¶1 The plaintiff alleges various circumstances which he contends were sufficient to put the defendant on notice that it was intended that the mortgage to the plaintiff should include and embrace Lot 22. Actual notice, however full and formal, does not take the place of registration. McClure v. Crow, 196 N. C., 657, 146 S. E., 713; Sexton v. Elizabeth City, 169 N. C., 385, 86 S. E., 344; Blacknall v. Hancock, 182 N. C., 369, 109 S. E., 72; Robinson v. Willoughby, 70 N. C., 358; Duncan v. Gulley, 199 N. C., 552, 155 S. E., 244. In any event, the allegations of notice to the appealing defendant is counterbalanced or negatived by the positive allegation in the complaint that a description of Lot 22 was omitted from the mortgage. If the mortgage sufficiently described this lot there is no occasion for reformation as sought by the plaintiff.
¶2 The plaintiff goes further and alleges that the defendant Lewis is not an innocent purchaser for value. If he can establish this as a fact in a trial before a jury then he, upon a proper showing of mutual mistake, is entitled to have a reformation of his mortgage as against Lewis, as well as against the original mortgagors. The registration laws are enacted for the protection of creditors and innocent purchasers for value. C. S. 3309, C. S. 3311. They protect only creditors and purchasers for a valuable consideration against unrecorded deeds, mortgages, leases and other paper writings affecting the title to the lands conveyed. Twitty v. Cochran, 214 N. C., 265, and cases there cited.
¶3 In the respect indicated the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action. There was error in the order sustaining the demurrer ore tenus interposed by the defendant R. M. Lewis.
¶4 Reversed.