McDonald v. Belding

Citations

• 145 U.S. 492
• 12 S. Ct. 892
• 36 L. Ed. 788
• 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2159

Syllabus

<p>In Arkansas, although the rule obtains that a person holding under a quitclaim deed may be ordinarily presumed to 'have had knowledge of imperfections in the vendor’s title, yet that rule is not universal,, and one may become entiljled to protection as a bona fide purchaser for value, although holding under a deed of that kind; and in this case it is held that the plaintiff in error, although taking a quitclaim deed, was not chargeable with notice of any existing claim to the property upcm the part of either of the defendants in error.</p> <p>In Arkansas, when the payment of the consideration and the acceptance of a deed by the purchaser occur at different times, the denial of notice of ■ fraud, in order to support a claim to protection as a bona fide purchaser, must kelate both to the time when the deed is delivered, and to that wheu the consideration was paid; but, where it appears upon the face of the answer, that'the purchase for a certain.price-and the delivery of the deed were made at the same timé, and were parts of one transaction, the denial of- notice until the defendant had made the purchase is equivalent to a denial of notice at the delivery of the deed.</p> <p>Rector v. Gibbon, 111 U. S. 276, distinguished from this case.</p>