Piccolo v. Tanaka

8 Citing cases

  1. Gaines v. Van Demark

    106 Mont. 1 (Mont. 1937)   Cited 10 times

    To the same effect, see In re Estate of Troy, 1 Cal.App.2d 732, 37 P.2d 471; Smith v. Hensen, 89 Kan. 792, 132 P. 997; Winter v. Dunlap, 84 Kan. 519, 114 P. 1057; Oil Well Supply Co. v. Cremin, 143 Okla. 57, 287 P. 414, 68 A.L.R. 1417; White House Lumber Co. v. Howard, 142 Okla. 163, 286 P. 327; Yoder v. Kalona Sav. Bank, 142 Iowa, 219, 119 N.W. 147; Globe Merc. Co. v. Perkeypile, (Ind.) 121 N.E. 844; Sylvanus v. Pruett, 36 N.M. 112, 9 P.2d 142. The trial court apparently relied upon the language used in the cases of McMillan v. Davenport, 44 Mont. 23, 118 P. 756, Ann. Cas. 1912d 984; Piccolo v. Tanaka, 78 Mont. 445, 253 P. 890; Isom v. Larson, 78 Mont. 395, 255 P. 1049; Johannes v. Dwire, 94 Mont. 590, 23 P.2d 971. In each of these cases the court stated that the lien of a judgment did not attach to an equitable interest, undisclosed of record.

  2. Angus v. Mariner

    278 P. 996 (Mont. 1929)   Cited 10 times

    One who purchases land with knowledge of such facts as would put a prudent man upon inquiry, which, if prosecuted with ordinary diligence would lead to actual notice of rights claimed adversely to his vendor, is guilty of bad faith if he neglects to make such inquiry and is chargeable with the actual notice he would have received. ( Cooper v. Flesner, 24 Okla. 47, 20 Ann. Cas. 29, 23 L.R.A. (n.s.) 1180, 103 P. 1016; Webb v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 162 Ind. 616, 66 L.R.A. 632, 69 N.E. 1006. See, also, Piccolo v. Tanaka, 78 Mont. 445, 253 P. 890; 41 C.J. 552, 553; 2 Pomeroy's Eq. Jur., 4th ed., sec. 626.) "Whatever puts a party on inquiry amounts, in law, to notice.

  3. Urquhart v. Teller

    288 Mont. 497 (Mont. 1998)   Cited 11 times
    In Urquhart, the Montana Supreme Court applied the merger doctrine to a dispute over whether covenants contained in a contract for deed merged into a warranty deed after the contract was paid off and the warranty deed was released from escrow and recorded.

    " Wayt v. Patee, 205 Cal. 46, 53, 269 P. 660, 663 [emphasis in original]. Our own court has defined the word "conveyance," as used in sections 73-201 and 73-203 to include . . . a contract for sale of land, Piccolo v. Tanaka, 78 Mont. 445, 451, 253 P. 890. . . . Kosel, 146 Mont. at 222-23, 404 P.2d at 896-97 (emphasis added).

  4. Kosel v. Stone

    146 Mont. 218 (Mont. 1965)   Cited 19 times
    In Kosel we observed that a "declaration of restrictions" filed on February 10, 1954, was on file in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Yellowstone County prior to defendants' purchase of the property in question and was referred to beside the notation of the subdivision plat in that office. Next, we observed that the defendants' deed described the property with reference to the filing of the subdivision plat.

    " Wayt v. Patee, 205 Cal. 46, 53, 269 P. 660, 663. Our own court has defined the word "conveyance," as used in sections 73-201 and 73-203 to include a certificate of sale issued by the sheriff, Lepper v. Home Ranch Co., 90 Mont. 558, 565, 4 P.2d 722; a contract for sale of land, Piccolo v. Tanaka, 78 Mont. 445, 253 P. 890; a lease, Estate of Tuohy, 23 Mont. 305, 308, 58 P. 722; a mortgage, Angus v. Mariner, 85 Mont. 365, 278 P. 996; a reservation of a royalty, Pluhar v. Guderjahn, 134 Mont. 46, 328 P.2d 129; real estate mortgage extension agreement, Hastings v. Wise, 91 Mont. 430, 8 P.2d 636. See also Annotation in 4 A.L.R.2d 1419, "Agreement between realestate owners restricting use of property as within contemplation of recording laws."

  5. Pluhar v. Guderjahn

    328 P.2d 129 (Mont. 1958)   Cited 3 times

    An imperative duty is laid upon him to ascertain all the instruments which constitute essential parts of his title, and to inform himself of all that they contain." Quoted with approval by this court in Piccolo v. Tanaka, 78 Mont. 445, 451, 253 P. 890. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court [4] must be modified by: (1) Quieting title in the plaintiff by reason of the mesne conveyances rather than by adverse possession; (2) Adjudging plaintiff's title to the land subject to the ten percent royalty reservation owned by defendant.

  6. Rue v. Merrill

    42 Wyo. 511 (Wyo. 1931)   Cited 18 times

    Benedict v. Co., (Calif.) 147 P. 486; Schriner v. Craft, (Ala.) 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 450. Where one party makes the entire concession and receives nothing in return, the transaction is not binding. Lumbr. Co. v. Beall, (Ga.) 62 S.E. 1056; Robison v. Glendale, 187 P. 741; Oliver v. Enriquez, 124 P. 798. Brown had knowledge of the invalidity of the Merrill assignment. Piccolo v. Tanaka, (Mont.) 253 P. 890; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. 626; Lombardi v. Sinanides, (Cal.) 235 P. 455, 20 R.C.L. 353. One purchasing lands is chargeable with recitals in the title record, casting doubt upon the title. Knowles v. Williams, (Kans.)

  7. Hastings v. Wise

    89 Mont. 325 (Mont. 1931)   Cited 16 times
    In Hastings v. Wise, 89 Mont. 325, 297 P. 482, it was held that where third persons are not affected thereby, a mortgagor of land may, under section 8264, Revised Codes 1921, by agreement with a mortgagee executed as provided therein, in effect procure a renewal of the mortgage by an extension of the time of payment of the debt secured by it, regardless of the provisions of section 8267, relative to the filing of a renewal affidavit.

    The result is that she took said property with constructive notice of the outstanding mortgages given by the record, and in addition she had actual notice of the mortgages from the recitals in her deed. Since this deed excepted all mortgages of record, it necessarily included the mortgages here involved, which were in fact of record, and put her upon her inquiry as to the contents of these instruments. ( Guerin v. Sunburst Oil etc. Co., 68 Mont. 365, 218 P. 949; Piccolo v. Tanaka, 78 Mont. 445, 253 P. 890; Angus v. Mariner, 85 Mont. 365, 278 P. 996.) It is alleged in the complaint and must be taken as true for the purposes of this appeal that the defendant Keller had actual notice of the execution of the above agreement at the time she took her conveyance.

  8. Parsons v. Rice

    81 Mont. 509 (Mont. 1928)   Cited 20 times

    No error was committed in excluding proof of the filing of the assignment. This holding is not in conflict with the rule laid down in Piccolo v. Tanaka, 78 Mont. 445, 253 P. 890. 16. Defendant offered to prove by one Stratton that West [16] admonished Stephenson, prior to the sale of the coach to Parsons, not to dispose of the coach until the contract had been paid or satisfied.