City of Chicago v. Witt

Citations

• 75 Ill. 211

Syllabus

<p>1. Notice of unrecorded deed—whether afforded by the record. Where the grantee in an unrecorded deed conveyed the land to a party, and he to another, which last deeds were recorded, but neither of which contained any recital of the unrecorded deed, or that title was claimed under it, it was held that the record of the two last deeds afforded no notice of the unrecorded deed. . Had such deeds contained such a recital, they no doubt would have afforded constructive notice of the existence of the unrecorded deed.</p> <p>2. Same —facts to give actual notice. The mere fact that a purchaser of land, some time before his purchase, had an interview with his grantor, who informed him that at that time he was not able to make a good title, but in a short time he would be, is not sufficient to give the purchaser notice of the existence of an adverse unrecorded deed to the same land.</p> <p>8. Same— what is notice of. It is difficult to lay down a general rule as to what facts will in every case be sufficient to charge a party with notice, or put him on inquiry whether a prior deed has been made. The information received must be of that character that a prudent person, by the exercise of reasonable and ordinary diligence, could upon inquiry and investigation arrive at the fact of the existence of such prior conveyance.</p>