Case Name: Ray v. Bush
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1783-03
Citations: 1 Root 81
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ray v. Bush.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
HARTFORD, SUPERIOR COURT,
MARCH TERM, A. D. 1783.
Ray v. Bush.
When llie grantee prevents liis deed from being recorded at length, the record shall not relate back to the time oí its being received , for record to the prejudice of others.
AotxoN of ejectment, for a tract of land lying in Chatham. Plea not guilty. Issue to the jury.
The case was — ■ On the 2d of May, A. D. 1763, the plaintiff took a deed of said land, of that date, from. John Grill who was the owner, and carried it to the town register to be entered upon, received for record, but with orders not to be recorded until further orders; the register received it and entered upon it, “ John Ray’s mortgage deed from John Grill, June 7th, A. D. 1763 received for record, 'William Rockwell,” and put it away in a private box, where he kept such deeds: In October A. D. 1763 the defendant was applied to by Gill to be surety for him, and for his indemnity, proffered him a deed of said land, and the defendant before he complied, went to the register and searched the records, found no deed to any person,, nor was informed of any being lodged there, and being wholly ignorant of said Ray’s deed, he became surety for Gill, and for his indemnity took a deed of said land from Gill, dated in October A. D. 1763, and carried it to the register and had it duly recorded. Gill finally failed, and Bush was obliged to pay the debt for which he was surety. In. June, A. D. 1764, the plaintiff gave orders to have said deed recorded; and it was then and not before recorded at length.
Tbe defendant offered parol evidence to prove tbat tbe plaintiff bad been, guilty of a fraud, in ordering' tbe -deed not to be recorded at tbe time be left it to be entered upon as aforesaid; also to show bow said deed bad been kept, and when, it was recorded at length. This was objected to, because it would contradict tbe record.

Opinion:
By the Court
The evidence is admissible.
The defendant then offered tbe deposition of Titus ITosmer, Esq. who was deceased, given upon a petition to tbe general assembly, between tbe same parties, and relative to tbe same point now in dispute — which was objected against, on tbe ground tbat it was taken before this action was commenced, and on) a petition in chancery.
By the Court. Tbe deposition was admitted; and upon tbe evidence tbe aforesaid state of facts Avas proved. And verdict and judgment was for tbe defendant, upon the ground, tbat although tbe statute says, tbat a deed, when recorded at length, tbe record shall bear tbe same date as tbe entry made upon it when it was received for record; yet where a grantee will himself, by orders or otherways, prevent tbe deed's being recorded at length, tbe relation between tbe entry and tbe recording at length, is destroyed, as to all persons defrauded thereby, and the record bears date at tbe time when tbe deed is recorded at length.