TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Zeiner v. Edgar Zinc Co.

Aaron Zeiner v. The Edgar Zinc Company

Zeiner v. Edgar Zinc Co., 99 P. 614 (Kan. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 12, 1909
Docket
No. 15,732
Citations
99 P. 61479 Kan. 4061909 Kan. LEXIS 202
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Notice—Purchaser of Land—Recorded Lease—Mistake of Copyist. A purchaser of land took subject to the terms of an existing lease which had been duly filed for record, although the register of deeds made a mistake in copying th^ lease.
Summary
Error from Labette district court; Nelson Case, judge pro tem.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff brought this suit to cancel an oil-and-gas lease on lands which he purchased subject to the lease, relying on the terms of the lease as shown by the records in the office of the register of deeds. The lease was duly filed for record by the lessee immediately after its execution,, but the register of deeds in *407 copying it omitted by mistake two words which appeared in the original and which related to the terms of forfeiture. Plaintiff proceeds upon the theory that the lessee must suffer any loss occasioned by the mistake of the register of deeds.

There are two reasons why the plaintiff can not recover. The statute expressly provides that instruments of writing affecting real estate, properly certified and duly filed for record, “shall, from the time of filing the same with the register of deeds for record, impart notice to all persons of the contents thereof” (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 1222), and subsequent purchasers are deemed to have purchased with notice. This has been decided to mean exactly what it says. (Poplin v. Mundell, 27 Kan. 138 ; Lee v. Bermingham, 30 Kan. 312 , 1 Pac. 73 .) The other reason is that the trial court found that plaintiff examined the records with an attorney, and it appears that the omitted words left the language meaningless, so that the plaintiff must be held to have had notice that the recorded copy was not correct and that something was omitted.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1912: 11920: 11922: 11955: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jackman v. Lawrence Drilling & Development Co.187 P. 258 (Kan. 1920)
  2. Northwestern Improvement Company v. Norris74 N.W.2d 497 (N.D. 1955)
  3. Masonic Building Ass'n v. Gordon128 P. 394 (Kan. 1912)
  4. Hodges v. Simpson1922 OK 8, 213 P. 737

Most recent

  1. Northwestern Improvement Company v. Norris74 N.W.2d 497 (N.D. 1955)
  2. Hodges v. Simpson1922 OK 8, 213 P. 737
  3. Jackman v. Lawrence Drilling & Development Co.187 P. 258 (Kan. 1920)
  4. Masonic Building Ass'n v. Gordon128 P. 394 (Kan. 1912)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Lee v. Bermingham, 30 Kan. 312 (1883) 14
Poplin v. Mundell, 27 Kan. 138 (1882) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list