Rogers v. Wiley
Illinois Supreme Court
Wiley filed his bill, alleging that on the 23d day of March, a. d. 1848, Levi Rogers, being seized of certain lands, and being indebted to Wiley, executed a mortgage to secure the payment of such indebtedness which became due on the 23d of the following September; that the mortgage was duly acknowledged and recorded on the said 23d day of March.
Read the full summary
Wiley filed his bill, alleging that on the 23d day of March, a. d. 1848, Levi Rogers, being seized of certain lands, and being indebted to Wiley, executed a mortgage to secure the payment of such indebtedness which became due on the 23d of the following September; that the mortgage was duly acknowledged and recorded on the said 23d day of March. That one Daniel Rogers, who was made a party to the bill, combining with Levi Rogers, pretends that he is seized in fee of the mortgaged premises, and that Levi Rogers had no title to the premises at the time of the executing of the mortgage, which…
1Opinion of the CourtTrumbull, J.
The statute makes void all deeds till filed for record, except as against creditors and subsequent purchasers with notice; unless, therefore, Wiley, at the time he took the mortgage from Levi A. Rogers, had notice of the prior unrecorded deed to Daniel Rogers, the decree of foreclosure must stand.
To take a case out of the registry acts, so as to defeat the title of a subsequent purchaser who first places his deed upon record, on the ground that he had actual notice of a prior unrecorded deed of the same premises, the proof of such notice should be clear and positive, so as to leave no…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Marshburn v. StewartTexas Supreme Court · 1924
- Marshburn v. StewartTexas Commission of Appeals · 1923
- Feinberg v. StearnsSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
- Wood v. SimonsonIdaho Court of Appeals · 1985
- Lowden v. WilsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1908
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.