Court Opinion

ID: 5438377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 17:57:54.655897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:31:55.434418
License: Public Domain

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:
The contemporaneous writing executed by Lander, being under seal, should be read with the deed from Donner, and the two must be held to constitute one instrument, both as between the parties to it, and as between Donner and an assignee of Lander, with notice of the alleged defeasance. By virtue of the Begistration Act, however, a grantee of Lander in good faith, and for valuable consideration, would take the legal title, unaffected by any condition or limitation contained in the unrecorded writing.
The defendant alleges that he was induced to accept from the plaintiff a conveyance of the premises, and to execute as security for the purchase-price, the mortgage which this action was brought to foreclose, by reason of *378false representations on the part of the.plaintiff, that he (the plaintiff) had no notice of the writing which the defendant had failed to have recorded.
The Court below found that the representations were in fact made, but that they were true; and further found, that in law the plaintiff must be held to have had knowledge of the unrecorded portion of the instrument, because of his relations to Carr, who had actual notice of it before he paid the entire purchase-money to Lander.
No man can complain in equity of the fraudulent practices of another, unless he has been injured by such practices. It is clear, therefore, that if the right or estate derived by the defendant through the deed from the plaintiff, is unaffected by the circumstance that the latter had or had not notice of the contemporaneous writing, he cannot claim that he has been injured by the misrepresentation of which he complains. In this connection it becomes important to inquire what was the legal effect of the whole instrument executed by Lander and the defendant.
We do not think the writing executed by Lander defeated the conveyance of the fee to him. Taken together, the papers do not constitute a mortgage as of their date. It is true, the writing delivered by Lander recites: “I have received this day, from George Donner and John Yontz, a deed for the undivided one fourth part, etc., as security for the payment of twenty-five hundred dollars,” etc. But this is immediately followed by the condition: “Provided, that I do procure two witnesses to testify that they have seen what purported to be a genuine grant of said one hundredvara lot to George Donner, signed by George Hyde, first Alcalde; and in case I do not procure said witnesses, who will prove said fact, then the aforesaid deed to be null and void.” The instrument further provides that when the twenty-five hundred dollars should be paid (which was not payable until after the witnesses had been procured and had testified), then the undivided one fourth part of the lot was to be “reconveyed” to Donner and Yontz, or to such party as they might designate.
There is no recital in the instrument, nor is there any*379thing upon its face, indicating that Lander had loaned or advanced money to Donner or Yontz. On the contrary, it is plain that it was the illegal and immoral service to be performed which was rated by the parties as of the value of twenty-five hundred dollars, and that the title was to stand as security for that sum only after the unlawful act had been accomplished. Appropriate words of conveyance transferred the legal title to Lander when the deed was executed, and, incorporating the other writing into the deed, there is nothing in the language which constitutes a ■ defeasance. The legal title was conveyed to Lander upon condition subsequent.
The defendant insists, and his defense rests upon the proposition that this condition is immoral, and against public policy. We fully agree that a stipulation that one shall, in consideration of a large sum of money, not only procure witnesses, but procure them to swear to a particular fact, is unlawful. The evidence showed that the illegal service was to be performed by a third person who was indebted to Lander in the sum named; and this removes any imputation of intentional wrong on the part of Lander. But such testimony cannot be consider,ed in construing the instrument, and does not change its legal effect. Assuming the condition subsequent found in the instrument to be against law, the legal estate having once vested in Lander, could not become divested by his failure to perform the illegal stipulation, but became and was absolute. (Co. Lit. 106; 2 Wash. Real Prop. 447; Weatherby v. Weatherby, 13 S. & M. R. 687; 4 Kent Com. 130.)
The plaintiff, as grantee of Lander, held the legal title to the premises conveyed, discharged of any condition, since the condition was void but the grant good. It follows that his estate was not limited or affected by the fact that he had notice of the unrecorded portion of the instrument under which he held; and that the defendant acquired every right by his deed from the plaintiff, which he would have derived, had the plaintiff been the purchaser in good faith, within the meaning of those terms as defined by the law. Having placed the legal title in Lander and his grantees upon an *380unlawful condition subsequent, the defendant could never recover the property by suit in law or equity. He reacquired it by purchase from the plaintiff, and the purchase-price was a sufficient consideration for the mortgage which is the subject of the present action.
The judgment of the Court below should be reduced, however, by the sum of five hundred dollars, fee of counsel for foreclosure. The action was brought and prosecuted by the plaintiff personally. We do not think that the stipulation in the mortgage sued on, for counsel fee, can apply where no counsel fee was paid by the plaintiff.
With this modification the judgment is affirmed, as of January 12, 1874.