The Arkansas banner., 1847-01-27

tlanl in the exeeMsson, CT his lessee, and mol ,rhesl,et he is, oF is not, the lesesc of some osiser persou The purrlsases. Tn his pcsi- tioa. should specllyx with xeilicieni. certain tv. the land and psemises. or Improvement. claimed ta have been purchased by him, tba, tie same Was solf by tie shcritI, nr other of- Eces ausl.osIzed by law to stll the same. un- der execution, and thai he purchased said real essale. or Improvements al sald sale, and had paid ,llc pafciiase ,ndneys and received tho sherIiFss. CT oslser nlliees's, deed therefor; that the defendant in the execution, or his lessee, as inc case may he. Is u the passes- sion llseFeo, a,tsi ilssst llae petitioner had se issa;isled possession of the ps=ssssses, or given notice to quit, and that the party in possess sion had absolutely refnsed to deliver pes- session ,o said purchaser or qail said possess sion. These averfHeass are substantial and material, aad should be proven to the satis- faction of the court 10 authorize he order 10 put the petitioner m possession. notice, gives Sy Sssler of the court, af- ter presenIa.iea af the Bcslliou requiring the party tn possession tn appear and show cause uhy the cour! should make the order, &c.. docs nor supply the want of a demund of possession and notice to qnIt. before fsiag lhe petition.
 The person in possession. having filed one good plea, denying lhal he was lessee Of the delcnian, III the exccutioa, and being held to the strict rules of blending, niustbe consider ed as coalessing Inc facts ser forth in the pe- tition and not denied by tue plea. uaaer this issue, any evidence going to show thu, he was. or was not, lessee to the defendant in the execution, vas admissiisie.
 4 mortgage. from the defendant, to W. & s, executed, acknowledged, and recorded, bearing date apiegior 10 lessee 10 the tea- ant in possession, with proof that the mort gage was fesfei;ed. and possession delivered ] to W & s, rho catered and leased. by pa rol. 10 tho tenant ln possession, was admissi- ble to show alat he was nol tenant to the deienaa..t in the exeeuiion
 { T'ha validity ot a mofigag is not effected l by prior judgment lieas upon the mortgaged pc rnper,y. The lnortgsgee takes subject To such pre-exissIng encunhraases.
 II ". & ;. were enl:alea so possession oG ! the premises. and leased to F. he cannot be busted in the proceeding authorized by the ssa:u;e. a, the instance of purchaser under execution issued upon judgment against the mortgagor older than the mortgage, not being the defendant in inc execution nor his lessee.
 ! After breach Of the condition of a mort gage. by non- payment, the title of the mort gage beceines d legal title, sufficient to oust i the mortsagor, or his lessee, holding under a lease of later date than ihe mortgage. by action of ejeeimsnt.
 Surrender Of possession by the msr.gagor, and such lessee, after breach. To the mort gage IS equivalent to actual custer or eau tian, and determines the lessees tenancy by paramount title. The utle acquired by a lease, is subject to he determined by prior encumSranees, aad an entry under an exist ing mortgage determines tine relation of land lord and tenanl created by the lease. and al- ter notice the lessee becomes liable to the rents and profits accruing subsequently, to such entry.
 It, alter such entry for breach of the con- dition of such mortgage, the land should be sold under execution issued upon judgment older than the mortgage, neither the mort gagee, nor his lessee, could be busted of the possession by the summary remedy given by the statuie
 ! Fowler, for appellant.
 Watkins & Curran. for appellee.