Smith v. Young
Citations
- 259 Pa. 367
- 103 A. 63
- 1918 Pa. LEXIS 419
Syllabus
<p>Statutes — Amendatory acts — 0onstruction—Intention.</p> <p>1. A statute, amendatory of another, declaring that the former shall read in a particular way, must, in general, be held to repeal all provisions not retained in the altered form. All matters not incorporated into the amendment, the latter must be held to have repealed.</p> <p>Real property — Deeds—Recording of deeds — Priority—Acts of March 18, 1775, 1 Smith's Laws Sec. 1; May 19, 1898, P. L. 108 — Construction.</p> <p>2. The Act of May 19, 1893, P. L. 108, amending the Act of March 18, 1775, 1 Smith’s Laws 422, carefully and deliberately changed the law relating to the • recording of deeds and conveyances, and now all deeds and conveyances made and executed within this Commonwealth are required to be recorded within ninety days after execution, and every deed or conveyance not recorded within that time is fraudulent and void as to subsequent purchasers or mortgagees.</p> <p>3. The owners of certain real estate delivered an agreement for the sale thereof on December 11, 1916. The agreement was recorded 011 March. 26, 1917, one hundred and five days after its delivery. On February 26, 1917, the owner of the said land delivered a deed therefor to another party, for a valuable consideration, in pursuance of an agreement made by them on January 15, 1917. Said deed was recorded on April 23, 1917, 56 days after the date of its delivery. On a case stated, brought by the grantee in said deed to determine the validity thereof, the lower court held that the failure of the first purchaser to place his agreement on record within ninety days after its execution, as required by the Act of 1893, rendered his title void as against the plaintiff, and entered judgment for the plaintiff. Held, no error.</p> <p>Davey v. Ruffell, 162 Pa. 443, criticised as to dicta in the opinion.</p>
Judges: Brown, Frazer, Moschzisker, Potter, Warring
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- United States v. KudasikW.D. Pennsylvania· 1998-06-08· cited 6×
- Engstrom v. SiegelWarren County Court of Common Pleas· 1965-03-25· cited 2×
- Martin v. HoshauerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1920-02-28
- Southwestern National Bank v. RiegnerPhiladelphia County Court of Common Pleas· 1927-08-25
- Commonwealth v. SnyderSusquehanna County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1934-03-05
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Davey v. RuffellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1894-07-11· cited 29×
- Reid v. SmoulterLuzerne County Court of Common Pleas· 1889-10-07· cited 23×
- Fries v. NullSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1893-05-08· cited 11×
- Luzerne Water Co. v. Toby Creek Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1892-04-25· cited 8×
- Sener v. Corporation of the Borough of EphrataSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1896-05-28· cited 4×
- In re MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1904-05-23· 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.