4 Iowa 215 | Iowa | 1856
To determine the first question, it becomes necessary to refer briefly to the case made by the pleadings and proof. Both parties claim title from Keokuk county. The complainant .was in possession at the- time of the commencement of the action, and ■ had been for some time prior to respondent’s purchase. By the bill, Butch claims, that in 1845 this lot was sold by the county to one Linder, who paid a portion of the purchase money, and obtained a bond for & deed; that' Linder subsequently paid the entire consideration, and obtained a deed; that said deed was never recorded, and now is lost; and that Linder has
But-a-further and conclusive consideration in favor of-the bill, is, that complainant asked equitable interposition on the ground of accident, and to remove a cloud upon his’title. To relieve against an injury resulting from accident, -is a very ancient branch of equitable jurisdiction; and by this term, in the language of Mr. Story, “ is intended, not merely inevitable casualty, or the act of Providence, or what is technically called vis major, or inevitable force, but such unforeseen events, misfortunes, losses, acts, or omissions, as are not the
That the decree below was justified from the proof, we entertain no doubt. Appellant’s counsel claims, that he was a purchaser without notice of any prior adverse title. This is fully negatived by the testimony, however. When he purchased, the bond given to Linder, as well as the certificate of the county agent, were marked canceled, and on file in the office of the county judge, and he was advised by that officer, when negotiating, that the lot had been contracted to Linder. Prom entries or memorandum appearing on these papers, and on the records of the commissioners of the county, it further appeared, that Linder had complied with his contract, and that a deed was made to him in July, 1846. From the proper records, it is also shown, that the property had passed by regular conveyances from Linder to complainant. In addition to all these circumstances, complainant was in possession, which was sufficient at least to put Lash upon inquiry before purchasing. This inquiry he appears to have made, and in doing so, is shown to have acquired such knowledge of the title, as to entirely preclude the belief that he was an innocent purchaser, without notice.
Decree affirmed.