- (a) General considerations. An intending purchaser of land is, as a general rule, by the fact that the land is in the possession of a person other than he who is undertaking to sell it, charged with notice of the rights of such person, to the extent that he could, by reasonable inquiry, have ascertained the nature of such rights.67 This presumptex 308, 48 Am. Rep. 264; Mc-cormick v. Joseph, 83 Ala. 401, 3 So. 796.

63. The Distilled Spirits, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 356, 20 L. Ed. 167; Armstrong v. Abbott, 11 Colo. 220, 17 Pac. 517; Mack v. Mcintosh, 181 111. 633, 54 N. E. 1019; Constant v. University of Rochester, 111 N. Y. 604, 2 L. R. A. 734, 7 Am. St. Rep. 769, 19 N. E. 631; Arrington v. Ar-rington, 114 N. C. 151, 19 S. E. 351; First State Bank of Keota v. Bridges, 39 Okla. 355, 135 Pac. 378; Mechem, Agency, Sec. 1809.

64. The Distilled Spirits, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 356, 20 L. Ed. 167; Littauer v. Houck, 92 Mich. 162, 31 Am. St. Rep. 572, 52 N. W. 464; Mack v. Mcintosh, 181 111. 633, 54 N. E. 1019; Mechem, Agency, Sec. 1814.

65. Roach v. Karr, 18 Kan.

529; Trentor v. Pothen, 46 Minn. 298, 24 Am. St. Rep. 225, 49 N. W. 129; Tucker v. Tilton, 55 N. H. 223; Anketel v. Converse, 17 Ohio St. 11, 91 Am. Dec. 115; Wood v. Rayburn, 18 Ore. 3, 22 Pac. 521; Mechem, Agency, Sec. 1831.

66. Frenkel v. Hudson, 82 Ala. 158, 60 Am. Rep. 736, 2 So. 758; Allen v. South Boston R. Co., 150 Mass. 200, 5 L. R. A. 716, 15 Am. St. Rep. 185, 22 N. E. 917; Hickman v. Green, 123 Mo. 165. 29 L. R. A. 39, 22 S. W. 455, 27 S. W. 440; National Life Ins. Co. of United States v. Minch, 53 N. Y. 144.

67. Kirby v. Tallmadge, 160 U. S. 379, 40 L. Ed. 463; Enslen v. Thornton, 182 Ala. 314, 62 So. 525; Grant's Pass Land & Water Co., 168 Cal. 456, 143 Pac. 754; Davis v. Pursel, 55 Colo. 287, 134 Pac. 107; Coursey v. Coursey, tion of notice appears to exist, even though the intending purchaser is a nonresident, or for other reasons is without actual knowledge of the possession by a third person.68 As is stated hereafter, however, the possession may not be of such a character as to put the pur141 Ga. 65, 80 S. E. 462; Trues-dale v. Ford, 37 111. 210; Johnson v. Clark, 18 Kan. 157; Everidge v. Martin, 164 Ky. 497, 175 S. W. 1004; Kushler v. Weber, 182 Mich. 224, 148 N. W. 418; Niles v Cooper, 98 Minn. 39, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49, 107 N. W. 744; Strickland v. Kirk, 51 Miss. 795; Manpin v. Emmons, 47 Mo. 304; Pleasants v. Blodgett, 39 Neb. 741, 42 Am. St. Rep. 624, 58 N. W. 423; Phelan v. Brady, 119 N. Y. 587, 8 L. R. A. 211, 23 N. E. 1109; Brown v. Trent, 36 Okla. 239, 128 Pac. 895; Ray-burn v. Davisson, 22 Ore. 242, 29 Pac. 738; Kerr v. Day, 14 Pa. St. 112, 53 Am. Dec. 526; Johnson v. Olberg, 32 S. D. 346, 143 N. W. 292; Toland v. Corey, 6 Utah, 392, 24 Pac. 190; Chapman v. Chapman, 91 Va. 397, 50 Am. St. Rep. 846, 21 S. E. 813; Field v. Copping, Agnew & Scales, 65 Wash. 359, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 488, 118 Pac. 329; Mills v. Mclanahan, 70 W. Va. 288, 73 S. E. 927; Olmstead v. Mccrory, 158 Wis. 323, 148 N. W. 871.

68. King v. Paulk 85 Ala 186. 4 So. 825; Hamilton v. Fowkes, 16 Ark. 340; Hyde v. Mangan, 88 Cal. 319, 26 Pac. 180; Tate v. Pensaoola, Gulf, Land & Development Co., 37 Fla. 439, 53 Am. St. Rep. 251, 20 So. 542; Tillotson v. Mitchell, 111 111. 518; Delosh v. Delosh, 171 Mich,

175, 137 N. W. 81; Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 44; Fried-lander v. Ryder, 30 Neb. 783, 9 L. R. A. 700, 47 N. W. 83; Galley v. Ward, 60 N. H. 33; Hodge v. Amerman, 40 N. J. Eq. 99, 2 Atl. 257; Phelan v. Brady, 119 N. Y. 587, 8 L. R. A. 211, 23 N. E. 1109; Edwards v. Thompson, 71 N. C. 177; Ranney v. Hardy, 43 Ohio St. 157, 1 N. E. 523; Hottenstein v. Lerch, 104 Pa. St. 454, 1 N. E. 523; Sheorn v. Robinson, 22 S. C. 32; Bliss v. Waterbury, 27 S. D. 429, 131 N. W. 731; Ramirez v. Smith, 94 Tex. 184, 59 S. W. 258; Chapman v. Chapman, 91 Va. 397, 50 Am. St. Rep. 846, 21 S. E. 813; Weekly v. Hardesty, 48 W. Va. 39, S5 S. E. 880. See Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran, 142 U. S. 417, 35 L. Ed. 1063. Contra, Harral v. Leverty, 50 Conn. 46, 47 Am. Rep. 608; Harris v. Arnold, 1 R. I. 125.

To satisfy a requirement of "actual notice" within the recording acts, a knowle^go of the possession on the part of the purchaser has been held to be necesary. Vaughn v. Tracy, 22 Mo. 15, 25 Mo. 318, 69 Am. Dec. 471; Masterson v. West End Narrow Guage R. Co., 5 .Mo. App. 64, 72 Mo. 342; Brinkman v. Jones, 44 Wis. 498. See Porter v Sevey, 43 Me. 519; Pomroy v. Stevens, 11 Mete. (Mass ) 244.

2 R. P. - 65 chaser on inquiry.69 Furthermore, even though the possession was sufficient to put the purchaser on inquiry, he is not chargeable with notice if he followed up the inquiry in good faith without discovering any adverse interest.70 For instance, if the person in possession refuses, upon inquiry, to indicate the nature of his interest, the purchaser is justified in carrying through the purchase without reference to any possible claim in favor of such person,71 or, it would seem, in favor of one in behalf of whom the possession may be held, the possessor's landlord, for instance.72 And if the person in possession, upon inquiry by the purchaser, disclaims any interest or anything more than a limited interest, the purchaser is not charged with notice of a greater interest in such person by reason of his possession or occupation.73

Even though the purchaser fails to perform his duty of inquiry, he is not, it seems, charged with notice of the interest of the person in possession if the inquiry would have been unavailing, as when the possessor is ignorant of the nature of his interest,74 or he has previously indicated an intention to deceive the purchaser as to the basis of his possession.75

69. Post, Sec. 571(b).

70. Hellman v. Levy, 55 Cal. 117; Emerich v. Alvarado, 90 Cal. 471, 27 Pac. 356; Austin v. Southern Home Building & Loan Ass'n, 122 Ga. 439, 50 S. E. 382; Penrose v. Cooper, 88 Kan. 210, 128 Pac. 362; Rogers v. Jones, 8 N. H. 264; Huffman v. Cooley, 28 S. D. 475, 134 N. W. 49; Ellison v. Torpin, 44 W. Va. 414, 30 S. E. 185.