The Aberdeen weekly. [volume] (Aberdeen, Miss.) 1878-1933, 1908-05-22
Supreme Court Decision.
Allen West Commission Company ".
j. f. Millstead.

Judgments -Misnomer of debtor.
Failure TO enroll Conveyance by
real debtor before correction and
/ enrolment. Bona tide purchaser
/ without notice.
! Mayes, J.
We do not deem il necessary to de
eide whether the deed from r. A Rut-
/ ledge aud his wife Eliza J. Rutledge,
dated July Is, 1863, conveying to M
Rutledge The east half OF the property
! in question, was or was not valid.
Equally unimportant, in our view of
the case, is the question Of whether
or not the deed of December y, 1888,
made by X. A. Rutlege to J. NJ. Rut-
ledge of the west halt of the property
was valid deed, and it may be con
ceded that at the death of r. A. Rut-
ledge, he owned in fee simple all the
property in question. When all this
is conceded, it then follows that in
1857 r. A. Rutledge died intestate,
leaving as his heirs Elizabeth j. Rut-
ledge his wife and ten children, one
of whom was r. d. RuUedge On
August n. 1895, r ID. Rutledge and
nine of the children quitclaimed all
their interest OF the ten heirs includ-
ing that of r. d. Rutledge. John W.
Rutledge went into possession of the
property and lived upon it with his
mother and sister, the other two
heirs, until January 20, 1904, when he
decided all his interest TO J. F. Mill
stead. The deed made to John w.
Rutledge, was not recorded until
March 3, 1902. On the same date
Matte L. Rutledge, the remaining
child whose interest ne had not ac-
quired up To that time, also made a
deed TO John W Rutledge of her in
terest in the land; Mrs. Eliza Rut-
ledge deceased and mother OF all the
other heirs, made a deed to j. f. /
Millstead of her interest in the land
on January IS, 1905. so that on Janu-
airy IS, 1903 j. f. Millstead had ac-
quired the interest Of all the heirs and
was the owner in fee simple of all the
property.
On October 10, 1892 i'm the federal
district court held at Aberdeen, the
Allen West Commission Company re-
covered a Judgment against r II. /
Rutledge for about S9,OOOO0. This /
judgment against R. Fl. Ruuedge /
was enrolled on the Judgment roll of /
the circuit court of Monroe county,
Miss, wherein is situated this land, /
ON October 10, 1892.
1t is contended that this Judgment /
against Z. II. Rutledge was "a mistake; |
that while r. H. Ruuedge was the I
name under which it was enrolled /
and in which it was rendered in /
truth and in fact the judgment was
against r. d. Rutledge; but the iudg /
ment itself does not SO state, nor does /
the enrolment of same disclose this /
fact in the office of the circuit clerk
of Monroe county The Judgment
against r. II. Rutledge and the en-
rollment Of same. was five years be
fore the deed of r. d. Rutledge and
others To John W Rutledge
1t is not shown that at the time
John W, Rutledge bought this prop
erty in 1897 from r D. Rutledge and /
the other heirs, he had notice OF any
claim or judgment held by the appel
lants against r. -. Rutledge He was
bound, of course, to have such notice
as was conveyed to him by the re-
cord, but the record only showed that +
there was judgment entered against
r. II. Rutledge and enrolled against
r. II. Rutledge; there was no iudg
ment at that time against h. ID. Rut- +
ledge. Therefore when John W. Rut- /
ledge purchased his land and obtain I
ed the interest of Z. ID. Rutledge, he /
was purchaser in good faith and for
value, and obtained perfectly valid I
title to all the interest owned by r. T
D. Rutledge at the time. The record T
did not convey to him knowledge /
that there was any lien under any I
judgment against K. d. Rutledge. It'll
it is true that the entry of the iudg- /
menu against r. II. Rutledge. this /.
mistake cannot be corrected except |
as between the parties, and before /
the rights of innocent third parties /
have become involved. eye Law, /
Vol. y, p. s54; Vol. II Ency. Law, f.
End Ed, p. 776; code 1892, section 756; +
Ridgway, Budd 4 Co.'s Appeal So /
Am. Dec, 5s6; Davis vs.. Sleeps, Al /
Am. St. Rep, 81
But it is claimed that this judgment I.
was revived on October 19, 1900 and /.
if by the first judgment a lein was
not acquired ON this property. by the +
second Judgment the appellants did /
acquire a lein. The answer to this is +
that at the time of the rendition of /
the second judgment it is shown, that /
John ". Rutledge was in actual pos /
session Of the property under the un- I
recorded deed made to him by r. d. /
Rutledge of MS interest. This being I
the case, it was constructive notice I
TO the Judgment debtor of his deed, I
and the judgment debtor under these I
circumstances only acquired lien /
upon the actual interest which r. D. +
RutIedge might have had, and at this +
time ne had parted with all his inter
est. As to this there is no difference F
as to a judgment rendered by federal I
court and judgment rendered by a
state court.
There are many other questions /
raised in argument of cOnsel, but /
since this disposes of the case we do /
not decide them. Il follows that the
action of the lower court in sustain
ing the bill to enjoin appellants from
IaNvine an execution on this nrnner-