Reeder v. Barr

4 Ohio 408

• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Decided: December 15, 1829
• Status: Published

Opinion

By the Court :

The patent was issued to Newell, as assignee of the administrator of Henson Beeder, deceased; and the only question is, whether this disclosure of the rights of the patentee, and of the manner in which they were acquired, is sufficient to charge a subsequent purchaser, with notice of the equitable rights of the complainants, as heirs at law of Henson Reeder. The true rule upon this subject appears to be “that the law imputes that notice, which, from the nature of the transaction, every person of ordinary prudence must necessarily have.” 13 Ves. 120; Mad. Ch. 327; Newland, 511.

If, in the investigation of a title, a purchaser, with common prudence, must have been apprised of another right, notice of that right is presumed. Here, Barr, in tracing his title, must have seen from the patent that Newell’s right was derived from an administrator who possessed no title to the land himself, and whose deed could be available only by a previous compliance with certain legal formalities. If the assignment of an administrator, fer se, conveyed the equitable rights of the intestate, the purchaser might stand in a different situation. As it is, we are of opinion that the recital in the patent is sufficient to put a man of ordinary prudence to an inquiry for the rights of the heirs, and that a subsequent ^purchaser must, at his peril, ascertain whether those rights have been regularly extinguished.

Authorities are cited to show, that presumptions of regularity are to be made in favor of public officers. 3 East, 200; 19 Johns. 347. And that the existence of a grant is sufficient ground to presume that every prerequisite has been performed. 9 Cranch, 98; 5 Wheat. 304. If this grant wore a simple conveyance to Nowell, his assignees might, perhaps, claim the benefit of these rules; but the grant, upon its face, shows that the heirs of Reeder were the owners of the estate, after the death of their ancestor; and it is going too far to say, that there is a legal presumption, not only that the officers of government have performed their duties, but that the rights of the heirs of Reeder have been divested by a judgment of a court of competent jurssdiction.

(a)

Plea overruled.

Purchasers under letters patent, reciting a trust, are bound to take notice of the trust at their peril. 1 Ves. 261, 319; 1 Ch. Cas. 258. So a purchaser under persons authorized by statute to sell, is persumed to know the nature and extent of the authority, and purchases at his peril. 3 Johns. Ch. 344.