As before remarked, the modern abstract owes its existence largely to the doctrine of notice. This doctrine may be briefly explained as follows:

The principle is well established, that a purchaser of land is chargeable with notice, by implication, of every fact affecting the title, which could be discovered by an examination of the deeds or other muniments of title of his vendor, and of every fact, as to which the purchaser, with reasonable prudence or diligence, ought to become acquainted. If there is sufficient contained in any deed or record, which a prudent purchaser ought to examine, to induce inquiry in the mind of an intelligent person, he is chargeable with the knowledge or notice of the facts so contained, and, generally, a party in possession of certain information will be chargeable with a knowledge of all facts which an inquiry suggested by such information, diligently prosecuted, would have disclosed to him.16 The purchaser must be presumed to investigate the title, and to examine every deed or instrument forming a part of it, especially if recorded, and to make inquiries in pais as well as look at records.

Notice is classed as either actual or constructive, but there is no difference between them in regard to the legal consequence or effect. In this country it has been uniformly held that the record of a conveyance, executed in conformity to law, operates as constructive notice to all subsequent purchasers or incumbrancers, claiming under the same grantor, of any estate, either legal or equitable, in the same property, provided the conveyance be one which the law requires or authorizes to be recorded;17 and such purchaser is charged with the duty of exercising diligence in making proper examination touching the rights and equities of others, where the record shows that others have such rights, in the lands he is about to purchase.

16 Cambridge Bank vs. Delano, 48 N. Y., 326; Wilson vs. Hunter, 30 Ind., 466.

17 Tilton vs. Hunter, 29 Me., 29; Crockett vs. McGuire, 10 Mo.t 34.

A subsequent purchaser is not chargeable with constructive notice of all instruments of record, by whomsoever made, but only of such as he in the apparent chain of title, or have been made by some one in some way connected with property involved in interest, and brought to his notice. Hence, he is not bound to look for conveyances by or judgments against one in whom the record shows no title.

The doctrine of constructive notice under registration laws has always been regarded as a harsh necessity, and the statutes which create it have always been subjected to a rigid construction. Therefore, only the facts as they appear on the face of the record are deemed binding on subsequent purchasers, and if, from any cause, the real facts are there misstated, as if the wrong land is by mistake described, or the sum for which a mortgage is given is inadvertently omitted, a subsequent purchaser in good faith, relying upon what is shown, will not be affected by the error or omission.

That which a person actually sees, or which is specifically brought to his attention, creates an actual notice of the fact. But the general doctrine of actual notice is much broader than this. Where a purchaser has knowledge of any fact sufficient to put a prudent man upon an inquiry, which, if prosecuted with ordinary diligence, would lead to actual notice of some right or title in conflict with that he is about to purchase, it is his duty to make the inquiry, and if he does not make it, he is guilty of bad faith or negligence to such an extent that the law will presume that he did make it, and will charge him with the actual notice he would have received if he had made it.18

Open, notorious and exclusive possession of land imparts notice of the title of the person in possession, and of every fact which the purchaser might learn by-inquiry.19 But while it is true, that the law regards the actual occupancy of land as equivalent to notice of the claim of the occupant, to all persons dealing with the title, yet this is not an absolute proposition, which is to be taken as true in all possible relations. The known circumstances may be such that the occupancy will not suggest to a purchaser an inquiry into the title or claim of the occupant, and when the inquiry may be omitted in good faith and in the exercise of ordinary prudence, no one is bound to make it. Possession out of the vendor and actually in another person ordinarily suggests an inquiry into the claim of the latter, and a failure to make such inquiry evinces gross neglect, but the question in all such cases is one of actual notice, and such notice will be imputed only where it is a reasonable and just inference from the visible facts.20

As distinguished from constructive notice, actual notice consists in express information of a fact brought home to a party, or a knowledge of circumstances which should lead him to a knowledge of such fact. Its existence is always a question of fact, open to rebuttal or explanation, while, on the other hand, constructive notice is a presumption of law which cannot be rebutted.