Plant v. Smythe
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, County of Solano. On the 24th day of June, 1871, one Vest deeded the premises in suit to the plaintiffs; but the deed was not recorded until July 29th, 1871. On the twenty-fifth of the latter month the defendants commenced an action against Vest, and two days afterwards levied an attachment upon the land in controversy.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, County of Solano. On the 24th day of June, 1871, one Vest deeded the premises in suit to the plaintiffs; but the deed was not recorded until July 29th, 1871. On the twenty-fifth of the latter month the defendants commenced an action against Vest, and two days afterwards levied an attachment upon the land in controversy. August 8th, 1871, judgment was rendered against Vest in default of appearance, and on the tenth of that month proceedings were commenced, to sell the land in satisfaction of the judgment. This suit was brought to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The fact being conceded that at the time the defendant sued out his writ of attachment against Vest the latter had already conveyed the premises to the plaintiffs, by delivering to them a deed of conveyance thereof, it follows that the *163levy of the attachment was ineffectual as against the plaintiffs.
The fact that the deed of conveyance had not been recorded is immaterial, nor would it be worth while to inquire if the attaching creditor had actual notice of the existence of the unrecorded deed, or such informatiou as would put him upon inquiry as to its existence.
•The Registry Act…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Kinnison v. Guaranty Liquidating Corp.California Supreme Court · 1941
- Hoag v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Ward v. WatermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Dawson v. McCartyWashington Supreme Court · 1899
- Roblin v. PalmerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.