Chamberlain v. Bell

Citations

• 7 Cal. 292

Syllabus

<p>Where the defendant bought the property in question and recorded his deed, hut by mistake the number and description of the lots were omitted in the record, and plaintiff subsequently bought the same lots of the same grantor, and afterwards the common grantor of both procured the record of defendant's deed to ho amended by interlineation of the description: Meld, that the plaintiff had no notice of the previous conveyance of the property to defendant.</p> <p>The interlineation could only impart notice from the time it was made.</p> <p>The design and intention of the Registration Act, was to give constructive notice of the facts which appeared upon the face of the record.</p> <p>This act must be strictly construed.</p>