IN DEEDS. The recitals in a deed of con veyance bind parties and privies thereto, whether in blood, estate, or law ; Whart. Ev. 1039 ; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 23 ; and see 3 Ad. & E. 265; Carver v. Jackson, 4 Pet. (U. S.) 1, 7 L. Ed. 761. See ESTOPPEL. Recitals in a deed bind parties and claimants under them, but not strangers claiming by an adverse title, or those who claim by title anterior or , paramount to the deed; Sabariego v. Maver ick, 124 U. S. 261, 8 Sup. Ct. 461, 31 L. Ed. 430. Recitals of preliminary proceedings in tax deeds are not evidence of the facts recit ed; Downer v. Tarbell, 61 Vt. 530, 17 Atl. 482; Henderson v. White, 69 Tex. 103, 5 S. W. 374.
Recitals are deemed to be made upon sug gestion of the grantee; Carver v. Jackson, 4 Pet. (U. S.) 87, 7 L. Ed. 761; and are part of the title ; Penrose v. Griffith, 4 Binn. (Pa.) 231; they are evidence against the grantee; Schuylkill & D. imp. & R. Co. v. McCreary, 58 Pa. 304 ; and parol evidence is not admis sible to contradict them.
Recitals of relationship in a recent deed are generally held inadmissible; Costello v. Burke, 63 Ia. 361, 19 N. W. 247. A map or plat referred to in a deed may become a part thereof; Beach Front Hotel Co. v. Sooy, 197 Fed. 881, 118 C. C. A. 579. Reference in a deed for shore land to a plat contain ing curved lines, apparently indicating the lines of .high and low water, does not estop the grantee and his successors in title to claim that the lands were riparian or lit toral; Beach Front Hotel Co. v. Sooy, 197 Fed. 881, 118 C. C. A. 579.
Where certain guaranties recited a con sideration of $1 to the subscriber in hand paid, the receipt thereof was thereby ac knowledged, the guarantors were estopped to deny that any consideration bad in fact been paid; Bond v. Farwell, 172 Fed. 58, 96 C. C.
A. 546.
If the recitals of a patent nullify its grant ing clause, the grant falls; St. Louis Smelt ing & Ref. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 644, 26 L. Ed. 875. See Kirby v. Lewis, 39 Fed. 70. If the operative parts of a deed are ambigu ous, the recitals may be referred to as a key to the intention of the parties ; 5 Russ. 344; but not if the operative parts are clear ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 462 ; and the same rule applies to statutes ; 4 Ch. D. 592. If they are at vari ance, the operative parts must be effective and the recitals ineffective, but the latter may explain ambiguities; L. R. 1 Eq. 183; in such case, in a conveyance, if the recital is clear as to what is meant and the opera tive parts go beyond the recitals, the convey ance must be restricted ; L. R. 1 Eq. 361; 29 Ch D. 514. A misrecital in a deed may influence its construction; Elphins. Interpr. of Deeds, 139.
The recital of the payment of the consid eration money is evidence of payment against subsequent purchasers from the same gran tor; Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co. v. Neel, 54 Pa. 19; but not against third parties, when it is necessary for the party claiming under the deed to show full payment before receiv ing notice of an adverse equity ; Lloyd v. Lynch, 28 Pa. 425, 70 Am. Dec. 137. A deed of defeasance which professes to recite the principal deed must do so truly ; Cruise, Dig.
tit. 32, c. 7, § 28. See 3 Ch. Cas. 101; Co. Litt. 352; Corn. Dig. Fait (E 1).