English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

There is conflict among writers as to whether the weight of American authority charges a subsequent purchaser with record notice of encumbrances in a prior recorded deed to other lands conveyed by a common grantor.' The question of record notice arises, for instance, where A owning Blackacre conveys part of it by a recorded deed to B and in the same instrument places an encumbrance, such as an easement or restriction, on the retained portion. Later A conveys this remaining portion to C by a deed which makes no mention of the encumbrance contained in the deed to B. As a matter of policy, under the recording statutes, should C, the subsequent purchaser, be chargeable with record notice of the encumbrance contained in the prior recorded deed to other lands of A? Basically, the problem appears to be whether it would be an unreasonable burden to compel the subsequent purchaser to read in full all conveyances made by his prior grantors. The courts are not in accord on this point. Cases indicate the majority view to be that the subsequent purchaser is chargeable with record notice of an encumbrance placed on the retained lands of the common grantor, when such grantor encumbered the retained lands in a prior deed to other lands. Fourteen jurisdictions so hold with two others intimating as much,2 while only six

Record Notice of Encumbrances Contained in a Prior Conveyance to Other Lands by a Common Grantor