RECORDING - OPERATION OF THE RECORDING ACTS ON QUITCLAIM DEEDS

Authors

Abstract

A conveyed two specific lots in Harris County to B. Before that deed was recorded, and while the lots were still vacant, A conveyed several specific tracts of land to C and added a blanket clause of "all other lands and interest in lands belonging to A in Harris County"; C made a like conveyance to D; D conveyed the two specific lots in question to E by warranty deed; E conveyed the two lots to plaintiff by warranty deed sixteen years after the deed to C. All the deeds in the second chain of title were recorded, and plaintiff had no notice of the prior deed to B. Then B recorded his deed from A and conveyed the lots to defendant. Plaintiff sued in trespass to try title. Held, that the lots belonged to defendant on the ground that the deed from A to C did not convey the two lots and therefore plaintiff was put on notice of a break in the chain of title under which he claimed. The portion of the deed from A to C containing the blanket clause was held to be a mere quitclaim deed. Miller v. Pullman, (Tex. Civ. App. 1934) 72 S. W. (2d) 379.

Recommended Citation

RECORDING - OPERATION OF THE RECORDING ACTS ON QUITCLAIM DEEDS, 33 Mich. L. Rev. 1114 (1935).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol33/iss7/18