LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: Mayor Winnerman et ux. vs. Charles O. Angell
Citation: 26 R.I. 278
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1904-06-27
Docket Number: 
Pages: 278–279
Volume: 26
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: Mayor Winnerman et ux. vs. Charles O. Angell.

Mayor Winnerman et ux. vs. Charles O. Angell.
PROVIDENCE
JUNE 27, 1904.
Present: Tillinghast, Douglas, and Blodgett, JJ.
(1) Deeds. Notice. Cloud on Title.
A., intending to purchase certain land, had the records examined and found three mortgages on record, among them one made by a former owner to B. October 16 B. discharged the mortgage of record. October 18 A. took a deed of the land subject to the other two mortgages and recorded same. October 20 a transfer of B.’s mortgage to C. was recorded by C., who proceeded to foreclose:—
Held, that the only question was whether A. had knowledge of the transfer from B. to C., and the evidence failing to prove such notice, A. was entitled to have the cloud upon his title removed.
Bill in Equity to remove cloud on title.
Relief granted.

Per Curiam.
The complainants, having in mind the purchase of a certain piece of land in the city of Providence, had the records examined and found three mortgages of said land on record, among them one made by a former owner to Margaret A. O’Reilly. On October 16, 1903, Margaret A. O’Reilly went to the ofñce of the register of deeds and discharged the mortgage upon the record. Thereupon, on October 18, 1903, the complainants completed the purchase and took a deed of the same, subject to the other two mortgages, and immediately had their deed recorded. October 20, 1903, a transfer of the O’Reilly mortgage to the respondent, dated December 2,1901, was recorded, and the respondent proceeded to advertise the land for sale for breach of conditions of the mortgage.
Sheahan & O’Brien, for complainant.
Wm. M. P. Bowen, for respondent.
The only question presented by the case is whether the complainants had actual knowledge of the transfer from Margaret A. O’Reilly to the respondent at the time they purchased. Gen. Laws cap. 202, § 2. The evidence entirely fails to prove such notice.
The recorded transfer is a cloud upon the complainants’ title which they are entitled to have removed, and the prayer of the bill for an injunction and cancellation of the transfer is granted.