Elliott

Hearst and the Leopard Mining Company had notice of the existence, and terms of the contract mentioned in the complaint. The allegation of its record is equivalent to an allegation of notice to respondents. (Civil Code, secs. 1158, 1215.)

The contract being a conveyance within the meaning of the latter sections, its record is constructive notice of its contents to subsequent purchasers.

It makes no difference so far as the demurrers are concerned that the contract was made and recorded in Nevada, for it is a familiar rule that in the absence of any averment or proof as to *359 the law of the State, where a contract may be made or recorded, the law of such State it will be presumed is the same as that of the State whose Courts may be called on to interpret it, or to give the contract effect. (Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 226 ; Hill v. Grigsby, 32 Cal. 55 .)

Hearst, who purchased with notice of the contract, stood in the same relation to appellant that his grantor stood at the time of the conveyance to him, and became the trustee of appellant to the extent of his interest under the contract. So the Leopard Mining Company, dealing with Hearst, with notice of the contract, occupied…