| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 64 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
g4 HIGH COUBT Of CHANCERY. the judgment of the General Court, in consequence of the latter having admitted that deed in evidence. The original deed appears to have been offered in that cage, but that being adjudged to be inadmissible, it follows necessa- rily that a copy from the record would not have been received, because it is impossible to maintain that & copy would be more available than the original, the execution of the latter being first duly proved. Though the doctrine in this state undoubtedly is, that the registry of a deed is constructive notice to subsequent par- chasers and mortgagees, it is, as has been shown, equally well settled, that such purchasers and mortgagees are not affected with notice, unless the deeds are such as are authorized and required by law to be registered. A deed unduly registered, either from want of a valid acknowledgment or otherwise, is not notice according to the prevailing opinion in this country. 4 Kent's Com., 174. Assuming that a copy of the deed in this case from the re- cords of Harford county would be inadmissible as evidence, and this is an assumption which will hardly be disputed, and it follows inevitably that it was not executed and acknowledged in the mode prescribed by law to require its registration, be- cause, if such was the case, an official copy from the record would be evidence; the rule being, that such copies are evi- dence when the instrument is required by law to be recorded, and this I take to be the test by which the question now before the Court is to be decided, that is, whether the registry of the first mortgage to Johns was constructive notice to Scott, the second mortgagee ? If the mortgage to Johns was authorized and required by law to be registered, then an official copy from the record would be evidence; but if a copy would not be evidence, it must be because the law did not authorize and require the registration of the original; and as the question of constructive notice to subsequent purchasers and mortgagees depends upon the due and legal registration of the deed, upon which likewise depends the. admissibility of a copy as evidence, it follows that if a copy would not be evidence, the |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 64 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives