes, 218.

In Ohio it was held that when the statute made an unrecorded conveyance invalid as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser having "no knowledge" of such conveyance, the fact that he took under circumstances sufficient to put him on inquiry as

The information thus sufficient to put one on inquiry may consist of a statement made by the claimant of the adverse right,51 or by a third person not pecuniarily interested, if he is in a position to know the facts, and his statement is definite.52 The information must be sufficient to furnish a basis for investigation, and a mere rumor or indefinite statement that there is an adverse claim is not sufficient to put one on inquiry.53

Knowledge by the purchaser of the condition of the land, as by the presence of structures thereon, may be sufficient to put him on inquiry as to whether this does not indicate the existence of some adverse right or easement.54 The fact that a purchaser obtains the property at a very inadequate price is also, it is usually considered, a fact which should put him on inquiry as to the to such conveyance did not cause him to take subject thereto. Varwig v. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. R. Co., 54 Ohio St. 455, 44 N. E. 92.

51. Davis v. Kennedy, 105 111. 300; Nelson v. Sims, 23 Miss. 383, 57 Am. Dec. 144; Epley v. Witherow, 7 Watts (Pa.) 163; Bell v. Bell, 103 S. C. 95, 87 S. E. 540.

52. Lawton v. Gordon, 37 Cal. 202; Cox v. Milner, 23 111. 476; Curtis v. Mundy, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 405; Jackson, L. & S. R. Co. v. Davison, 65 Mich. 416, 32 N. W. 726; Jaeger v. Hardy, 48 Ohio St. 335, 27 N. E. 863; Butcher v. Yocum, 61 Pa. St. 168, 100 Am. Dec. 625; Martel v. Somers, 26 Tex. 551; Pocahontas Tanning Co. v. St. Lawrence Boom & Manufacturing Co., 63 W. Va. 685. 60 S. E. 890. See 2 Pome-roy Eq. Jur. Sec.Sec. 600-612.

53. Tompkins v. Henderson, 83 Ala. 391, 3 So. 774; Smith v. Yule, 31 Cal. 180, 89 Am. Dec.

167; Hopkins v. O'brien, 57 Fla. 444, 49 So. 936; City of Chicago v. Witt, 75 111. 211; Buttrick v. Holden, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 355; Shepard v. Shepard, 36 Mich. 173; Loughridge v. Bow-land, 52 Miss. 546; Condit v. Wilson, 36 N. J. Eq. 370; Raymond v. Flavel, 27 Ore. 219, 40 Pac. 158; Maul v. Rider, 59 Pa. St. 167; Martel v. Somers, 26 Tex. 551.

54. Webb v. Robbins, 77 Ala. 176; Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Rowell, 80 Cal. 114, 13 Am. St. Rep. 112, 22 Pac. 53; Pollard v. Rebman, 162 Cal. 633, 124 Pac. 235; Blatchley v. Os-born, 33 Conn. 226; New York N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Russell, 83 Conn. 581, 78 Atl. 324; Ashel-ford v. Willis, 194 111. 492, 62 N. E. 817; Joseph v. Wild, 146 Ind. 249, 45 N. E. 467; Brown v. Honey-field, 139 Iowa, 414, 116 N. W. 731; Kamer v. Bryant, 103 Ky. 723; 46 S. W. 14; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Sanders, 93 Miss. 107, 46

2218 Real Property. [^ 569 possible existence of an adverse claim.55 As is, it has been decided, knowledge on his part that one under whom his grantor claims acquired the property at an exceedingly inadequate price.56

If one put on inquiry makes such investigation as may reasonably be demanded of a person of ordinary diligence and understanding, and fails to ascertain the existence of the adverse claim, any inference of notice is rebutted.57

One is, it has been held, not charged with notice of an adverse claim by the fact that there are circumstances sufficient to put him on inquiry in reference thereto, and that he makes no inquiry, if inquiry by him would necessarily have been futile.58 The circumstances

So. 241; Seng v. Payne, 87 Neb. 812, 128 N. W. 655; Day, Williams & Co. v. Atlantic & G. W. R. Co., 41 Ohio St. 392; Mc-dougal v. Lame, 39 Ore. 212, 64 Pac. 864; Randall v. Silverthorn, 4 Pa. 173; Eshleman v. Parkers-burg Iron Co., 235 Pa. 439, 84 Atl. 399.

55. Mason v. Mullahey, 145 111. 383, 34 N. E. 36; Kuhn v. Wise, 90 Kan. 583, 135 Pac. 571; Atty. Gen. v. Abbott, 154 Mass. 323, 13 L. R. A. 251, 28 N. E. 346; Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 117 Mo. 261, 38 Am. St. Rep. 656, 22 S. W. 623; Durant v. Crowell, 97 N. C. 367, 2 S. E. 541; Wood v. French, 39 Okla. 685, 136 Pac. 734; Hume v. Hare, 87 Tex. 380, 28 S. W. 935; Wisconsin River Land Co. v. Selover, 135 Wis. 594, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1073, 116 N. W. 265; Lufkin Land & Lumber Co. v. Beaumont Timber Co., Ltd., 151 Fed. 740, 81 C. C. A. 98. See Booker v. Booker, 208 111. 529, 100 Am. St. Rep. 250, 70 N. E. 709.

56. Winters v. Powell, 180 Ala. 425, 61 So. 96; Gaines v. Summers, 50 Ark. 322, 7 S. W. 301; Hume v. Franzen, 73 Iowa, 25, 34 N. W. 490; Webber v. Taylor, 2 Jones Eq. (55 N. C.) 9; Baldwin v. Anderson, 103 Miss. 462, 60 So. 578. See Moore v. Sawyer, 167 Fed. 826.

As to whether a purchaser is, by notice of the inadequacy of the consideration for the conveyance to his grantor, affected with notice that such conveyance was fraudulent as to the grantors' creditors, see Longbeed v. Armstrong, 84 N. J. Eq. 49, 92 Atl. 93, and cases there cited.

57. Thompson v. Pioche, 44 Cal. 508; Gregory v. Savage, 32 Conn. 250; Cavin v. Middleton, 63 Iowa, 618, 19 N. W. 805; Schweiss v. Woodruff. 73 Mich. 473, 41 N. W. 511; Williamson v. Brown, 15 N. Y. 354; Loomi3 v. Cobb, - Tex. Civ. App. -, 159 S. W. 305; 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 007.

58. Cornell v. Maltby, 165 N. Y. 557, 59 N. E. 291; Herbert may be such, however, that a reasonably diligent inquiry would necessarily involve the ascertainment of the adverse claim, and in such case the presumption of notice may be regarded as conclusive.59 Each case must, to a very considerable degree, depend upon its own peculiar circumstances, and it is impossible to frame any absolute rule by which to determine whether an intending purchaser has sufficient information to put him on inquiry, and what constitutes due and sufficient inquiry.60