Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/The-recording-acts-a-General-considerations-Part-4.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:48:48+00:00

Document:
55a. Sternberger v. Ragland. 57 Ohio St. 148, 48 N. E. 811; Pyles v. Brown, 189 Pa. St. 164, 69 Am. St. Rep. 794, 42 Atl. 11; Veazie v. Parker, 23 Me. 170; Pierce v. Taylor, 23 Me. 246.
- Conveyance of neighboring land. A purchaser is, it appears, ordinarily charged with notice of an incumbrance upon the property created by an instrument which is of record, although the primary purpose of such instrument is, not the creation of such incumbrance, but the conveyance of neighboring property, or instance, if one owning two adjoining city lots v Stroeher, 167 Mo. 306, 66 S. W. 1083; Tarbell v. West, 86 N. Y. 280; Sands v. Beardsley, 32 W. Va. 594, 9 S. E. 925.
Law Rev. at p. 324, upon the effect of a mortgage by one claiming under a contract of sale.
57. See Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Tinker, 22 S. D. 427, 18 Ann. Cas. 11. 118 N. W. 700; Harris v. Reed, 21 Idaho, 364, 121 Pac. 780; Balr-h v. Arnold, 9 Wyo. 17. 59 Pac. 434.
58. Gimon v. Davis, 36 Ala. 589; Creel v. Keith, 148 Ala. 233, 41 So. 780.
59. Brannan v. Marshall, 184 Ala. 375, 63 So. 1007.
60. See ante, Sec. 566(a), 11 Halsbury's Laws of England, 247; Leech v. Schweder, 9 Ch. App. 463, 474.
61. See Hammonds v. Eads, 146 Ky. 162, 142 S. W. 379, Glorieux v. Lighthipe, 88 N. J. L. 199, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 484, 96 Atl. 94; Bowman v. Holland, 116 Va. 805, 83 S E. 393. In Mitchell v. D'olier, 68 N. J. L. 375, 59 L. R. A. 949, 53 Atl. 467, it was held that where a conveyance to B of a tract of land contained an exception of a certain part specifically described, as having been previously conveyed to A., B was chargeable with notice, by the record of the conveyance to A, that not only did she, A, have the part described, but also that an easement was granted by that conveyance to A over the balance of the tract.
62. See Dyer v. Sanford, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 404; Case v. Haight, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 632; referred to in 6 Harv. Law Rev. 311, article by H. W. Chaplin. Esq. In the first cited case, Shaw, C. J., says: "We think a grant may be so made as to create a right in the grantee's land in favor of the grantor. For instance; suppose A. has close No. 2, lying between two closes, Nos. 1 & 3, of B; and A grants to B the right to lay and main-tain a drain from close No. 1, across his close No. 2, thence to be continued through his own close, No. 3, to its outlet; and A, in his grant to B, should reserve the right to enter his drain, for the benefit of his intermediate close, with the right and privilege of having the waste water therefrom pass off freely through the grantee's close, No. 3, forever. In effect, this, if accepted, would secure to the grantor a right in the grantee's land."
2 R. P. - 63 different land. And if, in conveying lot A, the grantor enters into a restrictive agreement as to the improve ment of lot B, retained by him, a subsequent purchaser of lot B would ordinarily be charged with notice of the agreement, by reason of its record as a part of the conveyance of lot A. Were he not so charged, the restrictive agreement might be to a considerable extent nugatory.63 And, as will appear later,64 where one mortgage covers two or more lots or tracts, the purchaser of one lot or tract is, by the record of a previous conveyance or mortgage of the other tract, increasing the proportion of the mortgage debt to be borne by the former lot or tract, charged with notice thereof.

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