Case ID: ohio_8/html/0397-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Judge Wood", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Northrup’s Lessee v. Brehmer.
    Two deeds, neither recorded within six months after execution, the second deed, if first recorded, shall prevail in the absence of all notice.
    Ejectment from Tuscarawas county.
    Both parties claim title from Jacob Leonard, who was the patentee of the land from the government.
    On October 13, 1820, Leonard conveyed to Brehmer. On February 13, 1834, he conveyed the same land to Smith, under whom Northrup claims. The defendant was in possession, but had not recorded his deed. His deed was put on record on September 16, 1834, and Northrup’s on June 6, 1837. The plaintiff, though the youngest grantee, claims as an innocent bona fide purchaser, without notice, more than six months having intervened- between the execution and record of the deed to Brehmer. There was no evidence of notice in fact.
    Atherton and Peck, for the plaintiff:
    Contended that the conveyance to Brehmer was fraudulent and void as to Northrup, because it was not recorded within the six months allowed by law, and before the conveyance to the plaint.iff’s grantor. They cited 29 Ohio L. 384, and 22 Ohio L. 220.
    The delay for more than six months to record the deed under which plaintiff claims, in no way strengthens the defendant’s title, or weakens that of the plaintiff.
    No argument was submitted for defendant.
   Judge Wood

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case involves merely the construction of the statutes for the recording of deeds. The statutes provide that unless an older deed shall be recorded within six months of its execution, it shall be deemed fraudulent against a subsequent bona fide purchaser without notice. Neither of these deeds were recorded within six months of their execution, but the last was executed before the first was recorded, and as to that, in the absence of all evidence of notice, the first must be held fraudulent. We do not see how the omission to record the last deed affects the question; there is no claim by a later purchaser without notice. The plaintiff will have judgment, but the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the occupying claimant law.