Shields, the grantor and plaintiff in fi. fa., claims that he signed the deed and left it with Thompson to be delivered to Elynt, the grantee therein nаmed, when he paid the balance of the purchase-money. The deed was recorded the same day. Sometimе thereafter Elynt sold to Sanders, and he to Mays, who is the claimant here. Shields admits that he knew that the paper was recorded, but says that Sanders and Mays both had notice that it had been improperly delivered before they bought. This they deny, Mays сlaiming to be an innocent purchaser for value, without knowledge that there had been any escrow, or that the instrument hаd been improperly delivered and recorded. In Dixon v. Bristol Bank, 102 Ga. 461, it was ruled that where an escrow was obtained from the depositary by a fraud practiced upon him by the grantee, who had not performed the conditions upon which the delivery was to bе made, no title passed, and a bona fide purchaser
The case at bar differs in several points from that of Dixon, supra. There the entry by the grantee was under the fraudulently obtained deed; his possession was unlawful, and partook of the nature of the deed itself. Here Flynt had been rightfully ifii^possession of the land for a year or more, under a bond for title and contract of purchase. There the purchase by the subsequent vendee was not made on the faith of the registry of thе deed. ■ In this case Shields admits that he knew that his deed had been recorded, but testified that he had a conversation with Mays in whiсh the latter recognized his title and the invalidity of the deed to Flynt, and desired to know how much would be needed to satisfy Shields’ interest in the land. This was denied by Mays; and the court charged that “ if the deed was delivered to Thompson in escrow, and not to be delivered to Flynt until the purchase-money was paid, and passed from Thompson to Flynt without such payment and without the consent of Shields, no title passed to Flynt, who could not convey title to- Sanders, nor could Sanders convey to Mays; and this would be true whether Sanders or Mays, or either of them, had- notice of the way in which the deed was held by Thompson.” There was no instruction that if Shields subsequently ratified the delivery the deed would become valid, nor was the jury told that if with knowledge that the deed was on rеcord Shields
Besides this, Flynt was in possession of the land before the execution of the deed alleged to have been delivered in escrow.-^ Possession of itself is a high evidence of title, and in ancient times was the only method of cоnveying land. ' When one is both in possession of the property, and of muniments of title duly recorded, he is clothed with double evidеnce of ownership; and even in States recognizing the same rule as that laid down in the Dixon case, it has been distinctly ruled, that, if thе grantee named in the escrow already had possession of the land, the doctrine there announced will not apply as against a grantee who purchases for value and without notice of the unlawful delivery. Quick v. Milligan,
Judgment reversed.