Bramlett v. Wetlin
Bramlett v. Wetlin
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Bramlett was neither a subsequent creditor nor pui’chaser, within the meaning of § 2461 of the code of 1892. The statute has reference to one who becomes a creditor of the holder of the subject of the lien subsequent to the assignment not noted on the record, or a purchaser for value without notice of the subject of the lien after the assignment. By purchasing, Bramlett got the right of the judgment creditor only, and he was not a subsequent creditor, but a pi’ior one; and by purchasing at the sale under the execution he acquired no higher right, for it has been often decided in this state that a purchaser at execution sale acquires just the interest of the defendant in the execution, subject to all the equities of third persons. But § 2461 did not apply to the assignment involved in this case, because it was made before the code of 1892 became operative and it had no effect on the past transaction.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- D. C. Bramlett v. G. A. Wetlin
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Assignment. Record debt. Cancellation. Code 1892, ? 2461; not retroactive. Section 2461, code 1892, providing- that an assignment of a debt secured by mortgage or other lien of record, unless noted on the margin of the record, shall be ineffectual to prevent a cancellation thereof on the record by the original creditor as against creditors and purchasers for value without notice, has no application to assignments made before the code went into effect. 2. Assignment op Judgment. Prior vendor’s lien. Cancellation by vendor. Where land- is subject to a judgment lien and to a prior vendor’s lien, which has been assigned, and a person buys the judgment on the mistaken assurance of the vendor that the purchase-money is paid, and procures him to satisfy the lien of record, such unauthorized cancellation will not release the vendor’s lien outstanding in the assignee. Nor will a purchase of the land at execution sale under his judgment, though without notice of the assignment of the vendor’s lien, give such person any higher right, since he gets only the interest of the defendant in execution.