Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Conveyances-in-fraud-of-subsequent-purchasers-Continued.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 17:54:04+00:00

Document:
Foster v. Walton, 5 Watts (Pa.) 378; Laird v. Scott, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 314.
37. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 4592.
38. McNeely v. Rucker, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 391; City of Baltimore v. Williams, 6 Md. 235 Lancaster v. Dolan, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 231, 18 Am. Dec. 625; Laird v. Scott, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 214; Harton v. Lyons, 97 Tenn. 180, 36 S. W. 851. Contra, Fleming v. Townsend, 6 Ga. 103, 50 Am. Dec. 318; Gardner v. Cole, 21 Iowa, 205; Enders v. Williams, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 346. And see Sterry v. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 261; Mellick v. Mellick, 47 N. J. Eq. 86, 19 Atl. 870.
The Statute of 27 Eliz. c. 4, also contained a provision that a conveyance containing a power of revocation in the grantor should be invalid as against a subsequent conveyance by the same grantor to a purchaser for a valuable or good consideration. This provision, or its substantial equivalent, has been adopted in many states;42 but occasion for the application of such statutes has, in England, but seldom arisen, and, in this country, practically never.
39. Beal v. Warren, 2 Gray (Mass.) 447; Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 264, 8 L. Ed. 120; Jackson v. Town, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 603; City of Baltimore v. Williams, 6 Md. 235; Shaw v. Tracy, 83 Mo. 224; 4 Kent's Comm. 463, note.
40. City of Baltimore v. Williams, 6 Md. 235; Gardner v. Cole, 21 Iowa, 212; Gilliland v. Fenn. 90 Ala. 230, 9 L. R. A. 413. 8 So. 15; Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 264, 8 L. Ed. 120; 1 Story, Eq Jur. Sec. 427; 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 974.
41. Prodgers v. Langham, 1 Sid. 133; Doe d. Newman v. Rusham, 17 Q. B. 723; Gilliland v. Fenn, 90 Ala. 230, 9 L. R. A. 413, 8 So. 15; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch (U. S.) 87, 3 L. Ed. 162; Reynolds v. Vilas, 8 Wis. 471, 76 Am. Dec. 238.
41'. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law. Sec. 4593.
590. Transfers by disseisees. By St. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 9,46 it was declared to be unlawful to buy or sell any pretended right or title to any lands or hereditaments unless the vendors or their ancestors, or the persons through whom the claim is derived, have been in possession of the property, or of the reversion or re43. Act July 1, 1898, Sec. 60, as amended June 25, 1910.
45. Bankruptcy Act, Sec. 3; Collier, Bankr. (10th Ed.) 97 et seq.
46. The "Pretended Title Act" (A. D. 1540).
47. See Rawle, Covenants for Title, Sec. 47. Article in 2 Law Quart. Rev. 481, by Prof. Mait-land.
48. Bernstein v. Humes, 60 Ala. 582, 31 Am. Rep. 52; Patterson v. Nixon, 79 Ind. 251; Tabb v. Baird, 3 Call. (Va.) 481; Barry v. Adams, 3 Allen (Mass.) 493; 4 Kent's Comm. 448.
In England, the statute was regarded as invalidating a sale by one who had not been in possession for a year. Doe d. Williams v. Evans, 1 C. B. 717. But 8 & 9 Vict. C. 106, making rights of entry alienable, changed the law in this respect. Kennedy v. Lyell, 15 Q. B. Div. 491; Jenkins v. Jones, 9 Q. B. Div. 128.
49. Stimson's Am. St. Law Sec. 1401.
50. Roberts v. Cooper, 20 How. (U. S.) 467, 15 L. Ed. 969; Lytle v. State, 17 Ark. 608; Mathewson v. Fitch, 22 Cal. 86; Bayard v. McLane, 3 Har. (Del.) 139; Matthews v. Hevner, 2 App. D. C. 349; Doe d. Cain v. Roe, 23 Ga. 82; Bon v. Graves, 216 Mass. 440, 103 N. E. 1023; Farrar v. Fessen-den, 39 N. H. 268; Hall v. Ashby, 9 Ohio, 96; Stoever v. Whitman's Lessee 6 Binn. (Pa.) 416; Hall v. Ashby, 9 Ohio, 96.
Free School v. Fisher, 34 Me. 172; Crane v. Reeder, 21 Mich. 24, 4 Am. Rep. 430; Cassedy v. Jackson, 45 Miss. 397; Carring-ton v. Goddin, 13 Grat. iVa.) 587; Stewart v. McSweeney, 14 Wis. 468; Sims v. De Graffen-reid, 4 McCord (S. C.) 253; See Schaferman v. O'Brien, 28 Md. 565.
The history and present status of the doctrine are the subject of a valuable article by Professor George P. Costigan, in 19 Harv. Law Rev. 267.
52. Sharp v. Robertson's Ex'rs. 76 Ala. 343; Dubois v. Marshall, 3 Dana (Ky.) 336; Barry v. Adams, 3 Allen (Mass.) 493; German Mut. Ins. Co. of Indianapolis v. Grim, 32 Ind. 249, 2 Am. Rep. 341.
53. See Crary v. Goodman, 22 N. Y. 170; Higinbotham v. Stoddard, 72 N. Y. 94; Stoddard v. Whiting, 46 N. Y. 627; Kreuger v. Schultz, 6 N. D. 310, 70 N. W. 269.
Ky. 516, 7 Am. St. Rep. 613, 4 S. W. 232; Simon v. Gouge, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 156; Gunn v. Scovil, 4 Day (Conn.) 234; Hale v. Darter, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 92.
55. Hopkins v. Paxton, 4 Dana (Ky.) 36; Ross v. Blair, Meigs (Tenn.) 525; Augusta Mfg. Co. v. Vertrees, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 75.
56. Humes v. Bernstein, 72 Ala. 546; Little v. Bishop, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 240; Preston v. Breckinridge, 86 Ky. 619, 6 S. W. 641; Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320; Coleman v. Manhattan Beach Improvement Co., 94 N. Y. 229; Doe d. Williams v. Bennett, 26 N. C. 122.
57. Ward v. Bartholomew, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 409; Jackson v. Gumaer, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 552; Cassedy v. Jackson, 45 Miss. 407; Hill v. Dyer, 3 Me. 441.
58. Cameron v. Irwin, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 272; Adams v. Buford, 6 Dana (Ky.) 413; Sessions v. Reynolds, 7 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 130; Williams v. Council, 49 N. Car. 206.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.