Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-08-08
SUPREME COURT.
FULL TENT OF DECISION FILED

SUPREME CUURI.
FULL TENT OF DECISION FILED.
41el Jorgeason and Luther ". Bromn, Appel |
laats, rs. The minneapolis G st. Loais Railroad
CoDapany Respondents.
OPINION.
In 1858 Levi II. Griffin was the owner of GER
tain lands in the county of Scott and conveyed
them in that year to Nancy n. Griffin, who con-
veyed them to Eliza j. Griffin, the wife of
Levi 81. In 1859 Axel Jorgenson recovered
Judgment in the district court, in the county
of Carver, against Levi H., and iu 1864 the
judgment was docketed in the county of Scott,
and under it execution was issued and
levied upon the real estate as the property of
the Judgment debtors, and it was sold under
such levy in July 1864, and bid in by Jorgen-
son. and the usual certificate was made to him
and recorded After the recording
of the certificate, and in August, 1864, Eliza
J. and Levi H. Griffin commenced
an action against Jorgenson in the county of
Scott, for the purpose of having the said dock
citing IF said Judgment, the executive sale, the
certificate of sale and the record thereof vaca-
| ted, set aside and adjudged null and void, and
they filed and caused to be recorded in the Office
of the register of deeds of said county, notice
of the tendency of said action describing the
real estate and stating the object of the action.
| Jorgenson answered in the action demanding
| that the conveyances from Levi Ell. to Nancy
H., and from her to Eliza j. be adjudged fraud
| ulent and void and OF no force or effect as
against him. and in 1873 judgment to that
effect was rendered in said action Pending
| the action in 1871, Eliza j. conveyed a portion
of the rea-estate to this defendant. In 1876
L low un1Jyr ad hal
of all the real estate to plaintiff
Brown. This action is eiectment, and the only
question is, did the defendant at the time of
purchasing, have notice of the pending of the
action by Eliza j. and Levi IL. Griffin, against
Jorgenson. so as to be bound by the judgment.
1t is true that under the statute as it stood at
the time of the levy of this execution, an exc
cution was required to be levied upon property
in the same manner as the levy of an attach
ment was required to be made. Section IS,
CHI. 81, Comp. STATS, and that the
officer levying an attachment
was required to make and file for record a GER
tilted copy of the warrant and his return there
on in sec. 141 CHI Co. and also that it was de
| cded in Asper VS.. Baze. Mimi. 10S. that an
attachment might be levied real estate
which had been previously conveyed by the
debtor in fraud of his creditors, and that by
reason of the record made of the levy Of the
attachment all persons subsequently purchas.
| ing the real estate were charged with notice OF
and bound by the claim of the attaching cred
itor that such conveyance was fraudulent
, There is, however, no ground for the applica
, ton of the decision to this case. For it is no
foued as a fact that the conveyance by Lev
II. to Nancy, and by Nancy to Eliza j., wer
J fraudulent. 1t is found only that in TIL
= suit of Eliza J. and Levi FL. agains
, Jorgenson the conveyances were adjud@et
: fraudulent and void. This does not as be
tween the parties to this suit, show the fact o
them. At common law all foreclosures from
either party pendente lite We're bound by the re
f suit of the action. The statute. by providin!
| for notice of tispeatlelss, has to extern
: modified this rule. The act of 1860, CHI &c
and also that of 1861, CHI. 10, provided for tn
filing and recording of Il notice of the pendenc
: and object of an action affecting real estate b.
the plaintiff only: the latter statute declaret
+ that From the filing of such notice, a:4d fron
9 such time only shall the pendency OF the actio
q be notice to purchasers or encumbrances o
the rights and equities of the plaintiff to tl
: real property in said notice described
previous clause provided that when the plaiI
, tiff amends his complaint by altering the dt
S scription of the premises affecting thereby, {
!, SO as to extend his claim against the premises
: he must file new notice. The notice was
9 be in effect notice of what rights and equitie
> were claimed by the plaintiff in the actor
!, The purpose of authorizing it was to enable I'll
= plaintiff to prevent his action being defeate
9 by transfers pending the action made by the d.
S PENDANT and at the same time to protec
s purchasers from the defendant b
3 requiring that notice of the right
O and equities claimed by plaintiff
a the action, and if the tendency of action t
:, determine them should be recorded in tt
= Office of the register of deeds where purchaser
y usually look for matters affecting title I
8 real estate.
1t AS it is not to be supposed that the legisl;
tf,n
g the defendant against transfers by the plainti
% pendc1tte lite should be dependent on the actio
q of the plaintiff, and as provision was mac
- for the defendant to protect himself by
. notice, the conclusion is that for his protectc
y the tendency of the action alone W;
re notice to the purchasers from the plalnti
g and that such notice was not to be affected /
k the notice filed by plaintiff in 1863, howeve
J., general laws, chapter rs; the statute WI
Il amended so as to authorize any party to {
20 action affecting real estate to file notice
= = its tendency and object, and as to provic
= that From the time Of filing such notice al
"a from such time only, the tendency of the a
l. ton shall be notice to purchasers and incur
le brances of the rights and equities of the par
as filing such notice to the real property
If such notice described. This statute W
E. clearly intended to abrogate entire
!, and as to all the parties t.
II, common law rule that purchasers pe,edei
u lite are charged with notice by the mere pen
at ing of the action and bound by its result, al
n to leave it to each party to protect himst
a against the effect of transfers by the opposi
fe part,-by filing notice The amendment e
\ pressly applies to actions heretofore W
:. as those thereafter commenced, and lnclu
: the action of the Gritfins VS.. Jorgenson.
OIL The conveyance by those plaintiffs to tt
"a defendant was made after the tendency of til
a action ceased under the act of 1869 to be not
I'd to purchasers from those plaintiffs
e. the rights and equities of that defendant
Nv The purchaser was not bound by the res,
- of that action and as to it the fraudulent CHI
- =. acter of the conveyances of Levi III. to Nan
~ and by Nancy to Eliza j. no way appea
le J,Ic.,,,a,,+ f;rI,,ad I