## Facts

- Nancy Fiske owned the disputed land.
- In 1864, Nancy executed and delivered a deed conveying life estates to her son Benjamin and his wife Elizabeth, with a remainder in fee to Mary Fiske.
- The 1864 deed was not recorded until 1867.
- Nancy died in 1865; Benjamin was her sole heir at law, and the public record still showed Nancy as owner because the 1864 deed was unrecorded.
- In 1866, Benjamin conveyed the premises to Earle by deed purporting to transfer a fee simple; Earle paid value and was treated as lacking actual knowledge of the 1864 deed.
- After the 1866 conveyance, the 1864 deed was recorded in 1867.
- Earle brought a writ of entry against Elizabeth and Mary Fiske to recover possession and establish title.
- The trial court ruled for the Fiskes, reasoning that Nancy had no seisin at death to descend to Benjamin and therefore Benjamin conveyed no fee to Earle.

## Issues

1. Whether a duly executed and delivered but unrecorded deed is effective against a subsequent purchaser for value without notice who takes from the apparent record owner’s heir before the prior deed is recorded.
2. Whether the recording statute treats an unrecorded conveyance as void as to purchasers without actual or constructive notice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court sustained Earle’s exceptions, reversed the judgment for the defendants, and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that the unrecorded 1864 deed, though valid between Nancy and its grantees, was ineffective against Earle as a purchaser for value without notice.
- Because the public record made Benjamin appear to hold the fee by descent, his 1866 deed could pass good title to Earle as against the unrecorded interests.

## Legal Principles

- A deed that is duly executed and delivered transfers the grantor’s title between the parties even if it is not acknowledged or recorded.
- Under the recording statute, an unrecorded deed is binding on the grantor and persons with actual notice, but is not valid against purchasers for value (or creditors) without notice.
- The recording system protects those who rely on the public record; as to purchasers without notice, the apparent owner of record is treated as the true owner despite unknown prior conveyances.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a prior unrecorded deed cannot defeat the rights of a subsequent purchaser for value without notice who relies on record title from the apparent owner or the heir appearing entitled by descent, and it reversed the defense judgment and ordered a new trial.


Earle v. Fiske, 103 Mass. 491 (Mass. 1870)