Case ID: root_1/html/0061-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HARTFORD COUNTY,
    MARCH TERM, A. D. 1774.
    Hartmyer v. Gates.
    A deed wlien recorded shall relate back to the time when received, unless the delay is caused by the fraud or fault of the grantee.
    Action of ejectment for a certain farm. Issue to the jury.
    
      The case was — Joshua Chandler on the 16 th of April, A. D. 1765, owned the farm and gave a deed of it to the plaintiff, dated the 30th of October, in satisfaction of a debt he owed him; who then resided in England, and said Chandler carried it to the town clerk and had it entered upon; received for record, and gave orders for it not to be recorded at length until further orders, without the knowledge or direction of the plaintiff; the town clerk made this entry upon the deed, October 30 A. D. 1765 received for record, and not entered till further orders.” A Mr. Ackley had an execution against Chandler, who had now become bankrupt, and the defendant having found the situation of the plaintiff’s deed, takes an assignment of said execution from Ackley and levied it upon the farm, and had it set off upon the execution, some time in A. D. 1767, and had it recorded. In May, A. D. 1772, Dr. Johnson returned from England, who was attorney to the plaintiff, and finding the situation of the deed and of the farm, caused said deed to be recorded at length.
    The plaintiff relied upon the fraud practiced by Chandler, and the neglect of the town clerk, as the only reason why the deed was not sooner recorded; and that the plaintiff ought not to be prejudiced in his title without any fault of his; and upon the doctrine of relation, that whenever the deed was recorded at length, it related back and had operation from the time it was entered upon, received for record.
    The defendant insisted, as his title was first completed he ought to hold, especially as he otherways would be decoyed and injured, by the plaintiff’s deed lying in that situation.
   Verdict and judgment was for the plaintiff; on the ground that the plaintiff was in no fault, and had done nothing to prevent said deed’s being recorded at length.