Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Ga. 406

Martin v. Williams

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 15, 1859

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1859-01-15

Complaint, in Terrell Superior Court. Tried before Judge Kiddoo, at September Term, 1858. This was an action of complaint brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, for lot of land number-244, in the third district of originally Lee, but now Terrell county.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1923

3 state decisions

1018591860187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court.

Lumpkin J.

¶2delivering the opinion.

¶3The question in this case is this : A. makes a deed to a *407tract of land to B., in April, 1834, which is recorded in 1840. In July, 1834, A. sells the same land to C., who records his deed in 1S36. Which vendee will hold the land ?

¶4The Act of 1837 declares, that where the same person conveys the same land to different persons, if both deeds are recorded in time, or neither, that the oldest deed shall be preferred. But that Act applies, in terms, only to deeds thereafter to be made. Was the law different before 1837? We rather think not.

¶5It is insisted, that under the Act of 1785, in deeds of bargain and sale, enrollment takes place of feoffment with livery of seizin. And that consequently, the youngest deed being first recorded, is entitled to priority. In other words, that registration consummates the conveyance.

¶6But by examining that Act, it will be found that deeds of bargain and sale would only be good under that Act, provided they were recorded within twelve months. Here, two years elapsed between the execution and registration of the junior deed. This argument, therefore, cannot save it, admitting it to be sound.

¶7The Act of 1837 is founded in justice, The oldest vendee, in this case, took his deed three months before the second - and more than two years before the second deed was recorded. What good, by way of notice, is this registration to effect? The second vendee having bought within the twelve months-allowed to the elder to record his deed, he is not prejudiced by ihe failure of the first purchaser to record in time. Had he bought after the expiration 'of the year,' without notice, instead of within three months from the date of the first sale, the equities would have been very different.

¶8Judgment affirmed.

McDonald J. absent.
/27/ga/406 · .json · Public domain