Skip to main content
· 9/27/1884

Crawford v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad

Citations

  • 112 Ill. 314

Syllabus

<p>1. Notice—what constitutes notice to purchaser—of matters to put one on inquiry. Anything which apprises a purchaser of land or an incumbrancer that a particular person claims the property, or an interest in it, makes it the duty of the former to pursue that notice to its source, and make inquiry of the person claiming such ownership, and failing to do so, he will be chargeable with all he would have learned had he pursued and investigated the matter to the full extent to which it led. It is not required that he must have full, complete and accurate information of the nature, extent, and all the particulars of the prior incumbrance.</p> <p>2. Same—record of an agreement to sell—notice, of prior incumbrance by recitals in such agreement. The owner of lots, after having given a trust deed thereon to secure the sum of $125,000, being the purchase money, executed his written agreement for the sale of the same to another, which recited that the sale was subject to an incumbrance of $130,000, due in four years, from “October next, with interest at seven per cent, payable semiannually.” The contract of sale was duly recorded. The incumbrance recited therein, was described as that created by the trust deed in all things except in the omission of the name of the person for whom it was given, and was for a larger sum: Held, that the record of this agreement of sale was notice to a subsequent purchaser, of the prior incumbrance created by the trust deed, although the latter was not recorded, the recitals in the agreement being sufficient to put the purchaser on inquiry.</p> <p>3. Same—notice by possession through tenant. The possession of a lot by a tenant of a party whose debt is secured by deed of trust on the same, is notice to all subsequent purchasers or incumbrancers of the rights of the prior incumbrancer.</p> <p>4. Practice—when specific objection must be made—as to admissibility of secondary evidence. A. general objection to documentary evidence goes alone to its p

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • misspelling Alabama (“Alamaba”) on an extradition request was a mere typographical error and did not invalidate the extradition documents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Mulkey, Walker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.