This section is from the book "The Law Of Real Property and Other Interests In Land", by Herbert Thorn Dike Tiffany. Also available from Amazon: A Treatise on the Modern Law of Real Property and Other Interests in Land .
A purchaser for value may not only enjoy the property free from any adverse claim of which he had no notice at the time of his purchase, but he may also transfer his rights in this respect to others, and the fact that his alienee himself has notice is immaterial, it being thus the rule that a purchaser with notice from a purchaser without notice has all the rights of the latter.93 Were the rule otherwise, a purchaser without notice might be unable to dispose of his property for value. The one exception to this rule exists when the second purchaser had previously held the property sub91. Ante, Sec. 566(b), notes 10-13.
92. See, as apparently applying the analogy suggested. Whea-ton v. Dyer, 15 Conn. 307; Paul v. Mcpherrin, 48 Colo. 522, 21 Ann. Cas. 460, 111 Pac. 59.
93. Harrison v. Forth, Finch, Prec. Ch. 51; Whitfield v. Riddle, 78 Ala. 99; White v. Moffett, 108 Ark. 490, 158 S. W. 505; Moore v. Allen, 26 Colo. 197, 77 Am. St. Rep. 255, 57 Pac. 698; Roe v. Cato, 27 Ga. 637; Buck v. Foster. 147 Ind. 530, 62 Am. St. Rep. 427, 46 N. E. 920, East v. Pugh, 71 Iowa, 162, 32 N. W. 309;
This general rule is recognized in case the judgment creditor is the purchaser at the execution sale, usually on the theory that he is not a purchaser for value,97 an exception which is denied in other states.98 And in a few states, it seems, a purchaser at execution sale takes merely such title as the execution debtor had.98a ject to such adverse claim. That is, one having notice cannot, by disposing of the property to an innocent purchaser, and subsequently reacquiring it, obtain the right to hold it free from such claim.94
Varney v. Deskins, 146 Ky. 27, 141 S. W. 411; Livingstone v. Murphy, 187 Mass. 315. 105 Am. St. Rep. 400, 72 N. E. 1012; Barksdale v. Learnard, 112 Miss. 861, 73 So. 736; Craig v. Zimmerman, 87 Mo. 475, 56 Am. Rep. 466; Mcgrath v. Norcross, 78 N. J Eq. 120, 79 Atl. 85, 82 N. J. Eq. 367, 91 Atl. 1069; Card v. Patterson, 5 Ohio St. 319; Master-son v. Crosby, - Tex Civ. App.-, 152 S. W. 173; Bernard v. Don-son, 58 Wash. 191, 137 Am. St. Rep. 1051, 108 Pac. 439; King v. Porter, 69 W. Va. 80, 71 S. E. 202.
A purchaser of land without notice, either from the records or otherwise, of a prior outstanding claim, is not affected thereby, even though his grantor had actual notice of the claim.95 Were a purchaser affected by the fact of notice to his grantor, one could never purchase with safety, since one can never be certain that his vendor is without notice of some adverse claim.