Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/750

786 fbdebaIj befobteb. �can JkIcBnne. The consideration for this conveyance is stated in the rieed to be $15,000, and the same is receipted for in the body of the deed and also at the foot thereof. This last-mentioned deed was recorded in Jeflerson county, Pennsylvania, on the twenty-sixth day of Febiuary, 1875, in Deed Eook, vol. 30, p. 14. �Brown e Lambie, for plaintiff. �Thomas M, Marshall, contra. �AcHESON, D. J. Under the Pennsylvania recording acta a deed of conveyance which is not recorded within six months after its execu- tion is null and void as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice, if the deed to the latter is first recorded. 1 Pur. 4T2-3, pi. 76; Lightner v. Mooney, 10 Watts, 407; Poth y.Anstatt, 4 W. & S. 307; Hetherington v. Clark, 30 Pa. St. 393; Shaw v Rend, 47 Pa. St. 102. Here the deed to Alexander Smith was recorded September 8, 1874, while that to Henry Metzger was not recorded until June 8, 1876. Undoubtedly Smith was a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration, and he had neither aotual nor constructive notice of Metzger's title. The possession which affects a purchaser with notice must be clear, open, notorious, and unequiv- ooal. Meehan v. Williams, 48 Pa. St. 238, 241. In my judgment, Metzger never had such possession as would visit a purchaser with constructive notice of his title. The occupancy and acts of Carrier and Jackson were fairly referable to their own and not Metzger's title. But further discussion of this point is needless, for, in fact, before he concluded his purchase, Smith inquired of Metzger, and he, knowing tha,t Smith was bargaining with Hill, informed Smith that he had no interest in the land. Furthermore, Andrew F. Baum, the plaintiff in the judgment under which Metzger's supposed title was afterwards sold, requested and incited Smith to purchase from Hill, and stated that the title was clear. Beyond all controversy, both Metzger and Baum were forever estopped from disputing Smith's title, or assert- ing any claim or lien in hostility thereto. �Is George W. Wilson, the sheriff's vendee, in any better position ? What rights has he superior to those of the judgment crediter, upon whose execution he bought, and the defendant in the writ, whose title he acquired ? The title which Metzger had when the lien of Baum's judgment attached, was, at the best, a condition alone, liable to be Bwept away unless the recording acts were eomplied with. Souder y. Morroiv, 33 Pa. St. 83. As a penalty for his neglect, the law extin- guished Metzger's title, and, as a necessary consequence, the lien of Baum's judgment ceased. If this were not so, the recording acta ��� �