The Mississippi Creole. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1841-1851, 1841-09-11

/
most OF the States of this Union, laws
nave been passed declaring, that = 10
aeed or other conveyance for Land shall
De valid against subsequent purchase.
unless the deed be proved and recorded
10 the county IN which the lend les
The plain intent and meaning Of tbsse
statutes are obvious. They were De-
signed to give party notice OF any sx-
iStInS deed or Membranes. IN order thai
ne might not be duped 10 make a par
chase OF land which had been previously
Sold In acting under these statutes. an
IN giving constructions 10 them. the
Courts of Great Britain and o. the Uni-
ted States have uniformly decided. thai
II subsequent purchaser knew OF an ex-
isting deed at the time of his purchase.
the oldest deed should stand good. thoarh
not recorded; and this because The Dar-
ty purchasing last had actual notice Of
the prior deed, which was all thar tba
registry laws intended or desired him 10
have.-See l Siory's Equity, SIS. This
rule otlaw IS laid down in Foablanqae's
Equity treatise, page 43: Equity saws.
II the party knew Of the unregistered
deed, his registered deed shall not set II
aside, because he has that notice which
the act of parliament intended he should
haven
1t IS also we'll established rule Of
law, that no Judgment is valid unless the
party against whom it is rendered had
nottce OF the commencement of the suit.
by means of summons, subpoena or
some other judicial writ. Yet the courts
OF law and equity have everywhere held.
that "lf A commence suit against B ana
b employs counsel to appear and defend
the suit, Is Is bound by the judgment. al
though no writ was ever served upon
him, to appear and answer 10 the action. =
The principle Of these decisions Is. man
ifest. The registry of a deed was only
required 10 give a subsequent purchaser
notice of its existence. The service Of =
writ was only enjoined for the Ike pur-
Pose-to give the defendant notice of the
pendancy of the suit against him. But
IT the parties received notice in any ofIgr
way, the object and spirit of the law was
fulfilled. So too in reference TO the bond
question. The constitution required the
publication of a law pledging the faith Of
the State to be made in particular man
ner, in order that the people might have
notice of the kind of law proposed 10 Be /
sire its passage. If the people in fact
had notice, though not through the mode !
pointed out in that instrument, then It's
spirit and meaning was fulfilled, the OA- +
ject proposed by it attained, and the law
pledging the faith of the State must Dc
obligatory, and must be so decided BY
courts of justice; for in giving a construc- T
ton TO a law, or TO q constitution, which
is only the supreme law, courts OF justice
must look TO the spirit and meaning, not
the letter of the law, upon the familiar
legal maxim-"qui hRret IN litera, hRretI
in cortice-he who sticks to the letter,
sticks to the bark.n-Dwarris on Sta
tutes 40.
With a knowledge of the facts before
us, which attended the passage of tnis
law, it does seem prepoSterous 70 deny
that it received the full sanction and ap-
prevail of the people. Ii was passed BY
large maiorities in two different Legisla-
lures. Ii was sanctioned BY two differ
ent Governors. Il was discussed freely
and fully for years before It's passage,
upon the stump, and It had been IN force
and existence three years before any one
in any quarter pretended to deny or doubt
its legality. 1t bears upon It's face the
only evidence which any law can ever
have ofits approval BY the people, 10 vii;
The vote of majority of the Legisla-
ture in its favor, and the signature Of
the Governor; and so far as any record
has been kept or any record has been
required TO be kept of the circumstances
attending its enactment, all the formal
requisites of the constitution were CON
piled with. To argue, then, that the
people did not approve It, seems absurd.
Should the Loco faction BY any means
obtain majority in the ensuing Legs
lature, and pass resolutions denying the
liability Of the State upon the bonds, as
well might we say, with equal, perhaps
with more propriety, that those resola-
tons did not express the will OF the PEG
pie and were never approved by them,
as they can now say, that this law had
not the popular sonction. lnasmach then
as the law pledging the faith OF the State
was approved by the people OF the State
at the time of Its adoption, and was pass
ed in fact in pursuance OF their known
wishes and intention, the whole Locotoeo
argument as to the unconstitutionality Of
the law is reduced to this: The people Of
the State in convention declare, that No
law pledging the faith Of the State shall
be passed but by two Legislatures, AFTER
publication of the law for three moaths