Tucker v. Gibson

Supreme Court of Kansas

Tucker v. Gibson

101 P. 633, 80 Kan. 90, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 21

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 10, 1909

DocketNo. 15,955

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 P. 633 (Tucker v. Gibson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tucker v. Gibson, 101 P. 633, 80 Kan. 90, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 21 (kan 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff, Gibson, holds the land, in question under a quitclaim deed made after, but recorded before, a warranty deed to the defendant, Tucker, made by the same grantor. The plaintiff purchased in good faith, after exercising all reasonable diligence in making inquiries and im the examination of the records. ’ It is conceded that the plaintiff had no notice of the outstanding unrecorded deed' held by the defendant, unless it should be held that one Rhodes, who had such knowledge, was his agent in the purchase of the land.

The question, then, is whether Rhodes was in- fact the plaintiff’s agent. Upon an examination of the evidence it clearly appears that the plaintiff dealt with Rhodes as the owner of the land and made the purchase ■directly from him, although the naked legal title was in another, who executed the deed. In these circumstances Rhodes was not the agent of the plaintiff, but should be considered the vendor, in accordance with the understanding of the parties to the transaction.

The defendant, who failed to have his deed recorded or otherwise to give notice of his interest until after the plaintiff had completed his purchase, has no cause to complain of the judgment. (Eger v. Brown, 77 Kan. 510.)

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff, Gibson, holds the land, in question under a quitclaim deed made after, but recorded before, a warranty deed to the defendant, Tucker, made by the same grantor. The plaintiff purchased in good faith, after exercising all reasonable diligence in making inquiries and im the examination of the records. ’ It is conceded that the plaintiff had no notice of the outstanding unrecorded deed' held by the defendant, unless it should be held that one Rhodes, who had such knowledge, was his agent in the purchase of the land.

The question, then, is whether Rhodes was in- fact the plaintiff’s agent. Upon an examination of the evidence it clearly appears that the plaintiff dealt with Rhodes as the owner of the land and made the purchase ■directly from him, although the naked legal title was in another, who executed the deed. In these circumstances Rhodes was not the agent of the plaintiff, but should be considered the vendor, in accordance with the understanding of the parties to the transaction.

The defendant, who failed to have his deed recorded or otherwise to give notice of his interest until after the plaintiff had completed his purchase, has no cause to complain of the judgment. (Eger v. Brown, 77 Kan. 510.)

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 P. 633, 80 Kan. 90, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-gibson-kan-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack