## Facts

- A 63-acre Wisconsin farm tract (about 40 cultivated; remainder pasture and woods) had dilapidated, long-unused buildings.
- Eugene M. Miller leased and farmed the tract for the 1950 crop season, cultivating the fields and using the remainder for grazing.
- On November 4, 1950, Miller and his wife entered into a land contract with Green to purchase the farm; the contract was not recorded.
- After harvest and removal of livestock (around November 22, 1950), Miller continued observable use of the land:
  - Miller’s father hauled roughly 50–60 loads of manure to the farm on Miller’s behalf; after a snowstorm, manure was placed in a large pile about 100 feet from the road, visible from the highway.
  - Miller plowed approximately two acres, visible from the highway before snowfall.
- On November 29, 1950, Hines paid Green $500 as a down payment to purchase the same farm; Hines owned another farm about one-half mile away.
- Green later delivered Hines a warranty deed, which Hines recorded before any recording of Miller’s land contract.
- Miller sued Green and Hines, asserting priority of his earlier land-contract interest; the trial court ruled for Hines under the recording statute as a subsequent good-faith purchaser.

## Issues

1. Whether Hines qualified as a subsequent purchaser “in good faith” under Wis. Stat. § 235.49, thereby taking priority over Miller’s prior but unrecorded land-contract interest.
2. Whether Miller’s visible possession and use of the land constituted constructive notice requiring inquiry, defeating Hines’s claim of good faith.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Hines.
- The court held Hines was not a purchaser in good faith because Miller’s open and visible possession and use of the farm charged Hines with constructive notice of Miller’s rights.
- The court ruled Miller’s earlier unrecorded land-contract interest had priority over Hines’s later recorded deed.
- The case was remanded with directions to enter judgment recognizing Miller’s priority and denying Hines protection under the recording statute.

## Legal Principles

- Under Wis. Stat. § 235.49, an unrecorded conveyance is void only against a subsequent purchaser in good faith for value whose conveyance is first recorded.
- “Good faith” requires absence of actual or constructive notice of a prior unrecorded interest.
- Open, visible, and unequivocal possession by someone other than the record owner constitutes constructive notice and imposes a duty of inquiry on a purchaser.
- For rural property, possession need not be residential; cultivation and other acts consistent with the land’s character can constitute possession sufficient to give notice.

## Conclusion

Because Miller’s conspicuous farming-related acts (including visible plowing and a large manure pile near the road) indicated ongoing possession inconsistent with Green’s exclusive ownership, Hines was charged with constructive notice and could not claim good-faith purchaser protection; Miller’s unrecorded land contract therefore prevailed over Hines’s recorded deed.


Miller v. Green, 264 Wis. 159, 58 N.W.2d 704 (Wis. 1953)