A prospective purchaser who knows of an outstanding lien on the property, although the lessee is not in possession (by way of analogy, Wadhams' knowing of the certificate of purchase) is chargeable with notice of all that a reasonably diligent inquiry as to the rights and claims of the lessee (in the case at bar: June Knapp) might after disclose. Basch v. Tidewater Associated Oil Co., 1942, 49 Cal.App.2d Supp. 743, 121 P.2d 545, on hearing after 48 A.C.A.Supp. 997, 117 P.2d 956. "Whether a party has notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and whether by prosecuting such inquiry he might have learned of such fact, are questions of fact to be determined by the jury or by the trial court.
Appellant asserts that its unrecorded lease was a covenant running with the land. It cites for its position Stillwell Hotel Co. v. Anderson, 4 Cal.2d 463 [ 50 P.2d 441], and Basch v. Tidewater Associated Oil Co., 49 Cal.App.2d Supp. 743 [ 117 P.2d 956, 121 P.2d 545]. In Stillwell Hotel, supra, the lessee was suing the successor in interest to his lessor for damages for eviction.
"The absence of notice is an essential requirement in order that one may be regarded as a bona fide purchaser." ( Basch v. Tidewater etc. Co. (1942) 49 Cal.App.2d Supp. 743, 746 [121 P.2d 545].) Civil Code section 1217 provides: "An unrecorded instrument is valid as between the parties thereto and those who have notice thereof."
See cases collected 25 Cal.Jur. p. 841, ยง 286.) [4] It is equally well settled that where a person who is a stranger to the record title of the vendor is in possession, the purchaser is under a duty to make inquiry of such stranger's rights, and failure to do so deprives him of the status of bona fide purchaser. ( Hunter v. Watson, 12 Cal. 363 [ 73 Am.Dec. 543]; Pell v. McElroy, 36 Cal. 268; Basch v. Tidewater etc. Co., 49 Cal.App.2d Supp. 743 [121 P.2d 545]; Three Sixty Five Club v. Shostak, 104 Cal.App.2d 735 [ 232 P.2d 546].) The cases cited by respondent are not contrary to those above cited.
This is ordinarily a question of fact. The recent case of Basch v. Tidewater Associated Oil Co., 49 Cal.App.2d Supp. 743 [121 P.2d 545], discusses all of the foregoing principles. [4] The circumstances and inconsistencies relied upon by respondent are as follows: The stairway leading to Fremont Street from the night club was not a part of the demised premises, the lease having only included "the exclusive right to the use of the elevators."