alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.2


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


CAPITAL ONE MULTI-ASSET EXECUTION TRUST





Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust


c/o Capital One Funding, LLC


1600 Capital One Drive, Room 27907-A


McLean, Virginia 22102





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Capital One Services, LLC (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and represent that:





1.    A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Subservicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2006 by and between Capital One Bank (USA), National Association and the Servicer (the “Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.





2.     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreements in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 25 th day of March, 2022.





CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC


By:/s/ MICHAEL WASSMERName:Michael WassmerTitle:President, US Card
Case 2:15-mj-01788-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01788-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01788-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 3
423 A.2d 1306

#### Commonwealth v. DeFoy, Appellant.

Submitted April 12, 1979.

Jay S. Nedell, for appellant; Lynette D. Lang, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before PRICE, HESTER and LIPEZ, JJ.

Order affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"6 Technologies NASA is Advancing to Send Humans to Mars","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"LKU4Y734sN\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/6-technologies-nasa-is-advancing-to-send-humans-to-mars\/\">6 Technologies NASA is Advancing to Send Humans to Mars<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/6-technologies-nasa-is-advancing-to-send-humans-to-mars\/embed\/#?secret=LKU4Y734sN\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“6 Technologies NASA is Advancing to Send Humans to Mars” — NASA\" data-secret=\"LKU4Y734sN\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/6-laser_comm.gif?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeffrey W. JOHNSTON, Defendant-Appellant, v. Annuity Board of the Southern Baptist Convention; Marsh @ Worksolutions; Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, Parties in Interest.

No. 04-4479.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 18, 2005.

Decided: March 16, 2005.

James H. Babb, Howie & Babb, L.L.P., Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellant.

J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Christie Newman, Susan Z. Hitt, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*129PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey W. Johnston appeals from the district court’s garnishment disposition order granting the Government’s writs of continuing garnishment and denying Johnston’s motion to quash writs, and from the subsequent denial of his motion to reconsider, alter, and amend the garnishment disposition order. We find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Johnston,*No. CR-01-132 (D.S.C. May 3 & June 10, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GENE MARTIN.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jacob Andrew Walling, * From the 238th District Court

 of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CR45673.

Vs. No. 11-16-00083-CR * January 20, 2017

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
#### H. J. Craycroft *v.*T. B. Greenly.

Boundaries — Lines Coincide — Undisturbed Fence — Ancient Marks — Possession.

Tke line running S. 60% East to three beech trees is precisely coincident with the line designated in the conveyance from Floyd to Dubberley in the year 1820. This being a strong fact and corroborated by the long and undisturbed fence on the line, by the ancient marks upon it and by the actual possession for many years, held to establish a boundary.

Garnishment — Garnishee Entitled to Attorney Fee.

A defendant, proceeded against only as garnishee and who does not resist, is entitled to have his attorney’s fee adjudged against a plaintiff who made the attachment necessary.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION.

January 8, 1868.

*645Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The decree defining the true line between Craycroft and Greenly seems to be sustained by a preponderance of the facts exhibited in the record. The line, as thus established, running south 60% east to three beech trees is precisely coincident with the line designated in the conveyance by Floyd to Dubberly in the-year 1820. This alone is a strong fact and is sufficiently corroborated by other concurrent facts, and especially by the long and undisturbed fence on that line, by the ancient marks upon it and by the actual possession of it for many years. Consequently so much of the decree as establishes that line as the boundary between Greenly and Craycroft is affirmed.

On Greenly’s cross-appeal we perceive no essential error. On the face of his deed and the pleadings we cannot decide that the sale was by the acre or that 240 acres were guaranteed. Nor is the amount adjudged against him in favor of Hawes apparently excessive.

On the appeal by Hawes, we are of the opinion that the judgment for costs is substantially right. Rudd, as creditor of Hawes, had a right to attack any fund in Greenly’s hands as the debtor of Hawes, and was, therefore, entitled to his costs against Hawes, who made the attachment necessary.

And, as Greenly was proceeded against only as garnishee and did not resist otherwise than by. his pending controversy with Hawes and Craycroft bn his bill *quia timet*concerning his title, he was entitled to the adjudged fee to counsel as against Hawes.

It is difficult to make a precise calculation of the amount, due by Greenly to Hawes. The commissioner’s report on that subject was wrong in allowing credit for the same $200 twice and also in one calculation of interest. But, considering the deficit of about five acres and the fact that it is not absolutely certain that the vendor is not equitably bound for it. But the fact that, in any event, only a very small sum would be due to Hawes over the $403 allowed by the decree, we cannot judiciously say that he is, in .conscience, entitled to more. Wherefore, we *affirm*the judgment so far as he is concerned.

*646
      *Riley, for Craycroft.*

Sternian, *for Greenly.*

*Harrison &*Bennett, *for Hawes.*

Oraycroft must pay the cost of his appeal, and Greenly and Hawes respectively the costs of their appeals.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 503 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 503

To amend the General Education Provisions Act to allow State and county 
        prosecutors access to student records in certain cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the General Education Provisions Act to allow State and county 
        prosecutors access to student records in certain cases.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVACY OF PARENTS AND 
              STUDENTS.

    Section 444(b) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 
1221) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
        a State or county prosecutor to obtain a court order to receive 
        student information, before or after adjudication, if the 
        information sought pertains to a criminal investigation or 
        prosecution of such student.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANDREW LAWRENCE HALL.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


All Star Gas Inc. of Arizona
All Star Gas Inc. of Arkansas
All Star Gas Inc. of Colorado
All Star Gas Inc. of Missouri
All Star Gas Inc. of Wyoming
Red Top Gas Inc.
     Ellington Propane Inc.
Utility Collection Corporation
All Star Gas Field Services Corporation
All Star Development Corporation
All Star Development LLC
All Star Gas Transports Inc.
All Star Energy Services Inc.
Empire Underground Storage Inc.
All Star Gas Inc. of California
All Star Gas Inc. of Arma
All Star Gas Inc. of Louisiana
All Star Gas Inc. of Michigan
All Star Gas Inc. of North Carolina
All Star Gas Inc. of Texas
All Star Gas Inc. of Washington
All Star Gas Inc. of Indiana
All Star Gas Inc. of Nevada
All Star Gas Inc. of Jacksonville
All Star Gas Inc. of South Carolina
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Aerodynamic Clearance Flight of Gulfstream C-20A","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"HaKc8Fq82I\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/aerodynamic-clearance-flight-of-gulfstream-c-20a\/\">Aerodynamic Clearance Flight of Gulfstream C-20A<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/aerodynamic-clearance-flight-of-gulfstream-c-20a\/embed\/#?secret=HaKc8Fq82I\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Aerodynamic Clearance Flight of Gulfstream C-20A” — NASA\" data-secret=\"HaKc8Fq82I\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/ed07-0042-09.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CR 98-0643-2-PHX-EHC

)

Gabriel Gutierrez, ) DETENTION ORDER

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________)

On November 20, 2006, defendant Gabriel Gutierrez appeared before this Court on a

petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the information provided

to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether the defendant should be

released on conditions set by the Court.

The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to revoke

his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is not

likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant to Rule 46(d),

and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. §3143.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further proceedings.

DATED this 20th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:98-cr-00643-EHC Document 92 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"May 13, 1995","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0XZHUAI8x1\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/may-13-1995\/\">May 13, 1995<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/may-13-1995\/embed\/#?secret=0XZHUAI8x1\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“May 13, 1995” — NASA\" data-secret=\"0XZHUAI8x1\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/246022main_EC94-42478-15_full.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":693}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Robert S. Arrighi","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/robertsarrighi\/","title":"The NACA\u2019s XF-82 Twin Mustang Returns to Flight After 70 Years","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"h4NvQ56QF4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/the-nacas-xf-82-twin-mustang-returns-to-flight-after-70-years\/\">The NACA\u2019s XF-82 Twin Mustang Returns to Flight After 70 Years<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/the-nacas-xf-82-twin-mustang-returns-to-flight-after-70-years\/embed\/#?secret=h4NvQ56QF4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“The NACA\u2019s XF-82 Twin Mustang Returns to Flight After 70 Years” — NASA\" data-secret=\"h4NvQ56QF4\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/grc-1949-c-24897.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":285}
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Douglas Lee Tree, 

Defendant.

No. CR-01-0009-PHX-SMM

ORDER OF DETENTION 

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on 

Supervised Release were held on April 17, 2017 . 

The Court Finds that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

waived his right to a detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing and has 

consented to the issue of detention being made based upon the allegations in the Petition. 

 The Court Further Finds that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden of 

proof by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., 

that he is not a serious flight risk. United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the 

court. 

 Dated this 17th day of April, 2017. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge
#### S. M. Hudspath *v.*Thomas Hackett et al.

Judicial Sale of Non-resident’s Property — Judgment Reopened — Effect on Purchaser’s Title — Equitable Proceeding.

Although a non resident defendant, constructively served with process, may appear within five years and have the judgment opened and retried, and may then set up any legitimate defense; this new trial will have no effect on the title of the purchaser to the property sold under such judgment, but this should not bar proper proceedings making the purchaser a party in which any equitable cause for setting aside the sale may be made, still the purchaser would have a lien on the premises for -the purchase price.

APPEAL FROM SIMPSON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 3, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

Jason. Neely as a creditor of Samuel M. Hudspath attached a house and lot in Franklin and obtained a judgment of sale, at which Hackett became the purchaser, which sale was confirmed by the court, the purchase price paid and a deed made by the commissioner and approved by the court in pursuance thereof. About four years thereafter Hudspath on notice to Hackett moved to set aside the sale and conveyance.

Hackett, the purchaser, was not a party to the suit and, therefore, not affected by mere errors not rendering the judgment void, if such existed upon the face of the record, and certainly not for alleged errors not appearing in the record. By section 445, Civil Code, a defendant constructively served with process may appear within five years and have the judgment opened and retried and may then set up any legitimate defense, but by section 448 this new trial is not to affect the title of purchasers in good faith to any property sold under such judgments. This judgment may be irregular, but is not void, and therefore on mere motion, even upon notice, the sale should not be set aside, but this should not bar proper proceedings by amended petition making the purchaser a party in which any equitable cause for setting aside the sale may *494be made, and in which the court should secure to him the purchase price by a lien upon the premises, as was decided by this court in *Clark's Heirs vs. Farrow, 10 B. Mon., 450; Miller, etc., vs. Hall and wife, 1 Bush., 237.*

*Underwood, for appellant.*

*Bush, for appellee.*

Wherefore, the judgment dismissing ‘the motion is *affirmed,*but with leave to the appellant to present by amended petition making the purchaser a party to any equitable cause for setting aside the sale and preparing it for hearing with the suit now pending to open the judgment.