Penrose v. Cooper
Citations
- 86 Kan. 597
- 121 P. 1103
- 1912 Kan. LEXIS 349
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Judgment — Ejectment—Res Judicata — Tax Deed. A decision is conclusive and binds the parties upon the facts as shown to exist when the case was tried. If upon a retrial a different state of facts is shown to exist the law declared in the former decision may have no application.</p> <p>2. - Same. A decision of the supreme court holding a tax deed valid on the ground that it was five years old is not conclusive or binding upon the parties where it is shown on a retrial of the action or in another action between the same parties that the deed was of record less than five years when it was attacked.</p> <p>3. Purchaser — Tenant in Possession — Title—Notice—Due Diligence. Although the possession of a tenant is the landlord’s possession, it is not of itself notice of the landlord’s title, but is sufficient notice to put a person about to deal with the title upon inquiry.</p> <p>4. --- Same. The law presumes that one who is about to deal with real estate has either made inquiry of the occupant’s right, or has been so negligent that he can not be regarded as a bona fide purchaser. This presumption, however, is a mere inference of fact which may be rebutted by proof that the purchaser made diligent inquiry and failed to discover the prior right.</p> <p>5. --— Same. Possession alone, if open, notorious, and exclusive, is sufficient notice unless the subsequent purchaser shows that he pursued the inquiry with proper diligence and failed to obtain knowledge of the unrecorded instrument or of the right of the parties claiming under it.</p> <p>6. - Same. The plaintiff, who occupied the relation of a purchaser without actual knowledge of an unrecorded deed, inquired of the tenant and learned the name of the agent to whom the tenant paid rent. Relying upon his knowledge of the fact that the same person had been, until a short time before that, managing the property as agent for the record owner of the title, he failed to make any inquiry of the a
Judges: Also, Porter, Smith, West
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- McBee v. O'ConnellNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1914-12-04· cited 15×
- Penrose v. CooperSupreme Court of Kansas· 1912-12-07· cited 13×
- McDonald v. Joint Rural High School District No. 9Supreme Court of Kansas· 1957-01-12· cited 7×
- Stalcup v. StalcupSupreme Court of Kansas· 1933-03-11· cited 4×
- Feess v. Mechanics' State BankSupreme Court of Kansas· 1912-06-08· cited 3×
- Jenness v. JennessSupreme Court of Kansas· 1922-10-07· cited 1×
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Smith v. YuleCalifornia Supreme Court· 1866-07-01· cited 39×
- Betts v. LetcherSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1890-06-25· cited 38×
- Fair v. StevenotCalifornia Supreme Court· 1866-07-01· cited 30×
- Woods v. FarmereSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1838-09-15· cited 30×
- Penrose v. CooperSupreme Court of Kansas· 1905-07-07· cited 23×
- Caldwell v. BiggerSupreme Court of Kansas· 1907-06-08· cited 22×
- Lang v. AdamsSupreme Court of Kansas· 1905-04-08· cited 16×
- Fargason v. EdringtonSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1887-05-15· cited 15×
- Faris v. FinnupSupreme Court of Kansas· 1911-02-11· cited 14×
- Glendenning v. BellTexas Supreme Court· 1888-05-04· cited 12×
- Cummings v. Wichita Railroad & LightSupreme Court of Kansas· 1904-01-09· cited 12×
- Stough v. Badger Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1905-02-11· cited 10×
- Chadwick v. ClappIllinois Supreme Court· 1873-09-15· cited 6×
- Knox v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1822-06-19· cited 6×
- Union Pacific Railroad v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas· 1906-03-10· cited 3×
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.