Case ID: root_1/html/0388-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Moor v. Watson.
    If a deed is recorded in a reasonable time, under the circumstances, it will hold against an attachment, previously served.
    Action of ejectment. Flea — No wrong or disseisin. Issue to the jury.
    The case was - — ■ The defendant was the original owner of the land demanded; Stephen Chubb a collector took and sold it for Watson’s taxes, to Uriah Seymour; Watson was a poor man, the collector paid the taxes and took back a deed of said land from said Seymour to himself.
    In the fall of the year A. D. 1789, the collector agreed to release the land to the defendant upon his paying the taxes, interest and cost. One Tryon of Wethersfield agreed to buy the land and give considerable more for it, provided he had a deed by a certain time; the defendant applied to Chubb the collector, and received a deed of said land from him, dated the 7th of September A. D. 1789, which was Monday; the register lived about four miles out of the road to Wethers-field; the defendant went to Wethersfield to complete his bargain with Try on, returned to New Hartford the next Saturday at evening, which was the 12th, and the Monday-following in the morning, which was the 14th, said deed was left with the town clerk for record.
    The plaintiff having several small debts against Chubb, and being informed that Chubb had given a deed of this land back to Watson, and finding the deed not left for record, on the lltli of said September he prayed out several attachments against Chubb; and attached this land, and had the service completed on the same day at eleven o’clock at night; he afterwards obtained judgments on said attachments, before a justice, took out executions and had them levied on this land, etc.
    Question in this case was —■ Whether the plaintiff should hold the land against the defendant’s deed, on the ground that he attached it before said deed was lodged for record? If he could hold the land, it must be because said deed was not lodged in a reasonable time, or upon the principle of fraud.
    By our statute, no time is limited in which a deed must be lodged with the register for record; it must therefore be within a reasonable time, and of this the court and jury must j udge upon view of the circumstances. As the plaintiff knew of the defendant’s deed before he caused said land to be attached, it could be no fraud upon him.
   Verdict and judgment for defendant.