The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1891-12-23

turb his conclusions"
Itseems to US. therefore. that the question
of whether defendant had such notice a'
would defeat her plea or purchase for valua
bic consideration without notice, was a ques
ton OF fact and thai the conclusion reached
by the Circuit Judge must, under the rule, bt
sustained unless il is either without amy evil
dence to sustain 1t. or Is manlfestly against
The weight OF the evidence, neither OF Mhicl
can be said in this case.
Rut in Difference to the earnest and able eff
forts OF counsel 10 relieve this unfortunate
lady from q misfortune which mas Delallen
her through no fault on her part, as 1t Is ell
tirely clear that there is not a ahadow OF rea
son for believing that she was guilty, Of any
fraud herself, or conntved at the fraud OF 9th
crs, or even had any personal knowledge
that there had been any fraud committed,
we ure disposed to consider more fully the
question OF fact, although 1t seems to us that
the reasoning OF the Circuit Judge in his de-
cree, which we trust will be incorporated In
the report of the case, Is qite sui1Gient TO
While, as we have said, 1t is clear that the
| defendant had no personal knowledge or any
| fraud, or of any circumstance calculated TO
excite inquiry. yet under inc well settled
must be affected thereby.
The real question, therefore, is whether the
agents of the defendant one or both OF them
had notice of such facts and circumstances as
were calculated to excite inquiry, which If
followed up with due diligence would have
led to the discovery OF the fraud, or, In other
words, were the facts n circumstances. OF
which they unquestionably had notice ofsuch
a character as would furnish a clue, which, II
followed up with due diligence. would have
led to the discovery OF the fraud.
In the first place both OF these agents GER
tainly had constructive notice OF the mort
gage, which was spread upon the record, ap-
parently unsatisfled, and one Of them, Moore,
who had conducted the negotiations up to the
day when Utsey appeared for the purpose Of
consummating the trade, says he had actual
knowledge Of the mortgage, aud when he
learned that Pope had conveyed the property
in question to Conner ne assumed, without
had been made In satisfaction of the mort
gage, which turns out not to have been the
facts.
ty had been conveyed to Conner sometime
before he, at the same time, knew that Pope
had retained possession, as long as he re-
manned in Ninety-Six, up to a very short
self was a circumstance well calculated to ex-
cite inquiry, especially in view of the fact
that Moore still regarded Pope as the owner,
as shown by his attempt to buy from him, as
we'll as by his own direct testimony to that
effect. e.
Indeed the remark made by Moore to Pope
after the sale had been consummated-that he
ought to pay him one hundred dollars for
making the saleIwonld seem TO indicate that
Moore still regarded Pope as tho real owner
even after he had learned OF the conveyance
to Conner, and Pope's reply to that remark
was not calculated to remove that impression,
for he did not say that the property, was not
his, but sale" 1.-THE trouble of 1t was he didn't
get the money" but did not say who got II.
Moore also knew that Pope was .embar-
raised at the time, to some extent at least,
and knew of the tendency OF the action by
plaintiffs against Pope, in which the judy
ment was recovered, under which the proper
ty was subsequently sold. Then when Utsey
appeared. as agent Of defendant to consumate
Conner, he certainly had constructive notice
OF the mortgage. -.
Common prudence required that he should
examine the records OF the county where
Was located, and If he had done SO he would
have discovered, not only thai there was a
mortgage upon 1t, to secure the payment of a
large sum Of money, which was apparently
open and unsatisfed, but that judgments to a
had been entered very soon after-one of them
only a few ~days-Pope had conveyed the
property TO Connor; yet 1t does not appear
that he made any such examination, and
made no inquiry, either as to mortgage or
anything else.
add to this the fact that though Utsey had
been informed only a day or two before that
one person-Connor-be is met by an
other-Pope-proceeds to consumate the trade
with him, without any explanation whatever
being given or asked for, as to why this sud-
CuduS0 III Iu6 NtuuOE WAS uldu6.
But more than this when Pope presents the
papers showing the chain o%f'title, Utsey sees
That one OF Them is dead, dated that very
day, from Conner TO Mrs. Pope, the wife OF
Z. NJ. Pope, q person whom he knew, or ought
% have known from the records was heavily
embarrassed, in which the consideration re-
,ited was 5000. which deed contained no war
'anty whatever; and yet he takes q deed from
md actually paid was Sl75O. less than the
amount which her deed from Conner showed
hat she had, on the same day peid for the
'ery same property. without making. any in
Jury whatever, or receiving any explanation
these very singular circumstances.
Here was not only O very sudden change in
he vendor, but here was a married woman,
whose husband had been the owner of the
within less than q year before, and
Who was then very much embarrassed, sell
ng that property which she held under q
Luit-claim deed, from q person who then
leld a mortgage, apparently unsatisfied, for a
huWed she had that very day given for II.
surely these circumstances were well calcu-
ated to excite inquiry, and yet none was
made.
Indeed some of the cases 60 so far as to
Iold that one who purchases from another
under a quitclnim deed cannot, by
eason of that fact claim TO be a purchaser
Without notice.
See Pom. Eq. Jur., Sec. 75S, where the .
ases, both pro and con are cited in a note.
among the cases cited in support Of the pro-
are two from the Supreme Court OF
h. United states. oliver vs.. Plat, 8 How,
and May vs. LeClaire, IL Wall, 2I7.
TIE reason given is that such a purchaser
'uys no more than what his grantor can law
dded that The fact that the grantor is I'm will
ne to warrant the title, tends at least, to
how that there is some defect in the title,
,nown TO. or apprehended by him, and there
ore the purchaser is put upon inquiry.
While we are not prepared, atpresent, to go
o the full extent to which the doctrine has
'een carried by some Of the cases., yet we are
that the fact that the immediate
lain deed, is a circumstance well calculated
o excite inquiry, which If not pursued pro.
'erly will affect the purchaser with notice of
very fact which such inquiry, pursued with
Vhen, as In this case, there are other circum-
Of a very suspicious nature, connect
d with the fact that the immediate grantor
# the purchaser held under q quil-claim
ICED, the conclusion reached by the Circuit
Judge may be sustained.
1t is urged, however, that if inquiry had
'een made the defect in the title would not
lave been disclosed as Connor would not
le had participated. For, TO use the language
appellants counsel: "Connor was anxious
that time, to get out Of the matter, as he
' 'eS et that t timPe ef'y We en t ihs Ifa It W C gHGq be- sf too
much TO ask any one to believe that he
would have revealed the whole matter just
q time when he was about to get out Of the
lifficulty."
To say nothing of the fact that this would
Ipply in every case OF fraud, 1t Is impossible
or any one to say what Common would b I've
lone If inquiry had been made OF him be-
ore the sale, and the Court Is not at liberty
o speculate about it.
We do see, however, that the purchaser had
lbtice, through her agents, of such facts and
circumstances as demanded further inquiry.
that none was made. If inquiry had
,een made, and no Information %impugning