Lissa v. Posey
Lissa v. Posey
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
At common law the purchaser of land at execution sale acquired only the interest of the defendant in execution, and was liable to be defeated by any secret, legal, or equitable right existing against the title of the defendant. This rule of the common law is still in force here, except where our registry laws provide otherwise.
The registry laws protect creditors and subsequent purchasers alike, but only as against the unrecorded instruments named in such laws. They do not apply or afford protection to creditors or subsequent purchasers against equities which arise by operation of law, and which are incapable of being recorded, or which are not required by law to be recorded. As to such equities, the purchaser at execution sale remains, as at common law, a mere volunteer, and acquires only the interest of the defendant in execution. Perry, etc., v. Priebatsch, 61 Miss. 402; Miss. Valley Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 58 Ib. 846; Walton v. Hargraves, 42 Ib. 18. It results from these principles that appellee’s title is not protected by the registry laws.
Louisiana National Bank v. Knapp, 61 Miss. 485, supports the view that appellant had a vendor’s lien on the land in controversy, but it could not be asserted in an action of ejectment, and in such action her condition was not improved by the fact that the judgment debtor conveyed the land to her after the judgments against
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Janette Lissa v. Kate M. Posey
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Vendor’s Lien. Beneficiary in deed of trust. Absolute deed by trustee. Purchaser under execution. Case in judgment. W., trustee in a deed of trust on certain land given by 0. to secure a debt due by him to L., sold the land, after condition broken, to JG. on a credit, and took the promissory note of the latter fir the purchase-money, payable to L. By the deed of trust,' W. was only authorized to sell for cash. The deed made to E. was absolute in form, and acknowledged the receipt of the purchase-money. After the conveyance to E., the land was sold under a judgment against E., enrolled before such conveyance, and was bought by P. Held, that L. has a vendor’s lien on the land for the unpaid purchase-money. 2. Same. Bight to assert in ejectment. In the above-stated case certain judgments were obtained against E., and recorded in July, 1884. In September, 1884, E. conveyed the land to L. in consideration of the note held by L. for the unpaid purchase-money. In November, 1884, the land was sold under the judgments above referred to, and bought by P. Thereupon L. brought ejectment against P. for the possession of the land. Held, that L.’s vendor’s lien cannot be asserted in ejectment. 3. Registry Acts. Effect of. Equities arising by operation of law. Exeeution sale. Effect on purchaser at. Equities against land which arise by operation of law and are incapable of being recorded, or which are not required to be recorded, as vendor’s liens, are unaffected by the registry acts, an'd a purchaser at an execution sale, against such equities acquires only the interest of the defendant in execution. Perry v. Priebatsch, 61 Miss. 402, cited.