CONVEYANCING 725

An. Code, 1924, sec. 14. 1912, sec. 14. 1904, sec. 14. 1888, sec. 14. 1856, ch. 154, sec. 100.

15. Every deed of real property, when acknowledged and recorded as
herein directed, shall take effect as between the parties thereto from its

date.

A deed not .recorded as provided in sec. 14, does not affect existing creditors, or
creditors becoming such between the date of the deed and the date of its record. As to
such creditors without notice, the deed is valid and effective only as a contract for
the conveyance. Creditors held not to be charged with notice, by possession or other-
wise. Hearn v. Purnell, 110 Md. 466. And see Hoffman v. Gosnell, 75 Md. 590; Sixth
Ward Bldg. Assn. v. Wilison, 41 Md. 514.

Although a deed be defectively executed or acknowledged, or not recorded in time,
it is effective as between the parties, and against third persons with actual notice.
Proof of notice. Johnson v. Canby, 29 Md. 211; Phillips v. Pearson, 27 Md. 249; Bryan
v. Harvey, 18 Md. 127; Williams v. Banks, 11 Md. 198; General Ins. Co. v. United States
Ins. Co., 10 Md. 517; Winchester v. Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co., 4 Md. 231; Price v.
McDonald, 1 Md. 403; United States Ins. Co. v. Shriver, 3 Md. Ch. 381; Salmon v.
Clagett, 3 Bl. 125; Gill v. McAttee, 2 Md. Ch. 256; Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Ross, 2 Md.
Ch; 26; Hudson v. Warner, 2 H. & G. 415.

Where a mortgage is recorded in due time, a judgment against the mortgagor entered
between the date of the deed and the date of its record, binds the equity of redemp-
tion only. Knell v. Green St. Bldg. Assn., 34 Md. 70; Ahern v. White, 39 Md. 420.

This section referred to as showing the indispensable necessity of registration of. deeds.
Intent and effect of this section. Nickel v. Brown, 75 Md. 186.

This section applied. Beehler v. Ijams, 72 Md. 196; Harding v. Allen, 70 Md. 398;
Rosenthal v. Maryland Brick Co., 61 Md. 594.

See notes to secs. 1 and 14.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 15. 1912, sec. 15. 1904, sec. 15. 1888, sec. 15. 1856, ch. 154, sec. 102.

16. No deed of real property shall be valid for the purpose of passing
title unless acknowledged and recorded as herein directed.

Effectiveness of recording deeds, mortgages, etc., not affected by failure of clerk
to index same. Standard Finance Co. v. Little, 159 Md. 623.

This section referred to in construing art. 45, sec. 1. U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Shoul,
161 Md. 428... ,.

Although a deed be defectively executed or acknowledged, or not recorded in time,
it is effective as between the parties, and against third persons with actual notice.
Proof of notice. Johnson v. Canby, 29 Md. 211; Phillips v. Pearson, 27 Md. 249; Bryan v.
Harvey, 18 Md. 127; Williams v. Banks, 11 Md. 198; General Ins. Co. v. United States
Ins. Co., 10 Md. 517; Winchester v. Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co., 4 Md. 231; Price v.
McDonald, 1 Md. 403; United States Ins. Co. v. Shriver, 3 Md. Ch. 381; Salmon v.
Clagett, 3 Bl. 125; Gill v. McAtee, 2 Md. Ch. 256; Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Ross, 2 Md.
Ch. 26; Hudson v. Warner, 2 H. & G. 415.

An assignment of a mortgage of a term of more than seven years, if not recorded,
is invalid to pass the legal title. Lester v. Hardesty, 29 Md. 54.

This section referred to as showing the indispensable necessity of the registration of
deeds. Nickel v. Brown, 75 Md. 186.

This section referred to in construing secs. 10 and 19. Brydon v. Campbell, 40 Md. 336.

Cited in Blanch v. Collison, 174 Md. 433.

See notes to secs. 1, 14 and 20.

An. Code, 1924, see. 16. 1912, sec. 16. 1904, sec. 16. 1888, sec. 16. 1825, ch. 203, sec. 1.

17. Where there are two or more deeds conveying the same lands or
chattels real, the deed or deeds which shall be first recorded according to
law shall be preferred, if made bona fide and upon good and valuable con-,
sideration. This section to apply to all deeds of mortgage, and to all other
deeds or conveyances to the validity of which recording is necessary.

The deeds referred to in this section are those to bona fide purchasers. Who are
such purchasers? An assignment for the benefit of creditors is not such a deed as is
contemplated by this section. Tyler v. Abergh, 65 Md. 20. And see Busey v. Reese,
38 Md. 267.

The subsequent mortgage first recorded, will not have priority, if notice of a prior
mortgage is clearly proved so as to make the transaction fraudulent. Proof held suf-
ficient. Willard v. Ramsburg, 22 Md. 217. Cf. General Ins. Co. v. United States Ins.
Co., 10 Md. 524; Clabaugh v. Byerly, 7 Gill, 361; United States Ins. Co. v. Shriver
3 Md. Ch. 383.

This section applied. Failure of proof of notice of prior mortgage. Evidence. Swartz v;
Chickering, 58 Md. 294; General Ins. Co. v. United States Ins. Co., 10 Md. 524; Cla-
baugh v. Byerly, 7 Gill, 361; United States Ins. Co. v. Shriver, 3 Md. Ch. 383.