party upon inquiry in Pennsylvania

1949In the Range Boiler case the question was: “whether a subsequent innocent purchaser of real estate is chargeable with notice of the award of damages and the payment thereof to his predecessor in title to cover future losses which may result from a change of grade of a street, when the only record is contained in the notes of testimony in a proceeding before a Board of View concerning another street.” The court answered in the negative and quoted from Tabor Street (No. 1), 26 Pa. Superior Ct. 167, 173 , as follows: “ ‘Whatever puts a party upon inquiry amounts in judgment of law to notice, prov

1941Concerning what constitutes notice, it was said, in Tabor Street (No. 1) , 26 Pa. Super. 167 , 173 : ". . . whatever puts a party upon inquiry amounts in judgment of law to notice, provided the inquiry becomes a duty, as in the case of purchasers and creditors, and would lead to the knowledge of the requisite fact by the exercise of ordinary diligence and understanding. . . ." Certainly notice of the proceeding to open Twenty-fifth Street, in the record of which proceeding Washington Avenue was not mentioned, would in no way apprise appellee that damages for the improvement of the latter thoro

1909“Whatever puts a party upon inquiry amounts in law to notice, provided the inquiry becomes a duty, as in case of purchasers and creditors, and would lead to the knowledge of the requisite fact by the exercise of ordinary diligence and understanding:” Jaques v. Weeks, 7 Watts, 261 .

1904The familiar rule so often cited is announced in Jaques v. Weeks, 7 Watts, 261 , indeed it is much older than that case, is then pointedly applicable to these facts: “The general doctrine is, that whatever puts a party upon inquiry, amounts- in judgment of law to notice provided the inquiry becames a dutjr .... and would lead to the knowledge of the requisite fact by the exercise of ordinary diligence and understanding.