
    Reuben House ads. Elizabeth Brailsford.
    By the Act of 1786, all mortgages given, to the loan office are considered as recorded.
    Where a mortgage given to the loan office has been foreclosed, the conveyance from the commissioners of the loan office is good, though not recorded, against all persons claiming under the mortgagor.
    This was an action of trespass to try title to a tract of-acres of land.
    Both plaintiff and defendant claimed under Isaac Huger, who, on the 25th April, 1786, mortgaged it to the loan office. On the 29th March, 1797, it was sold by the commissioners, and conveyed to Samuel Brailsford, (the father of the plaintiff,) who recorded his title in February, 1810. The plaintiff claimed by her father.
    The defendant produced an exemplification of a judgment recoverd against Isaac Huger, by Jacob Williman, in trust for the German Friendly Society, and a scire facias against Huger’s administrators, reviving the said judgment. The execution and levy were admitted, and the defendant produced a conveyanee from the sheriff of Richland district, founded on the levy ?nd execution, for the same tract of land, dated January 2, 1810, to Saunders Glover, Jr., in trust for James Kennedy and wife, the lessors of the defendant.
    On the part of the plaintiff, the locus in quo was established, and it was proved that the defendant was in possession. Mr. Bostick, the witness, said he saw the plaintiff’s title in March or April, 1810, and told the defendant, House, of it, and so did another neighbor. But House fell in with Kennedy, and got possession of it.
    was contended on the part of the defendant, that as the conveyance from the commissioners of the loan office to the plaintiff had not been recorded within the legal time, nor until the conveyance to Glover, the defendant’s title ought to be preferred, under the Act of Assembly of (1698, P. L. 3.) But the presiding Judge directed the jury to find for the plaintiff which they did.
    The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground, that under the circumstances of the case the title of the defendant’s lessor ought to have been preferred.
    
      Chappell, for the motion. Static, contra.
    
      
       2 Stat. 131.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Colcook, J.

By the Act of 1185, (P. L. 398, 1 Brev. Dig. Ill,) directing the paper medium loan, a form of the mortgages to be given, is prescribed, and it is declared that they shall be considered as recorded. Upon the execution of that mortgage, the fee passed from Isaac Huger to the State, and the,record of the mortgage was notice to all the world. This is to be considered as a case between the public and Mr. Kennedy, or his trustee, S. Glover. There was no interest in Huger at the time the execution was levied. The mortgage had been foreclosed according to the terms of the act, and the equity of redemption had passed out of Huger ; and as between the real parties, the deed of the public was first recorded, and according to the provisions of the Act of 1698, must be preferred to that of Kennedy. But if there could be a doubt, as to this, the defendant certainly cannot be permitted to question the plaintiff’s title on this ground, when he was fully apprised of it. Motion refused.

Grimke, Cheves, Gantt, and Johnson, JJ., concurred. 
      
       4 Stat. 116, § 14.
     
      
       See Bank v. Ross, el al., 3 Strob. Eq. 245, as to mortgages to the Bank of the State of South Carolina being considered as recorded from their date.
     
      
       See Tart v. Crawford, 1 McC., 266, and note pp. 6 Rich. 453.
     