The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1872-08-10

nfiff'II efHafeN iH tNf Nlffia
isaf1H n ils main question here
Involved Tie pafthasar ti iha
.hsnns aie tsl notice "a Mis
Wr.ihfuk eltim b. & 70 judgment,
and even iha second dsol hum -hu
iOri aHi wife v#s exeeuieIl nni fe
urlfd pnH 81 th8t date
Counsel iir complainant iguofiug
lhc origins parshaae and decd ~
lho unme and wilh The money Of
W.. We.'bro1k. las great siress
upon the doctrine u hpsasisHs lto
which I have beiure adverted ~
boiug applicable here 10 tho later
and only recorded conveyance irnn
Shufprl and vile ~ Mrs. West.
brook. IA hereiuhcfore Indicated.
| cannot agfee with them. II ! lam
not greatly mistaken. the doctrine Of
hspcpdcas was first laid down by
I.ord Chancellor Nottingham, who,
believe, was the first Chancellor
whose decisions ate reported. aud
who has been Justly regarded as the
father Of equity II the doctrine
was not distinctly laid down by h.,
/ Iaordship. II WAS done under his al
ministraiiOn, aud sc know that IN
/ Sorell v. Carpenter, > Pecre vii.
| liams, 4sl. he briefly but clearly
and cmphatically settled it for all
time. since the rule there laid down
though its soundness was at the
time much questioned by the pro
lession-has never been departed
from and probably never will be.
According to that rule, il seems to
me that the doctrine would more
appropriately apply to complainant,
who purchased during the pcndancy
of al action brought by defendant
for the recovery of this identical
property, than to defen liant, who
procured deed to the lot during
the pendancy OF a suit against the
house. However, this is immaterial
in the Wow that have arrived at,
since am clearly Of the opinion
that, so tar as the house In con.
cerned, the judgment and sale were
valid and binding. am equally
we'll satisfed--as before Indicated
that the doctrine of hspendens has
no application TO affect Mrs. West.
brooks title to the lot.
The only question remaining te
be disposed offs, What compensation
shall Mrs. Westbrook receive from
complainant Tor the use aud occu
: pancy of the LOTT Ordinarily, she
would be left to her remedy on III,
injunction bond, but, as the whole
matter and oil records and proceed
ings, trom its iueipiency to the pres
cnt time, have been brought herr
for review and adjustment, and it i
the opinion Of this court that the 10
only--wtlont the house-ls ho
properly, tits proper that the amour
which SHE should receive tor the us,
and cvcup ny OF that should be fxe,
! here. Defendants answer is no
made cross bill nor are eithe
T l}oyles or Harris before the cour,
Mrs Westbrpok claims both in ren
: and IN pcysonam, but the latter sh
cannot do us To Boyles and Harris
for she has not brought them int
court, and il she obtain redress i
rem as to the house prior to Camp
, purchase, she affects the rights Q
Harris, who she has shown to b
under bond, or other obligation, :
Camp to hold the latter harmless
This, it seems to me, cannot b
dore unless Harris were made
} party to the suit and properly befor
i the court. Ii the rent constituted
| lien on the house It might prescr
! the question in . different aspect ID
the doctrine Of tispendens would ap
ply, and our high court held in Co
gan v. Frisly q Geo. 15S) tha
: careat enptor applies strictly to q
Q purchases at sherif's sale and til
} purchaser assumes all risks as
: title, &c. The purchaser at III
: sheriff's salc bad a right to reno,
Q the building within reasonab
: time, but the property has been II
3 yolved in litigation with dispute
$ and undetermined rights on bot
: sides until now. cannot agree wit
s the defendants counsel that the r,
r moral OF the building from OF
: point to another, on the same Ia
) was tantam9unt to the erection
e new Improvements upon 1t.
Q might have been different had Il
G house been removed to another i
3 and subsequently brought back, b,
r as this was not done, it is unnece
Q sary to pursue the subject further.
# Complainant appears to have pu
Q chased the property in good fai
Il and for a valuable consideration, b.
Q with full notice OF Mrs. Westbrook
n claim to the lot; he is entitled ther
4 fore to all that could pass under Il
y deed executed to him by Harris an
n to no more. This could only en-
g brace the house sold by the sheri
k and that he will be allowed re
g sonable time to remove, first payii
Il a fair ground rent to Mrs. Wes
]. brook from the date OF his purchas
o 1T must be borne in mind that ! {
Q not consider the question Of ant
o cedent ground rents, nor damag
i in excess Of ground rents, as beii
IS before me for adiudication.) It'll
b rent here adjudged to her u not pa
Is and the house removed by The tin
Q fixed, the latter must be sold and Il
t proceeds applied to the payment
+, tt k4..w,.. rrI o.a ba;,,<, - IL,