Case ID: us_4/html/0132-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*DECEMBER TERM, 1797.
    Stroud, assignee, &c., v. Lockart et al.
    
    
      Mortgage.
    
    If the purchaser of property knows, at the time of his purchase, of the existence of a mortgage, which has not been recorded according to the act of assembly, the premises will be bound by the mortgage.
    
    
      Scire facias on a mortgage. The mortgage had not been recorded, conformable to the act of assembly ; and Lockart had purchased the premises. But, on the trial, the plaintiff proved, that Lockart knew of the existence of the mortgage, at the time of his purchase, and said he would have to pay it, although it was not then recorded.
    
      
      
         See, on this point, Levinz v. Will, 1 Dall 430, and notes; Parker v. Wood, Id. 436. 
      
    
   By the Court.

— The case is too plain for controversy. The plaintiff must have a verdict; and all the trouble of the jury will be to calculate the interest.

Verdict for the plaintiff. 
      
       And see Speer v. Evans, 47 Penn. St. 141. Actual notice is equivalent to constructive notice by recording. Id. 144; Woodward, C. J.