Victor Land Co. v. Drake
This text of 127 P. 27 (Victor Land Co. v. Drake) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
• It being conceded by the pleadings that the defendant’s deed from Carter was not recorded until the day after the recording of plaintiff’s deed from the same grantor, the case hinges upon the question of whether or not the plaintiff had actual notice of the former deed from Carter to the defendant. Although its deed was first recorded, yet, if the plaintiff had actual notice of [212]*212the prior conveyance from the common grantor to the defendant, the deed from Carter to the Victor Land Company would convey no title. Musgrove v. Bonser, 5 Or. 313 (20 Am. Rep. 737). The.doctrine of this case has been approved by this court in Manaudas v. Mann, 14 Or. 450 (13 Pac. 449); Jennings v. Kiernan, 35 Or. 349 (55 Pac. 443: 56 Pac. 72); Trust Co. v. Loewenberg, 38 Or. 159, 168 (62 Pac. 647); William v. First N. B., 48 Or. 571 (87 Pac. 890). A careful perusal of the testimony reported in the record convinces us that, by a strong preponderance, the defendant has established that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the deed from Carter to the defendant long prior to the taking of conveyance from Carter to'itself. This leads to the conclusion that the circuit court correctly decided the case, especially as the judge there had before him the witnesses who testified, and could estimate more accurately than we can the merits of their narratives.
The decree of the court is in all things affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
127 P. 27, 63 Or. 210, 1912 Ore. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victor-land-co-v-drake-or-1912.