Speer v. Evans

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Speer v. Evans

47 Pa. 141, 1864 Pa. LEXIS 74

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 2, 1864

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 47 Pa. 141 (Speer v. Evans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Speer v. Evans, 47 Pa. 141, 1864 Pa. LEXIS 74 (Pa. 1864).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Woodward, C. J.

This was not the case of an unrecorded mortgage. It was duly recorded, and as between the parties thereto, the mortgagors and mortgagees, was in all respects a valid and effectual mortgage. But it was not duly indexed, and not, therefore, constructive notice to third parties. As a guide to inquirers, the index is an indispensable part of the recording, and without it, the record affects no party with notice.

As the sole purpose of the index is to enable those who are affected with constructive notice of the mortgage to obtain actual notice of it, no man to whom actual notice has been brought home by other means, has the right to complain of the want of an index. Eor it never can be a subject of just complaint, that he who was entitled by law only to constructive notice has received more than his due — all that the registry, duly indexed and actually searched, could have given him.

The question of actual notice to Speer was very fairly submitted to the jury upon competent evidence, and the event was made to depend wholly upon the finding of that fact. The only legal conclusion which such a record requires us to declare is, that actual is equivalent to constructive notice. We so decide, and as this makes an end of the cause, it is unnecessary to discuss all the collateral questions suggested in the assignments of error and in the argument.

The judgment is affirmed.

Agnew, J., was absent at Nisi Prius when this case was argued.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Woodward, C. J.

This was not the case of an unrecorded mortgage. It was duly recorded, and as between the parties thereto, the mortgagors and mortgagees, was in all respects a valid and effectual mortgage. But it was not duly indexed, and not, therefore, constructive notice to third parties. As a guide to inquirers, the index is an indispensable part of the recording, and without it, the record affects no party with notice.

As the sole purpose of the index is to enable those who are affected with constructive notice of the mortgage to obtain actual notice of it, no man to whom actual notice has been brought home by other means, has the right to complain of the want of an index. Eor it never can be a subject of just complaint, that he who was entitled by law only to constructive notice has received more than his due — all that the registry, duly indexed and actually searched, could have given him.

The question of actual notice to Speer was very fairly submitted to the jury upon competent evidence, and the event was made to depend wholly upon the finding of that fact. The only legal conclusion which such a record requires us to declare is, that actual is equivalent to constructive notice. We so decide, and as this makes an end of the cause, it is unnecessary to discuss all the collateral questions suggested in the assignments of error and in the argument.

The judgment is affirmed.

Agnew, J., was absent at Nisi Prius when this case was argued.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Pa. 141, 1864 Pa. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speer-v-evans-pa-1864.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack