tion that the officer making it has certified to the truth, and has not been guilty of wrongful or criminal action. See Hourtienne v. Schnoor, 33 Mich. 274; Johnson v. Van Velsor, 43 Mich. 208, 219 (5 N. W. 265); Cameron v. Culkins, 44 Mich. 531 (7 N. W. 157); Dikeman v. Arnold, 78 Mich. 455, 470 (44 N. W. 407). We are therefore in agreement with the circuit judge's finding of fact as to the complainant's first contention.

2. The next contention of complainant involves the effect of the decree of the Federal court. It is urged that this decree should stand and operate as a release and conveyance from the United States, Donohue, and Vosper to the Keweenaw Association, Limited, of "all right and title to said lands;" that since the covenant of warranty in the deed runs with the land, it went with the decretal conveyance to the association with the consent of Vosper, and from the association back to Michael Donohue, in whom it was extinguished; and that Vosper therefore lost any rights which he might have had under the covenant. The difficulty with this contention, however, is that the decree in terms provides that neither Donohue nor Vosper had any right, title, or interest in the land, as it recites that Donohue, Vosper, and the United States "acknowledge that the said Keweenaw Association, Limited, is, and the said Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railway and Iron Company was, at the time of the commencement of this suit, the lawful owner in fee of the lands hereinafter described, and adjudges

*

*

"that the title to the lands hereinafter described * ** * at the time of the commencement of this suit, was fully and completely vested in the Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railway & Iron Company, and has, since the commencement of this suit, become, and is now fully and completely, vested in said Keweenaw Association, Limited," etc.

Now if the title was completely in the canal company at the commencement of the suit (December 18,

1890, which antedates the time of the warranty deed to Vosper), and went from it to the Keweenaw Association before the decree, how could the decree carry any interest in the land from Donohue and Vosper to the Keweenaw Association? And we do not think that it can be contended that Vosper was adjudged to have no title as a result of the release clause in the decree, since there was nothing to be released if he had no interest. As was said by the learned trial judge, the right which accrued to Vosper under the breaches of the covenants of warranty found in the Donohue deed was a mere right of action for damages for the breach up to the time that Donohue acquired title under the deed to him from the Keweenaw Association, which right of action it is not claimed was transferred to the Keweenaw Association by the operation of the decree. The effect of the decree then was to oust Vosper from the land, of which he had the actual or constructive possession of an undivided quarter interest, it appearing that Michael Donohue continued in possession of the undivided one-half of the claim from the time of his original entry until his quitclaim deed to the complainant, despite the alleged trespasses of the canal company and its successor, which possession would inure to Vosper under the warranty deed. (For it must be said that Donohue was holding possession under Vosper after December 29, 1894, of the undivided quarter interest.) The decree established a paramount title in a third party, and thus evicted Vosper from his title and possession in the undivided quarter. This is important because Vosper must show an eviction before he can claim the remedy of an estoppel by the covenant of warranty in his deed. See Matteson v. Vaughn, 38 Mich. 373; Rawle on Covenants for Title (5th Ed.), §§ 131140.

It thus becomes a clear case for the application of the doctrine of estoppel by warranty in Vosper's favor.

The rule is that a grantor who assumes to convey property by warranty deed when the title is in a third person will, together with his subsequent grantees with notice, be estopped from setting up against the first grantee an after-acquired title. The American courts have uniformly held that the after-acquired estate passes by direct operation of law, without the intervention of any court or the aid of a suit in equity or action at law on the covenants, to the covenantee. See Rawle, supra, § 248; Maupin on Marketable Title to Real Estate (2d Ed.), § 213. This doctrine has received the approbation of this court. Lee v. Clary, 38 Mich. 223, 226; Fisher v. Hallock, 50 Mich. 463, 465 (15 N. W. 552); Pfirrman v. Wattles, 86 Mich. 254, 258 (49 N. W. 40). Therefore, whatever title Michael Donohue acquired, by the quitclaim deed from the Keweenaw Association on November 19, 1896, passed directly to Vosper, unless the complainant can be said to be a subsequent purchaser in good faith without notice. This brings us to a discussion of the third contention of the complainant.

3. Under the decisions of this court, one who takes by quitclaim takes with notice of defects in his grantor's title and subject to previous unrecorded warranty deeds. Peters v. Cartier, 80 Mich. 124, 129 (45 N. W. 73, 20 Am. St. Rep. 508); Beakley v. Robert, 120 Mich. 210 (79 N. W. 193); Hoffman v. Simpson, 121 Mich. 502 (80 N. W. 1133); Messenger v. Peter, 129 Mich. 93 (88 N. W. 209); Zeigler v. Coal Co., 150 Mich. 82 (113 N. W. 775, 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 90); Backus v. Cowley, 162 Mich. 592 (127 N. W. 775); Pellow v. Iron Co., 164 Mich. 87 (128 N. W. 918, 47 L. R. A. [N. S.] 573, Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1912B, 827); Walker v. Schultz, 175 Mich. 280, 292 (141 N. W. 543).

Counsel for complainant contends that, assuming that the deed as recorded was not constructive notice to the complainant when he made his purchase, by rea

son of a defective record, Act No. 199, Pub. Acts 1915, has changed the rule that has obtained for many years in this State relative to the standing of a grantee in a quitclaim deed, and it is his claim that the act merely establishes a new rule of evidence, which is applicable to cases arising before the act took effect as well as since. Act No. 199, Pub. Acts 1915, provides as follows:

"Every conveyance of real estate within the State, hereafter made, which shall not be recorded as provided in this chapter, shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration, of the same real estate or any portion thereof, whose conveyance shall be first duly recorded. The fact that such first recorded conveyance is in the form or contains the terms of a deed of quitclaim and release shall not affect the question of good faith of such subsequent purchaser, or be of itself notice to him of any unrecorded conveyance of the same real estate or any part thereof."

It is an amendment of section 8988, 3 Comp. Laws, which reads as follows:

"Every conveyance of real estate within this State, hereafter made, which shall not be recorded as provided in this chapter, shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser in good faith, and for a valuable consideration, of the same real estate or any portion thereof, whose conveyance shall be first duly recorded."

We are of the opinion that the language of the amendment does not indicate that it was contemplated by the legislature that it should affect conveyances already made. The language is:

"The fact that such * * recorded conveyance is in the form or contains the terms of a * * * quitclaim and release shall not affect the question of good faith of such subsequent purchaser, or be of itself notice to him of any unrecorded conveyance of the same real estate or any part thereof."

It is a rule that an act of the legislature is not to be construed as retroactive unless it affirmatively or clearly appears from the act itself that such was the intention. Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich. 398; Fuller y. City of Grand Rapids, 40 Mich. 395; Maxwell v. Bridge Co., 46 Mich. 278, 287 (9 N. W. 410); Phillips v. Township of New Buffalo, 68 Mich. 217, 219 (35 N. W. 918); In re Lambrecht, 137 Mich. 450, 453 (100 N. W. 606); Davis v. Railroad Co., 147 Mich. 479 (111 N. W. 76). And in our opinion it cannot be said that the act in question clearly states or necessarily implies that it is to have a retroactive effect, but rather the implication is to the contrary. We do not think it was the intention of the legislature to unsettle long-established titles, which the other construction contended for by the complainant might cause.

5. The last contention of the complainant's counsel is that the complainant and his grantor, Michael Donohue, had been in possession for more than 15 years, and therefore Vosper's title is barred. With reference to this, there is no contention between counsel as to the soundness of the legal propositions advanced by complainant, viz., that a grantor may obtain title against his grantee, and a tenant in common against his cotenant, by adverse possession. The contention of counsel for the defendants is that, while these legal propositions are well grounded, it is also true that before a tenant in common may acquire a title against his cotenant by adverse possession, the proofs must be clear and cogent, and the case cannot be made out by inference. Yelverton v. Steele, 40 Mich. 538. Campau v. Campau, 44 Mich. 31, 34 (5 N. W. 1063), is cited, where it is held by this court that:

"Such exclusive claim and denial of their right should be clear and unambiguous, and brought home to the knowledge of the cotenants, either by express notice or by implication. And if the latter, all doubt growing out