The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-09-28

and ratification OF the party's lease. I'm
Again, it is held that /" in all cases where a
party cannot make out a title but by a
Deed Which leads To another fact, the pur
chaser. shall not be a purchaser without
notice cf that fact, but be deemed CONVEX
"sant thereof, for it was rrassa nestiyer
eta. that ne sought not after it. and thar
"ths Is ~ law no,ice las where in a
"j0iUture there was a covenant againt M
cumbraaccs. except leases or copies de-
"terminable in 3 lives, the exception of
""ieases" gave notice of former leases.
and therefore the party mus. take notice
"of the covenants Contained in them. On J
Applying this principle tn the case before
us the unusual clauses in the Act of jam
AIRY 1875, the special w ,rran,y ard special
covenant contained in all the Deeds rela-
tive TO these lands, as before mentioned, the
enormous inadequacy of price, and the re
quisi'ion ia the Constitution OF Georgia. in
relation 20 laying off the lands sold into coun-
ties. which has not been complied with. as
aforesaid. and by recurring which it must
appear Co all the world. that the grant (un..
conditional as i.is,) WAS not justified So
these, to avbthe least, appeared in some
= Deed or Document necessary to the de
duction of the titie''--these were untloubt
cdly sufficient, ",toput party upon an En-
Quiry," and Certainly amount to gnod no
tice in Equity. The general saving in the
special covenant aforesaid as to {" any de-
feet OF title in the purchasers from the
' State of Georgia" is as competent TO ex-
tend to all defects whatever as the except
on of leases in the passage last cited was to
extendto oil former leases whatsoevcr,--
1t was 'erdssa segfgenfia" in purchaser
not to lay hold of the ciue thereby afforded,
aad to trace the defect uf title through al
its ramfica,ioDs it was Still more fnexcu
SABLE, not to notice the great defects, as a.
foresad, of the Act itself the foundation of
that title. and to overlook and disregard the
defects aud badges of frand evidently dis,
Eernibie therein. In "a word, if there was
ever distant glimmering, or twinkling of
a donbt. whether intrinsic or extraneous. rs
IT relates 10 a Deed or Document by which
with reasonable degree of diligence the
purchasing party might have hun &c out the
fraud, his not having done sos makes him
a Wrong doer in a court of Equity for he
has purchased that with a corruht consci
.ence which he knew or nigh, have known,
belonged to another. 10 DO
Most OF the doctrines on this subject OF
Notice arc. common TO circumstances which
are intrinsic in Deeds or Documents, and
those which are parol or ,extraneous, vari
ed only by the, greater permancncy of the
EydeDce in the former case than in the
latter. They stand upon this orrr mon
foundation, that party to be an innocent
purchaser must purchase under an entire
ignorance of the defect in tlr. title: and
apprehend that even an imperfect cue
or hint in the case OF extraneous Evidence
ought TO be pursued ;so'a full and perfect
Enquiry, in sbe same way; as if il. were de-.
veloped in a Deed or Docu ufeat This much
at ieas, is certain that any ground or cir
cumstahce inducing a belief, that an igno-
rance of the defect of title could not have
existed, will suffice however informal or ir
regular. The dactrines OF the courts of Z.
quity on this subject do not exist in forms or
tech hcaliLies Equity delights, in this as
IN cite Subjects ~ substance. Thus. al
though the registers Act in England of
Anne, CHI. 90 is Of itself held TO be notice
t. every body on the ground of is being ne
cessary TO establish general rule on this
aueJcct. and to prevent the perjuries arising
from parel proofs ofnot'cc or no. notice, M
ye, a parry in fac, kaery of deed although
II WIS not registered andyet purchased the
property, he shall be postponed on the ground
OF no. Beng within the mischief intended to
be prohibited and on the broad ground of
purchasing maid .ifde (q1 in that case
general rule, however convenient as n rule
was not permitted TO Cut up the foundations
OF Equity-apyi particular proof Of notice or
an, general act of such, notorietya as to evnce
such notice, will be entirely sufficient.-
shall have occasion to extend * apply this
principle to the case before Us, in the next
number. - ~ t.. go, t...T
On this subject os notice, there IS another
principle which is Of great inheritance in
the case before us. 1t rs, that to sustain
plea ola purchaser Tsifhont notice the par
ty must not only aver the execution of the
Conveyance eoiim; but also TIE actual hay-
menf ofthe money by him before the notice
was received. (r) 1t isnot enough oplead
and shew tha~the party hadgiven his bonds
Tor the payment of the Consideration Is J.;
and The reason is, hat if a mans bonds are
merely out, and the money is not tad, he
may. on discovery of a defect of title, pet
reliet against the payment Of the money by
Injunct!cn, until the title is fully cleared ~
Nothing, therefore will suffice in a case Of
this kind, but the actual Payment offbe r1o :.
ney before the notice of the incumbrance
was received. This. it is true, only applies
TO the first purchaser, Gas here the purcha
ser from the original granrees,) for it is held
that apurchaser with notice from a. purcha
ser without notice may shelter himself IN
der the first purchaser. for that otherwise
Estates would be too much clogged u }
with respect 70 the first purchaser however.
the actual payment of the money before the
receipt OF notice is "A fundamental Canon,
which is never dispensed with in any case
Where such notice has been actually receiy
ed. the consideration paid is utterly anini
portaDt, however considerable, for nc pur
f-dccoa u50Ir G(Sc md sb c,,,uo o,,,o,. -. -