
    Erwin vs. Lewis, imp.
    
      Recording Act.
    
    After a mortgage of land for the purchase money was executed and delivered, hut before it was recorded, the mortgagor conveyed to A., who took with knowledge of the mortgage, and immediately recorded his deed. After the mortgage was recorded, A. conveyed to L., who took without knowledge that A. was a fraudulent grantee. Reid, that L. took subject to the mortgage, under the recording act. (Sec. 25, ch. 86, R. S.) Fallase v. Pierce (30 Wis., 443), followed.
    APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Fond du Lac County.
    Action to foreclose a mortgage executed by tbe defendant Crow to one White, December 1, 1869, to secure tbe payment of a part of the purchase money for tbe mortgaged premises. Tbe mortgage was duly assigned to the plaintiff. On tbe 21st day of tbe same month, and before the mortgage was recorded, Crow conveyed tbe mortgaged premises to one Aclcerman, who recorded bis mortgage on tbe same day. Ackerman knew of the existence of tbe mortgage to White when be took such conveyance. White recorded his mortgage on tbe next day. Ackerman conveyed the premises to the defendant Christina Lewis by deed of warranty on tbe first day of January following, which deed was recorded on tbe third day of tbe same month. Mrs. Lewis paid a valuable consideration for tbe mortgaged premises. Tbe circuit court gave judgment dismissing the complaint as to her, for the reason that, although when she purchased the premises she was chargeable with notice of the existence of the mortgage in suit, she did not know that Ack-erman, her grantor, was a fraudulent grantee of the premises. Erom this judgment the plaintiff appealed.
    
      K 0. Giffin, for appellant,
    cited Jaclcson v. Post, 16 Wend., 688; Van Rensselaer v. Clark, 17 id., 25; Fallass v. Pierce, 80 Wis., 443.
    
      Coleman & Thorp, for respondent.
    [No brief on file.]
   Lyon, J.

Tbe judgment of tbe circuit court cannot be sustained. Ackerman was not a bona fide purchaser of tbe mortgaged premises, and tbe conveyance by Crow to bim did not vest in him a title thereto paramount to tbe mortgage. The recording of tbe mortgage before the conveyance to Mrs. Lewis was recorded, gave the mortgage priority over such conveyance, and it is entirely immaterial that she did not know that her grantor was not a bona fide purchaser of tbe premises. When she found tbe mortgage on record, which is of older date than tbe deed to Ackerman (although the deed was first recorded), this was sufficient to put her upon inquiry as to whether he was a bona fide purchaser for value. After the recording of the mortgage she purchased at her peril. Had her grantor been a bona fide purchaser for value, she would have held the premises by a title paramount to the mortgage. But her grantor not being a bono, fide purchaser, her title is subordinate to the mortgage. It was so held in Fallass v. Pierce, 30 Wis., 443, which case is conclusive of the question here involved. The plaintiff is entitled to a judgment of foreclosure against both defendants.

By the Court.— The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.  