Faith And Without Notice

The pro- ble incumbrancer, purchase for value withtection given to such purchaser means that out notice would be no defense. from the relation subsisting between the two Prof. Ames (Lectures on Legal History, parties, especially that which is involved in 253) points out that one common case of the innocent position of the purchaser, equi- protection to, a purchaser is where one buys ty refuses to interfere and to aid the plain- a legal title from a misconducting trustee tiff in what he is seeking to obtain, because without notice of the trust, and that this it would be unconscientious and inequitable does not come within any of these classes, to do so, and the parties must be left to their and that the discrimination in the third class legal rights, liabilities and remedies; 2 between an equity and an equitable estate Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. § 738. It is of the essence is an unfortunate one. He states the docof the doctrine that equity does not intend trine as follows: “A court of equity will to pass upon and decide the merits of the not deprive a defendant of any right of two litigant parties; it does not decide that property, whether legal or equitable, for the title of the defendant is valid, and, there- which he has given value without notice of fore, intrinsically better than that of the the plaintiff’s equity, nor of any other complaintiff; on the contrary, the protection giv- mon-law right acquired as an incident of his en by way of defence theoretically assumes purchase. In all other cases the circumthat the title of the purchaser is really de- stance of innocent purchase is a fact of no fective as against that of his opponent; a legal significance.” court of equity wholly ignores the question In cases where the rule of priority in time of validity, declines to examine into the in- would otherwise decide the rights of adtrinsic merits of the two claims, and bases verse equitable claimants, it sometimes hapits action upon entirely different considera- pens that the later incumbrancer subsetions. If a plaintiff, holding som4 equitable quently acquires the outstanding legal title; right, sues to enforce It against a defendant but it has long been decided that a later inwho has in good faith obtained the legal es- cumbrancer could, derive no advantage from tate, the court refuses to interfere and do an a long outstanding term got in with notice unconscientious act by depriving him of the of the prior equity. This is called the tabula advantage accompanying such an innocent in naufragio doctrine. Prof. Ames points acquisition of the legal title. On the other out that it may fairly be said that that dochand, if the plaintiff is the legal owner, and trine survives only in the unjust and muchsues to obtain some equitable relief against criticized English rule of tacldng. a defendant who is the innocent holder of He sums up the discussion of the general some equitable right or interest, the court in doctrine as follows: “The purchaser of any like manner refuses to aid the plaintiff and right, in its nature transmissible, whether a leaves him to whatever rights would be rec- right in rem or a right in personam, acquires ognized and reliefs granted by a •court of the right free from all equities of which he law. The doctrine is not in any sense a rule had no notice at the time of its acquisition. of property. Whenever the relations between This proposition, ft is hoped, will find favor litigants are of such a nature and the suit is with the reader in point of legal principle. of such a kind that equity is called upon to It can hardly fall to commend itself on the decide the merits of the controversy and de- score of justice and mercantile convenience.” termine the validity and sufficiency of the Prof. Langdell (Summary of Equity Pleadopposing titles or claims, then it does not ing) has discussed the subject, but somewhat admit the defence of bona fide purchaser as from the standpoint of equity pleading. See, effectual and conclusive. See 2 Pomeroy, Eq. also, Bispham, Equity. Jur. $ 739. To constitute one a purchaser for value, In the leading case of Phillips v. Phillips, without notice, the whole consideration must 4 D., F. & J. 208, Lord Westbury classified as be actually paid before notice, and it is not follows the cases in which purchase for enough that the consideration was secured value would bar equitable relief: 1. When to be paid. American Vulcanized Fibre Co. an application is made to the auxiliary ju- v. Taylor (Del.) 87 Atl. 1025. risdiction of the court. 2. Where one who purchased an equitable interest in property, PURCHASER. A buyer; a vendee. A without notice of a prior equitable incum- mortgagee or a conditional vendee is not a brance of the plaintiff, has subsequently got purchaser; Campbell Printing Press & Mfg.