Fair v. Stevenot

Citations

• 29 Cal. 486

Syllabus

<p>Notice arising from Possession under an Unrecorded Deed.—Possession of real estate by the grantee in a prior unrecorded deed is not of itself conclusive notice of the grantee’s title to a subsequent purchaser whose deed is first recorded, but such possession is only evidence tending to prove notice.</p> <p>Same.—If the grantee in a prior unrecorded deed relies alone on the fact of possession of the property sold, to show notice to a subsequent purchaser whose deed is first recorded, the subsequent purchaser may show in rebuttal that he used due diligence in making inquiry and failed to attain a knowledge of the prior unrecorded deed.</p> <p>Same.—Open, notorious, and exclusive possession of a prior grantee in an unrecorded deed is sufficient to put a subsequent purchaser whose deed is first recorded upon inquiry, and such possession is sufficient evidence of notice, unless the subsequent purchaser after making due inquiry fails to attain a knowledge of the unrecorded deed.</p> <p>A Prior Deed not Conclusive as to Title—A deed which has been recorded is not conclusive evidence of title in the grantee, as against a grantee in a prior unrecorded deed who is in possession.</p> <p>Consolidation of Causes in Supreme Court.—If the plaintiff and defendant each appeal from different portions of the same judgment, and the parties do not stipulate that either transcript may be added to the other, each appeal must be heard on its own transcript.</p>