Hatch v. Bigelow

Citations

• 39 Ill. 546

Syllabus

<p>1. Notice—bona fide purchasers—recording acts. Whatever is sufficient to put a subsequent purchaser upon inquiry as to the rights of others, must be considered legal notice to him of those rights. A purchaser is held affected •with notice of all that is patent on an examination of the premises he is about to buy.</p> <p>2. The agent of a party claiming title to real estate in Chicago, put up on the premises a board, on which was printed, “ For sale by S. H. Kerfoot & Co., 48 Clark street.” Kerfoot & Co. were the agents of the party claiming title. Held, that a creditor whose judgment lien attached while this notice was posted upon the premises, was thereby notified of the interest of the party claiming title, since, upon inquiry of the agents, he could have ascertained the extent and character of the title, and could not, therefore, be considered a bona fide purchaser.</p> <p>3. The fact that-the party claiming title had laid down a sidewalk, is one proper to be considered in connection with other marks of ownership, and this is so whether the sidewalk is constructed by order of the city or not. If by order of the city, it must have been made against the owner of the lot, whoever he might be. In these cases notice does not generally arise from one circumstance alone, but from a collection of facts which, taken together, may be held sufficient to put a party upon inquiry.</p>