In so far as a purchaser has actual or constructive notice of a conveyance or other instrument executed by one previously owning or claiming to own the land, he is charged with notice of all matters stated or referred to in such conveyance, which may possibly affect the title, and he is bound to make any inquiries or researches suggested by such statements or references.32

Mich. 93, 18 N. W. 569; Contra, Jones v. Grimes, 115 Miss. 874 76 So. 735.

31. Mccarthy v. Nicrosi, 72 Ala. 332, 47 Am. Rep. 418; Watt v. Parsons, 73 Ala. 202; Foulks v. Reed, 89 Ind. 373; Atwood v. Bearss, 47 Mich. 72, 10 N. W. 112; Rankin v. Coar, 46 N. J. Eq. 566, 11 L. R. A. 661, 22 Atl. 117.

32. Gaines v. Summers, 50 Ark. 322; Hitchcock v. Hines, 143 Ga. 377, 85 S. E. 119; Crawford v. Chicago B. & Q. R. Co., 112 111. 314; Smith v. Burgess,

133 Mass. 513; Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v. Singer, 49 Minn. 301. 32 Am. St. Rep. 554; Stewart v. Matheny, 66 Miss. 21, 14 Am. St. Rep. 538, 5 So. 387; Gross t. Watts, 206 Mo. 373, 121 Am. St. Rep. 662, 104 S. W. 30; Buchanan v. Balkum, 60 N. H. 406; Roll v. Rea, 50 N. J. L. 264, 12 Atl. 905; Mcpherson v. Rollins, 107 N. Y. 316, 1 Am. St. Rep. 826, 14 N. E. 411; Muller v. Mccann, 50 Okla. 710, 151 Pac. 621; Jennings v. Eloomfield, 199 Pa. 638, 49 Atl.

For this purpose a purchaser is charged with notice of any conveyance which occurs in the chain of title under which he claims, that is, he is charged with notice of all matters stated or referred to in any conveyance which is essential to support his claim, without reference to whether he has actual notice of such conveyance.33 And the fact that such conveyance in the chain of title is not of record is immaterial in this regard.34 And he is charged with notice of the contents, not only of instruments in his chain of title, but also of other instruments referred to in such instruments, although not of record,35

135; Teague v. Sowder, 121 Tenn. 132, 114 S. W. 484. So a purchaser is chargeable with notice of a restrictive covenant contained in a conveyance in his chain of title; Wiegman v. Kusel, 270 111. 520, 110 N. E. 884; Stees v Kranz, 32 Minn. 313, 20 N. W. 241; Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 726, 139 N. W. 878; Winfield v. Henning, 21 N. J. Eq. 188; Bowen v. Smith, 76 N. J. Eq. 456, 74 Atl. 675.

One purchasing land with notice of a mortgage or deed of trust thereon to secure a loan, containing a power of sale, has been regarded as charged with notice of a sale under the power. Farrar v. Payne, 73 I11. 82; Heaton v. Prather, 84 111. 330; Hill v. Ballard - (Mo.) - , 178 S. W. 445; Mansfield v. Elcelsior Refining Co., 135 U. S. 326, 34 L. Ed. 162.

33. Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 421, 447, 5 L. Ed. 651; Larkin v. Haralson, 189 Ala. 147, 66 So. 459; Costello v. Graham, 9 Ariz. 257, 80 Pac. 336; White v. Moffett, 108 Ark. 490, 158 S. W. 505; Myers v. Berven, 166 Cal. 484, 137 Pac. 260; Simm3 v. Freiherr, 100 Ga. 607, 28 S. E. 288; Stager v. Crabtree. 177 I'll. 59, 52 N. E. 378; Hazlett v. Sinclair, 76 Ind. 488; Knowles v. Williams, 58 Kan. 221, 48 Pac. 856; Hyde Park Supply Co. v. Peck-williamson Heating & Ventilating Co., 176 Ky. 513, 195 S. W. 1115; Green v. Early, 39 Md. 223; Baldwin v. Anderson, 103 Miss. 462, 60 So. 578; Gross v. Watts, 206 Mo. 373, 121 Am. St. Rep. 662, 104 S. W. 30; Lyon v. Gombert, 63 Neb. 630, 88 N. W. 774; Gosman v. Pfistner, 80 N. J. Eq. 432, 83 Atl. 781; Holmes v Holmes, 86 N. C. 205. In re Mulholland, 224 Pa. 536, 132 Am. St. Rep. 791; Baxter v. First Nat. Bank, 85 Tenn. 33, 1 S. W. 501; Whitlock v. Johnson, 87 Va. 323, 12 S. E. 614.

34. Greed v. Maddox, 97 Ark. 397, 134 S. W. 931; Bailey v. Southern R. Co., 112 Ky. 424, 60 S. W. 631; Stees v. Kranz, 32 Minn. 313, 20 N. W. 241; Gil-bough v. Runge, 99 Tex. 539, 122 Am. St. Rep. 659, 91 S. W. 566; 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. 627.

35. Hamilton v. Nutt, 34 Conn. 501; Weigel v. Green, 218 111. 227, in so far, at least, as it is reasonably possible for him to acquire knowledge thereof. And it follows that notice of a prior conveyance thus acquired by reference thereto in the chain of title is sufficient to defeat any claim of priority based on the failure to record such conveyance.36 Being put upon inquiry by the recital or statement in a conveyance in the chain of title, the purchaser "is bound to follow up this inquiry, step by step, from one discovery to another and from one instrument to another, until the whole series of title deeds is exhausted and a complete knowledge of all the matters referred to and affecting the estate is obtained. Being thus put upon inquiry, the purchaser is presumed to have prosecuted the inquiry until its final result and with ultimate success."37 Likewise, if a purchaser is charged with notice of an instrument, as being of record, or in his chain of title, and such instrument refers to a judicial proceeding, he is chargeable with notice of the character and validity of such proceeding, so far as the title is dependent thereon.38

75 N. E. 913; Walls v. State, 140 Ind. 16, 38 N. E. 177; Taylor v. Mitchell, 58 Kan. 194, 48 Pac. 859; Bailey v. Southern Ry. Co., 112 Ky. 424, 60 S. W. 631, 61 S. W. 31; White v. Foster, 102 Mass. 375; Daughaday v. Paine, 6 Minn. 443; Binder v. Weinberg, 94 Miss. 817, 48 So. 1013; Buchanan v. Balkum, 60 N. H. 406; Sweet v. Henry, 175 N. Y. 268, 67 N. E. 574; Creek Land & Imp. Co. v. Davis, 28 Okla. 579. 115 Pac. 468; Hancock v. Mcavoy, 151 Pa. 460, 18 L. R. A. 781, 31 Am. St. Rep. 774, 25 Atl. 47; Davis v. Tebbs. 81 Va. 600; Duval v. Crawford, 73 W. Va. 122, 80 S. E. 833. In Re Nisbet & Potts' Contract (K05) 1 Ch. 391, it waa held that one acquiring title by adverse possession was charged with notice of recitals in a conveyance to the disseisee.

36. Rosser v. Cheney, 61 Ga.

468; Morris v. Hogle, 37 111. 150, 87 Am. Dec. 243; Bronson v. Wanzer, 86 Mo. 408; Buchanan v Balkum, 60 N. H. 406; Mcpher-son v. Rollins, 107 N. Y. 316, 1 Am. St. Rep. 826; Parke v Neeley, 90 Pa. St. 52; Davis v. Tebbs, 81 Va. 600; Town v. Gensch, 101 Wis. 445, 76 N. W. 1096, 77 N. W. 893.

37. Loomis v. Cobb, - Tex. Civ. App - , 159 S. W. 305, per Hig-gins, J. See Croasdale v. Hill, 78 Kan. 140, 96 Pac. 37; Berg-strom v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 247, 126 N. W. 899; Adams v. Gossom, 228 Mo. 566, 129 S. W. 16; Snyder v. Collier, 85 Neb. 552, 133 Am. St. Rep. 682, 123 N. W. 1023; Roll v. Rea. 50 N. J. L. 264, 12 Atl. 905; Sweet v. Henry, 175 N. Y. 268, 67 N. E. 574; Teague v. Sowder, 121 Tenn. 132. 114 S. W. 484; Montgomery v. Noyes, 72 Tex. 203, 11 S. W. 138.

A purchaser has occasionally been held to be charged with notice of the inadequacy of the consideration recited in a conveyance under which his grantor claims, so as to be put on inquiry as to whether the title is not defective.39 But such a view has been regarded as inapplicable when the conveyance had been executed a number of years before.40

A reference in one instrument to another instrument can not affect a purchaser with notice of the latter instrument unless the reference is such as to put a reasonably careful man on inquiry with regard thereto.41 And consequently it must be in'such language as to suggest a probability, or at least a possibility, that the instrument referred to in some way affects the title.42 Furthermore, it has been said, it must be sufficiently specific to enable a purchaser to ascertain by inquiry and in38. Chicago R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 70 111. 350; Singer v. Scheible, 109 Ind. 575, 10 N. ei6; Spears v. Waddington, 146 Ky. 434, 142 S. W. 679; Wood v. Krebbs, 30 Gratt. (Va.) 708; Whitney v. Whitney Elevator & Warehouse Co., 183 Fed. 678, 106 C. C. A. 28.

39. 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 (semble); Baldwin v. Anderson, 103 Miss. 462, 60 So. 578.

40. Babcock v. Collins, 60 Minn. 73, 51 Am. St. Rep. 503, 61 N. W. 1020; Ross v. Kenwood Inv. Co., - Wash. - , 131 Pac. 649; Kinney v. Mccall, 57 Wash. 845, 107 Pac. 385. In the last cited case it is well said that "a purchaser of real property is not bound to compare the consideration recited in every deed in his chain of title with the market value of the property at the time of the several conveyances, under penalty of having the property impressed with a secret trust in his hands."

41. Wood v. Pitman Coal Co., 90 Ky. 588, 14 S. W. 588; Jennings v. Dockham, 99 Mich. 253, 58 N. W. 66; Crofut v. Wood, 3 Hun (N. Y.) 571; Stewarts Appeal, 98 Pa. 377; Durst v. Daugherty, 81 Tex. 650, 17 S. W. 388; Lewis v. Barnhart, 145 U. S. 56, 36 L. Ed. 621.

42. Mueller v. Engeln, 12 Bush (Ky.) 441; Mendelsohn v. Armstrong, 52 La. Ann. 1300, 27 So. 735; Kansas City Land Co. v. Hill, 87 Tenn. 589, 5 L. R. A. 45, 11 S. W. 797.

Vestigation whether the instrument or proceeding or other matter referred to does affect the title.43

A purchaser is not charged with notice of matters referred to in a conveyance of the land which is not a part of the chain of title under which he claims, which is not referred to in any instrument constituting a part of such chain, and of which he has not otherwise any actual or constructive notice.44 and a fortiori is this the case as regards a conveyance of other land.45 But a purchaser has been regarded as charged with notice of a provision contained in a conveyance of neighboring land, made by one in his chain of title, when the purpose and effect of such provision was to create an easement or other servitude upon the land which he is purchasing.46

A purchaser is not, it seems, put on inquiry as to defects in the title by the fact that a convevance in the chain of title contains no covenant for title,47 or is in the form of a quitclaim deed.48 And the same view has been expressed as to the presence of a special warranty in ordinary form.49 The warranty might, however, be so limited as to put a purchaser on notice.50

43. Spellman v. Mckeen, 96 Miss. 693, 51 So. 914; Acer v. Westcott, 46 N. Y. 384, 7 Am. Rep. 355. See Walls v. State, 140 Ind. 16, 38 N. E. 177.

44. Grundies v. Reid, 107 111. 304; Hazlett v. Sinclair, 76 Ind. 488, 40 Am. Rep. 254; Sullivan v. Mefford, 143 Iowa, 210, 121 N. W. 569; Knox County v. Brown, 103 Mo. 223, 15 S. W. 382; Chandler v. Robinson (N. J. Eq.), 75 Atl. 180; Hetherington v. Clark, 30 Pa. St. 393; Ramirez v. Smith, 94 Tex. 184, 59 S. W. 258; Ely v. Wilcox, 20 Wis. 523.

45. Lewis v. Barnhart, 145 U. S. 56, 36 L. Ed. 621; Bazemore v. Davis, 55 Ga. 504; Meacham v. Blaess, 141 Mich. 258, 104 N. W. 579; Murray v. Ballou, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 566; Kiley v. Hall, 76 Ohio 374, 117 N. E. 359;

Claiborne v. Holland, 88 Va. 1046, 14 S. E. 915; Providence Forge Fishing Hunting Club v. Gill, 117 Va. 557, 85 S. E. 464. But in Rogers v. White, - Tex. Civ. App. -, 194 S. W. 1001, the purchaser of land was regarded as charged with notice as to the ownership of such land by reason of a statement in a conveyance to him of other land.

46. Ante, Sec. 567(d), notes 60-64.

47. Wilhelm v. Wilken, 149 N. Y. 447, 32 L. R. A. 370, 52 Am. St. Rep. 743, 44 N. E. 82; Schott v. Dosh, 49 Neb. 187, 59 Am. St. Rep. 531, 68 N. W. 346; Bab-cock v. Wells, 25 R. I. 23, 105 Am. St. Rep. 848, 54 Atl. 596; Padgitt v. Still, - Tex. Civ. App. -, 192 S. W. mo.

48. Ante, Sec. 567(1), note 28.