From the facts and admissions in this ease, my opinion is, that the Complainant is entitled to relief. The first question arises on the act of 1715, (Rev. ch, 7) relative to mortgages. A mortgage between the parties is valid, although no registration be made, as well from the words of the act, as the uniform construction of it. Its professed design was to prevent frauds by double mortgages, which design is accomplished by giving priority to a subsequent mortgage, if registered before a prior one, unless the latter be regís-*112tered within fifty days so that a person about to secure a debt, or to loan money, may by inspecting the register’s books, ascertain whether there he a prior incum-France uPon the Property, and if there he none, or none registered within fifty days, he may proceed to act,without fear of secret liens of which ho knows nothing. The law was designed to give notice to persons so situated but if it be clearly established in pooof, that a subsequent mortgagee had notice of a prior mortgage, although not registered, he shall in Equity be bound by it, although he had obtained a priority at law; for having this notice, he may protect himself from harm by forbearing to proceed. The words of the English Registry act are stronger than those of the act of 1715, viz : “ and that every such deed or conveyance, that shall at any time after, &c. be made and executed, shall be adjudged fraudulent, and void against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration, unless such memorial thereof be registered, &c.” According to the preamble of that act, it was intended to secure subsequent purchasers, against prior secret conveyances, and fraudulent incumbrances, corresponding in this respect to the act of 1715. The British act received a construction soon after its passage, which has continued since, without any diversity of opinion ; that where a person had no notice of a prior conveyance, there the registering of the subsequent conveyance shall make or prevail against the prior one; but if he had notice of the prior one, then it was not a secret conveyance, by which he could possibly be prejudiced. By this construction, the deed is made void against the subsequent purchaser or mortgagee» whereby they gain the legal estate, but they are still left open to any Equity, which a prior purchaser or incum-brancer may have against them. That the Defendants had notice, before taking the deed of trust, is distinctly admitted ; and the remaining question is, whether the purpose for which the mortgage to Pike was outitied to *113Ik: registered, is such a fraud, as to deprive him of his equitable right St appears to mo that the suspicion of fraud,is repelled by the ignorance both of Thorp and Tike, that the farmer was insolvent; lie was in possession of considerable properly, which appears to have been thought by the parties equal to the payment of his debts; his eyes do not appeal' to have been opened to iiis true situation, until Turner waited upon him, after having made an estimate of his debts and his property. Being engaged in trade, it was of importance that his creditors should not come upon him all at once, which they probably would have done, when they saw he was making liens on his property. Whereas the maintenance of his credit for a while might have enabled h'un to pay all his debts, it seems to me to be a rigorous construction to impute fraud to the omission of an act, which the law did not require ; hat if it were so, it is void against those only whom it was intended to deceive. It was impossible that the Defendants could be injured, since they were apprised of the transaction. I therefore think that this act for the prevention of fraud, would have the effect of promoting it, if the consciences of the Defendants could not be affected by the notice ; for the object of the registry being to give notice, the necessity of it is superseded, as to those who have notice without.
The object of the law in requiring the registration of deeds of trust and mortgage, is to prevent fraud, by giving notice of such deeds to subsequent purchasers and mortgagees, but when they have notice of them in any other way, the object of the law is answered as much as if they were registered ; and they have no equitable ground to complain for the want of registration. This if: a plain principle of .Equity, long acted upon, and easily understood. The authorities on the subject arc collected together by ¡Sugden in his treatise on the law of vendors, (2 American, from the 5th London edition, 511 u.)
*114To apply this principle to the present case, it will ibl-low, that the Defendants having notice of the Plaintiff’s lien, have no Equity to avail themselves of its want of registration. I therefore think that the decree below , ,, , , should be reversed.
— Let the decree below be reversed, and decree for the Plaintiff, with costs both at Law and i» Equity.