Court Opinion

ID: 3271251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 16:39:43.120351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:25.993479
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION.
The writer and Mr. Justice HART have the view that, while full recognition should be given to the doctrine that acceptance of a deed reciting the existence of a prior incumbrance constitutes notice thereof to the grantee, yet under the facts of the present case the recital in appellant's mortgage should be treated as having reference merely to the prior recorded mortgage to appellee. Appellant had no notice that the tract of land in controversy was intended to be included in the mortgage to appellee, and had the right to assume that the recital referred to the prior recorded mortgage and to none other. Appellant was not, by the recital, put on notice as to any other incumbrance. *Page 1055