Court Opinion

ID: 9829362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:15:26.942432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:00.420623
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
If it should be conceded that Newbury and those claiming under him had a right to deal with the land, on the theory that the Eddins notes, while owned by Arnold, had been paid in full, as recited in the release to Hutcherson, it would still appear that appel-lees were not in a position to object to the granting to appellant of the relief he sought; for it appeared that Newbury did not acquire an interest in the land by his purchase from Hutcherson and Roark, because neither of those parties, in fact, owned, nor appeared on the face of the record to own, an interest in same at the time they conveyed it to him. Before Newbury could claim to be in the attitude of an innocent purchaser of the land, it must have appeared that he purchased it from some one he had a right to believe did own it. He not only did not have a right to believe Hutcherson and Roark owned it, but he knew from the face of the record that Eddins owned it. Never having acquired an interest in the land, it was no •concern of his that appellant sought to foreclose a lien against it. In the view appellees take of the case, we think they lose sight •of the fact that Newbury never acquired, nor in any way connected himself with, the title in Eddins. The case would be different if it appeared that Newbury, relying, and having a right to rely, on the release by Arnold of the vendor’s lien, had acquired the Eddins title. He might then be in a position to defeat a foreclosure of the vendor’s lien asserted by appellant as the true owner of the Eddins notes.
The motion is overruled.