Cited by

1913, we presumed that the good faith language in the Torrens Act contained a notice or knowledge component, when we stated that “one who purchases from the registered owner for a valuable consideration, in reliance upon [a Torrens] judgment and without notice or anything to put him on inquiry, takes the title free from all ‘incumbrances and adverse claims.’ ” Henry v. White, 123 Minn. 182, 185 , (emphasis added) (quoting Minn. Rev. Laws § 3393).

See Henry v. White, 123 Minn. 182, 184 , (stating “[t]he basic principle of the [Torrens] system is the registration of the title to land instead of registering only the evidence of such title”).

It follows that the plaintiffs were bound by the decree, although it did not recognize or establish their lien.” Neither do we consider Henry v. White, 123 Minn. 182 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 4, and Dean v. Rees, 208 Minn. 38 , , as determinative here, since in both those cases the court held in effect that a judgment which on its face disclosed no lack of jurisdiction was not subject to collateral attack.

We believe that the case is controlled by the decision of this court in Henry v. White, 123 Minn. 182 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 4.

Douglas v. Westfall, 85 Minn. 437 , , 57 L. R. A. 297, 89 A. S. R. 571; Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 A. S. R. 394; Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7; Henry v. White, 123 Minn. 182 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 4; Abrahamson v. Sundman, 174 Minn. 22 , .

(2 ed. & Supp.) § 8361; Henry v. White, 123 Minn. 182 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 4, and cases cited.

Henry v. White, 123 Minn. 182 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 4, and cases therein cited.

Co. 123 Minn. 178 , , and Hunt v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry.

Henry v. White, 123 Minn. 182 , , L.R.A.

Henry v. White, 123 Minn. 182 , , L.R.A.

497; Town of Hinckley v. Kettle River R. Co. 80 Minn. 32 , ; Henry v. White, supra, page 82, .