Russell v. Ranson

Citations

• 76 Ill. 167

Syllabus

<p>1. Mistake—proof, as against subsequent incumbrancer. As against a subsequent incumbrancer, the admission of the mortgagor of a mistake in the starting point of the boundaries of the prior mortgage is not sufficient evidence. To affect such subsequent incumbrancer’s rights, there must be proof of the mistake, and that he had notice of it at the time he took his mortgage.'</p> <p>2. Same—proof of mistake and notice. In this case a party gave the complainant, a'jaortgage ón a lot described by metes and bounds, and as commencing “fifty feet, nine inches and thirty feet east of the north-west corner” of a certain quarter section of land, being the same description as in the mortgagor’s deed under which he held possession of the premises, commencing fifty feet nine inches south and thirty feet east of the north-west corner of the quarter. The mortgage was duly recorded, and the mortgagor subsequently gave a second mortgage to the defendants on the lot by its number as laid off. The defendants, in their answer; admitted that they knew the first mortgage covered part of the lot described in their mortgage: ' Held, that the' facts were sufficient to show the mistake and charge the defendants with constructive notice of that fact</p> <p>' 3. Noticís—what amounts tel Whatever is notice enough to excite attention and put a party pfi'his guard and call for inquiry, is notice of everything to which such inquiry might have led, and every unusual circumstance is a ground of suspicion, and prescribes inquiry.</p>