Belden v. Dowd
Belden v. Dowd
Opinion of the Court
Jose Maximo Farias and two. brothers were the holders of a Spanish grant for about fifteen leagues of land, situated along the Nueces river. They were anxious to have the Legislature of the State confirm their title, and, accordingly, they entered into an agreement with Peter Dowd to act as their solicitor, or agent, to procure the necessary legislative sanction, and in consideration of Dowd’s services and moneys paid out by him, Farias agreed to make him title for certain two leagues of the land known as Los Presinos de Ariba. On the 1st day of July, 1851, Jose Maximo Farias made Dowd a
There can be no doubt, from the evidence of Haynes himself, of his knowing all about the claim of Dowd to the land in question before he made his purchase, and there is scarcely less doubt that Belden and Gilpin knew as much. The record discloses much more than constructive notice to them. They made inquiry of Haynes himself, and he told them of Dowd’s claim to the land, but disparaged it by saying that Dowd had not complied with the conditions on which Farias was to deed him the land. Both parties claim title under Jose Maximo Farias, and we think, with the jury and court below, that Dowd’s is the better title of the two. The judgment of the District Court is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- F. Belden and another v. Peter Dowd
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- )—Purchasers of land fromH. were informed by him, at and before their purchase, that D. claimed the land, hut that he had no title, as he had failed to comply with his contract with the original grantee, under whom all parties claimed. Before the sale by II., both he and D. had received conveyances from the original grantee, but the conveyance to D. was the oldest, and H. knew that D. claimed the land when he, II., received his conveyance. The conveyance to D. was not of record when H. sold the land. Held, that H. and his vendees, when they respectively took their conveyances, were purchasers with actual notice of the rights of D., and that the latter was entitled to recover the land from them.