Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-11-22
The District Supreme Court and the
Land Records.

THE CASE OF JACKSON VS.. WILLIAMS.
The Supreme Court in General Term (Ch. j.
Cartier, and Wylie, and James, J. J.,l recently
decided the case OF jackson vs. BlackwoOd ct ais.
the real parties In witness being Jackson and
Williams) 1t was suit in equity brought by
jackson to reinState a deed OF trust upon GER
tain real property In this city which had been
conveyed by Mr.. and Mrs Sweet to Charles T.
Davis and William Stickney by deed of trust in
the usual form to secure Ss,6Ga In promiSsory
notes payable to Augustus Davis or order.
These notes were drawn in January, 1915, and
were payable in one, two. and three years after
their date respectively. The note maturing in
January, 1876, was paid, and in September OF the
same year a M sweet n GA e through t
fendant Williams upon the security OF deed OF
trust upon the same real property. ChaS. T.
Davis and William stickney trustees, and Au-
gustus Davis payee OF the notes described in the
first trust uniting In deed Of release whereby
the property was relieved Of that trust. This
release was Of record recitfng the payment of
money, which he did upon the faith of the
record of title. AT the time of the release, how
ever, Jackson held the notes secured by the
trust which was released. He was not con-
suited about the release and knew nothing of 1t
until year or more after 1t occurred, and Will
hams knew nothing of Jackson's interest In the
stract of title which correctly represented
the condition of the record, VIZ: that the
property was free from REMEMBRANCE.
heard by MI. Justice Macarthur in Special
Term, and as between Jackson and Williams the
court held that the record of title must be suS-
t&ined and accordingly decreed in favor of the
trust to secure Williams, since he had loaned his
money in good faith, relying upon the record.
From this decree Jackson appealed. and it was
on that appeal that the Court in General Term
decided the case, Mr.. Justice James and Mr.. JUS
tice Wylte cOncurrlng in reversing the decree of
Mr.. Justice Macarthur. while the Chief Justice
concurred with Judge MacArther's ruling in the
court below, and dissented from the Judgment
of Judges James and Wylie. Neither Justice
Cox nor Justice Hagner took part in the case.
The ground taken by the majority of the court
the deed of trust to Davis and Stickney described
the notes and showed that at the time of the
release they had not fully matured, therefore
gone beyond the record OF the release to as seer
tain whether the notes had in point Of fact been
paid. The release, however, bore the signature
OF Augustus Davis, the only holder of the notes
known to the record. In dissenting from the
judgment of the court, Chief Justice Cartier
delivered an opinion in favor of sustaining
The absolute verify Of the record itself
placed on record the party has security that
would not take rect as against second pur-
chase without notice; but If the owner sell again
a second purchaser might have title as against
such unrecOrded security. The party in this
case puts the trust on record. He transmits it
to the archives of the law, place. and an Off
Ger, and condition, established by law, for the
purpose of informing the world OF the condition
of the given property. The lawmakers have
said to those who deal in real estate, 1--WE will
give you signal that cannot be mistaken when
you buy and SELL If you want to know whether
you are purchasing property without encumb-
rance, go to the Recorders office and inquire,
and if you do not find any there, you may be as
suIed that there is no encumbrance which you
have not knowledge Of" That is what the law
says to the party, and this was done In this case.
But in this case it was said that the fact that
the debt was not due was reasonable notice:
that the agent to discharge it has acted in fraud
Of his trust. But the law did not borrow the
presumption OF fraud, it deals with fraud in fact.
He held that the statute was created for the
purpose of exempting parties from inveStigat-
ing, and man is not obliged to go to Phla-
delphia lawyer to know ii 8 mortgage is OR prop
erty or whether the deed OF trust Is delivered or
not. The majority OF the court he differed WITH
for they give to the payment OF debt an effect
the law does not give it.
The question involved is of very great interest
TO the people of the District, Sigce upon its final
decision depends the safety of many of our land
titles and the facility and certainty of transac-
tioelS In real estate made upon the faith of the
public record of title. 1t is understood that the
case will go te the Supreme Court Of the United
States on appeal by Williams. So far as it has
been decided by the District Supreme Court the
point involved Can scarcely be considered set
tied. Four judges have passed upon 1t, and in
number they were evenly divided. 1t is to be
that case Of so much public import
ance was not heard by a full bench.
TpST OF f7TpE FyrINauJcuEps uac made tn