Court Opinion

ID: 6738101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 23:20:05.76927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:52.171247
License: Public Domain

Eobinson, J.
This case presents an appeal from a judgment in favor of the bank for $1,000, and interest from April 2, 1910. The plaintiff brought suit as the assignee of one John Brodie. Brodie had paid the defendant $1,000 on a kind of land contract by which defendant agreed to try to perfect title to certain lands and then to convey the same to Brodie, and, in case of failure to perfect title, to repay Brodie the $1,000. It failed to perfect title, and so it became indebted to Brodie in the sum of $1,000.
On June 5, 1911, Brodie made an assignment of his contract to the bank. It was acknowledged. Then on March 30, 1912, the contract and the assignment were recorded in the office of the proper register of deeds. On March 22, 1912, an action against Brodie was commenced in circuit court of Dane county, Wisconsin, and on March 24, 1912, the Big Bend Land Company and Brodie were duly served with garnishee process.
On April 29, 1912, judgment was given against Brodie for $5,000. The garnishee filed a written answer admitting an indebtedness to *37Brodie of $1,000, and paid the same to the clerk of court, and by order of the court it was paid to the plaintiff in said garnishee action on the judgment against Brodie. The Big Bend Land Company had notice in regard to the assignment of its contract with Brodie, except such constructive notice as imputed from the recording of the contract and the assignment.
By statute the recording of deeds and mortgages and instruments affecting title to real property is constructive notice to all purchasers and encumbrancers subsequent to the recording. It is not a notice to a prior purchaser, and the recording of a mere obligation to pay money is not notice to anyone. The defendant was not a subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer, and hence the recording was not notice to the Big Bend Land Company, and without notice of the assignment it had a perfect right to pay the $1,000 to Brodie, or to pay it into court when garnisheed, and such payment was a discharge of its liability. It also appears that when the contract was assigned to the bank it was merely an obligation to repay the $1,000. It was a personal obligation of the defendant, and the plaintiff brings this suit and recovered judgment against the defendant on its mere personal obligation to repay Brodie $1,000; and as defendant paid the same into court in good faith and without notice, of course it is not liable in this action.
Judgment reversed and action dismissed.