Case ID: va-col-dec_2/html/B127-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Knight vs. Triplett
    
      In Canc.
    
   The Deft, made a purchase of certain Lands Of part whereof Pit. had a Lease for Years which was not recorded The Deft. had notice of this Lease before his purchase Yet brought an Ejectment & had Judgm’t at Law And this Bill was brought to be relieved ag’st this Judgm’t And to establish the Lease ag’st the Deft, in regard he had notice of it [119] and so he was not deceived but with respect to him it was the same as if it had been recorded.

To this Bill the Deft. Demurred And to support the Demurrer it was argued that by the Act of Assembly of the 8. Geo. 2. c. 6 this Lease not being recorded was void ag’st a Purchasor.

The words of the Act are to this purpose All Deeds &c. whether for passing Freehold or term of years not recorded — shall be void as to all Cred’rs & subsequent purchasors

It is a rule that Equity never decrees ag’st an Act of Parl’t which indeed would be transferring the Legislative power

2. 8c vide 1 W’ms 620.

It is true this Act was made to prevent Purchasors being deceived & here the Purchasor had notice & so could not be deceived

But I answ’r the Act has made all Deeds not recorded void & there is no exception where the Purchasor has notice. And as the Act makes no exception neither can a Court of Equity

This notice can never make that good which the Act has declared void Besides Deft, might think he might safely purchase notwithstanding the Lease as the Act had declared it void & that is the truth

In this view it must bring a strange hardship upon the purchsor He is informed of an Incumbrance Takes advice of a Lawyer who tells him the Incumbrance can’t affect him because an Act of Pari, had declared it void And yet afterw’ds this Incumbrance shall be set up under pretence of notice

There is no instance of this in the Law but there are Cases exactly parrallel ag’st it

2. & vide Blades vs. Blades Abr. Ca. Eq. 358.

By the Stat. 27. El. 4. ag’st fraudulent Conveiances it is Enacted that all Deeds made to defraud or deceive Purchasors shall be void This is very like our Act — All Deeds not recorded shall be void

A man makes a purchase & has Notice before of a Deed that was fraudulent within this Stat. And it was adj’d that he should avoid the fraudulent Deed notwithstanding the notice for this reason Because the Act had by express words made it void & his notice could not make that good which the Act had declared void. Slandens Case cited in Goochs 5. Co. 60. b.

The Case of Porter & Jones was much harder than this for there was a purchasor for val. cons, without any kind of remedy whereas the Pit. may have remedy for Damages ag’st Thompson But there the Court would not relieve because this very Act had declared the Deed was not binding

Ante page 88.

The hardship can never induce the Court to decree ag’st a positive Law Besides the hardship is not so great as there is a remedy ag’st Thompson And the hardship may be greater upon the purchasor [120] who has paid the full value of the Land upon a supposition the Pits. Lease was void & who purchased under the sanction of the Act

The Demurrer was allowed & the Bill dismissed with Costs. Sed 2.