## Facts

- Caroline Messersmith and Frederick Messersmith were record co-owners of three sections of land in Golden Valley County, North Dakota.
- On May 7, 1946, Caroline executed and delivered to Frederick a quitclaim deed conveying her one-half interest; the deed was not recorded until July 9, 1951.
- While the 1946 quitclaim deed remained unrecorded, Caroline executed oil-and-gas documents in 1951, including a mineral deed (with warranty of title) purporting to convey to Herbert B. Smith, Jr. an undivided one-half mineral interest; the mineral deed was recorded May 26, 1951.
- The mineral deed’s acknowledgment was taken without Caroline’s personal appearance before the notary; the notary acknowledged the signature by telephone.
- On May 9, 1951, Smith executed a mineral deed conveying the same undivided one-half mineral interest to E. B. Seale; it was recorded May 26, 1951.
- The land was unimproved and used for grazing through tenants; it was not a homestead.
- Frederick brought a statutory quiet-title action, alleging Caroline had no interest to convey in 1951 and that the mineral deed was not properly acknowledged and therefore not entitled to record.
- Smith defaulted; the dispute proceeded primarily between Frederick and Seale, who claimed bona fide purchaser status based on the recorded mineral chain.

## Issues

1. Whether the mineral deed from Caroline to Smith was entitled to record where the acknowledgment did not satisfy statutory requirements.
2. Whether recording an instrument not entitled to record provides constructive notice under the recording statute.
3. Whether Seale could claim protection as a bona fide purchaser relying on the recordation of the defectively acknowledged mineral deed.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Seale and quieted title in favor of Frederick.
- The court held the mineral deed from Caroline to Smith was not properly acknowledged, was not entitled to record, and therefore did not provide constructive notice despite being recorded.
- Because the mineral deed’s recordation was legally ineffective, Seale could not rely on it to defeat Frederick’s earlier conveyance or to obtain recording-act protection.

## Legal Principles

- A deed affecting real property must satisfy statutory acknowledgment requirements to be entitled to record.
- An acknowledgment requires the grantor’s personal appearance before the officer taking the acknowledgment and an admission of execution.
- Recording an instrument that is not entitled to record does not impart constructive notice to subsequent purchasers.
- A subsequent purchaser cannot obtain recording-act priority based solely on the recordation of a defectively acknowledged instrument.

## Conclusion

The court held that a defectively acknowledged mineral deed was not entitled to record and, even though recorded, did not give constructive notice; accordingly, a subsequent purchaser could not claim bona fide purchaser protection based on that ineffective recordation, and title was quieted in the earlier grantee.


Messersmith v. Smith, 60 N.W.2d 276 (N.D. 1953)