Skip to main content

Penrose v. Cooper

Citations

  • 88 Kan. 210
  • 128 P. 362

Syllabus

<p>OPINION ON REHEARING.</p> <p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>Purchaser-—Notice—Unrecorded Deed—Due Diligence. Before filing an action in ejectment plaintiff, without actual notice of an unrecorded deed, inquired of the tenant on the premises and learned the name of the person to whom the tenant paid rent. Relying upon his knowledge that the same person had acted as the attorney for the record title-holder and had been until a few days before renting the premises as agent for the record owner, he made no further inquiry. It did not appear that further inquiry of the tenant would have disclosed the existence of the unrecorded deed or the claim of the grantee therein. Upon these uncontroverted facts - it became a question of law whether he exercised due diligence; and upon the facts as stated it is held that he was not bound to make further inquiry.</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • The occupier’s possession must be adverse to and inconsistent with the record title holder before a potential purchaser has a duty to inquire further
  • “when inquiry is made resulting in information that the possession is held by one who has placed upon record the evidence of his right to occupy, inquiry is arrested at that point”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Benson, Johnston, Mason, Porter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.