38 Ala. 125 | Ala. | 1861
The right "of complainant to proceed by bill to-subject the land in controversy to. tbe payment of the three notes which were executed to secure the pur-* chase-money, is too well settled to bé open to further controversy. . The -present case, in - that -feature of it, is not distinguishable from former cases, which have received the sanction of this court; — See Connor v. Banks, 18 Ala. 42;
The only defense in this case which we deem it- necessary to notice, is that which claims that Mr. Morrow is a bonafide purchaser of the land, without notice of the sale by Thomas Fleming to his sons John and Henry. The facts set out in the record do not enable us to affirm that Mr. Morrow had notice of the former contract of sale, either actual or constructive; and the question arises, was he a purchaser within the rule invoked ?
The result of what we. have said is, that the decree of the chancellor must be reversed. But, as other questions may arise again when this case returns to the chancery court, we will lay down some rules for its future government.
Our registration statutes place in the same category creditors and purchasers without notice of an unregistered prior conveyance which by law is required to be recorded. Tbe creditors here-meant are judgment creditors, having a lien. — See Daniel v. Smith, 9 Ala. 436; DeVendell v. Hamilton, 27 Ala. 164; Jordan v. Mead, 12 Ala. 251; Fash v. Ravesies, 32 Ala. 451; Bryan v. Cole, 10 Leigh, 500; Tate v. Liggat, 2 Leigh, 98-9. But, when the equity is of. that character or descr-iption-whieh is not by law required- to be recorded, the ruléis different. Sucli equity will-prevail over creditors, but will yield to a subsequent bona-fide purchaser without notice, either actual or constructive. Of this class is the lien which a vendor retains on lands contracted to be conveyed. — Avent v. Read, 2 Stew. 488; Stone v. Hale, 17 Ala. 557; Fash v. Ravesies, supra ; Donald v. Hewitt, 33 Ala. 549 ; Ligon v. Rogers, 1 Georgia, 290; 1 Story’s Equity, § 165.
The testimony in this case tends to the conviction that, as to some twenty dollars of the debt to Mr. Morrow, he must be regarded as a purchaser. This consists of the item of some twenty dollars, the debt of the younger Fleming, "which Thomas A. Fleming, the father, took up when he
It is well settled that, as against the holder of a prior equity, a subsequent purchaser, who has made part payment without notice, leaving a balance unpaid, and who then receives notice of the prior equity, can not, by after-wards paying such balance, perfect his entire claim as a purchaser without notice. Notice, received at any time before the payment is completed, or before the purchaser, by giving a negotiable security, or in some other way, has placed it out of his. power to resist payment, changes the whole current of the equities. — Willard’s Equity, 256-7 ; 2 Story’s Equity, § 1502; Boyd v. Vanderkemp, 1 Barb. Ch. 286; Mit. Pl. 274; Wood v. Mann, 1 Sumner, 510. This principle applies to the case of a contract to convey land to one, and a subsequent sale of the same lands to another without notice. — Willard’s Equity, 298. We therefore hold that, as to the amount of the note on the younger Mr. Fleming, which was taken up, Mr. Morrow, on proper pleadings, and on the proof in this record, must be regarded as a bona-fide purchaser without notice; and his mortgage interest will, to that extent, prevail over the equity of Mr. Wells. Beyond that amount, Mr. Wells has the superior equity. Quiprior estin tempore, potior est in jure.
The decree of the chancellor is reversed, and the cause remanded. N