- (e) Instruments executed prior to acquisition of title. The question whether a purchaser is charged with notice by the record of a conveyance, executed by a person in his grantor's chain of title before such person's acquisition of the title, has been considered in connection with our discussion of the doctrine of the grantor's estoppel to assert an after acquired title,6507 it being only by reason of that doctrine that such a conveyance by one without title can in any case be effective.

63. King v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 226 Mo. 351, 126 S. W. 415; Lowes v. Carter, 124 Md. 678, 93 Atl. 216; Whistler v. Cole, 81 N. Y. Misc. 519, 143 N. Y. Supp. 478, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1118; Holt v. Fleischman, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 593, 78 N. Y. Supp. 647. But a contrary view was adopted in Glorieux v. Lighthipe, 88 N. J. L. 199, Ann. Cas. 1917E 484, 96 Atl. 94, on the ground that the statute, in making the record notice to subsequent purchasers, meant purchasers of the same land as that previously conveyed.

64. Post, Sec. 625. 65-67. Ante, Sec. 545(e).

The cases are not in harmony as to whether a purchaser, finding the record of a conveyance by A to B for instance, and a subsequent conveyance by B to the vendor, must examine the records to see whether B, before the conveyance by A to him, had made a conveyance to some other person, which, upon B's acquisition of title, vested the title in such person.

- (f) Instruments executed after apparently parting with title. It is generally agreed that a purchaser is not charged with notice of a conveyance by a person in the grantor's chain of title, by reason of the record thereof, if such conveyance was executed after the grantor therein appears, by a recorded conveyance, to have parted with the title.68 For instance, if A first conveys to B, and then conveys to C, a purchaser from

B, is not, by reason of the record of the convevance to


C, charged with notice of its existence, so as to be put on inquiry as to the validity of the conveyance by A to B. He has the right to assume that A, having conveyed to B, would have made no further conveyance, and he is consequently under no obligation to search for such a conveyance. Whether, in case the purchaser from B had actual notice of the subsequent conveyance to C, he would be put on inquiry thereby as to the validity of the conveyance to B, is another question, which would probably call for an affirmative answer.

- (g) Instrument recorded after parting with title. When a purchaser who receives his conveyance before the record of a prior conveyance by the same grantor to another, nevertheless takes subject to such prior conveyance, as having actual notice thereof, one who purchases from him, but after the record of such prior conveyance, has usually been regarded as taking

68. Goodkind v. Bartlett, 153 111. 419, 38 N. E. 1045; Tydings v. Pitcher, 82 Mo. 379; Chowen v. Phelps, 26 Mont. 524, 69 Pac. 54;

Hooker v. Pierce, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 650; White v. Mcgregor, 92 Tex. 556. 71 Am. St. Rep. 875, 50 S. W. 564.

2192 Reeal Property. [Sec. 567 subject thereto. Such last purchaser cannot claim priority as a purchaser from an innocent purchaser,69 since his vendor took with notice, and he cannot himself claim to be an innocent purchaser, because he is charged with notice by the record of the prior conveyance before his purchase.70 In states in which a subsequent purchaser, in order to be protected as against an unrecorded conveyance of which he has no notice, must first record his conveyance,71 it seems that the last purchaser might, under such circumstances, be postponed, even though he purchased before the record of such first conveyance, unless he records his conveyance before the first conveyance is recorded.72

Under the doctrine stated in the preceding paragraph, an intending purchaser, although he finds by the index of grantors in the record office, that a particular person in the chain of title executed a conveyance of the land, must nevertheless continue the examination of the records under the name of such person, in order to see whether there was subsequently recorded a prior conveyance by such person, though, as before stated73 he is under no such duty for the purpose of seeing whether there was subsequently recorded a subsequent conveyance by such person. If, however, he perform his duty in searching for any prior conveyance, he would usually discover any subsequent conveyance of record, and for this reason there seems a certain inconsistency in making the question of his constructive notice of a conveyance subsequently recorded depend upon

69. Post, Sec. 575.

70. Mahoney v. Middleton, 41 Cal. 41; Bayles v. Young ,51 111. 127; Van Aken v. Kleason, 34 Mich. 477; Cook v. French, 96 Mich. 525, 56 N. W. 101; Woods v. Garnett, 72 Miss. 78, 16 So. 390; Jackson v. Post, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 120, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 588; Van Rensselaer v. Clark, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 25, 31 Am. Dec.

280; Parrish v. Mahany, 10 S. D. 276, 66 Am. St. Rep. 715, 73 N. W. 97; White v. Mcgregor, 92 Tex. 556, 71 Am. St. Rep. 875, 50 S. W. 564, (dictum); Erwin v. Lewis, 32 Wis. 276.

71. Post, Sec. 567(1), note 11.

72. Fallass v. Pierce, 30 Wis. 443.

73. Ante, Sec. 567(f).

The date of the conveyance. In one state any distinction in this regard is obviated by decisions to the effect that an intending purchaser, having found on the records a conveyance by a particular person in the chain of title, is under no obligation to "run down" such person further in the index of grantors for the purpose of discovering any prior conveyance by him subsequently recorded.74

- (h) What constitutes recording. By the construction usually placed on the recording acts, and frequently by the express language thereof, it is the time of the filing or deposit of an instrument for record, and not the time of its actual record by the official recorder, that determines the rights of the claimant thereunder as against a subsequent purchaser.75