In Isbell-Hallmark Furniture Co. v. Frank Sitz, 114 So. 677, 1 we considered the effect of the amendment appearing-in Code, § 6898, extending protection to “landlords with liens” against unrecorded conditional sale contracts. We held this amendment gives priority to landlords having liens under Code, § 8814. >

The question now presented for review is whether the superior lien of the landlord extends to the rent due and to become due for the entire term, or is limited to the rent accrued at the time the conditional sale contract is recorded and the landlord receives actual notice thereof.

As against the tenant, the potential lien of the landlord attaches to property enjoying the protection of the premises as security of the rent of the entire term. Nicrosi v. Roswald, 113 Ala. 593, 21 So. 338; Scott v. Renfro, 106 Ala. 611, 14 So. 556.

The question now is not the extent of the potential lien as against the tenant, but how far the recording statute gives his lien priority over unrecorded instruments of this character.

*52 In terms,' the recording statute declares such contracts “as to such condition void” against the classes of persons protected. When recorded, they are no longer void as to the condition except for the protection of those acquiring rights in the property prior thereto.

Landlords are put in a class with bona fide purchasers in this recording statute. It is well settled that a bona fide purchaser is protected only to tbe extent be bas parted with value before actual notice of tbe superior outstanding title. Nolen v. Farrow, 154 Ala. 269, 45 So. 183. By analogy, tbe landlord may well be regarded as having given value, tbe use of tbe property, only to tbe extent rents .bave accrued at tbe time be receives notice of tbe title of tbe conditional vendor.

■ Otherwise, it is in tbe power of tbe landlord and tenant to effectually absorb tbe value of the property in future rents, with full knowledge that it is at tbe expense of tbe real substantial owner of tbe property. We do not think such tbe legislative intent. We limit this decision to tbe fact and date of actual notice.

Writ of certiorari denied.