Court Opinion

ID: 9831625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:15:16.711081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.575332
License: Public Domain

On Further Motion for Rehearing.
[5] Appellant, in his motion, asserts that this court overlooked the fact that appellee did not plead that appellant purchased the land with notice of the existence of the lien sought to be foreclosed. We do not think it was necessary for appellee to state by pleading notice, or that appellant was not a purchaser in good faith. Appellant himself put that in issue. He alleged “that he paid therefor the sum of $9,000, without any notice, either actual or constructive, of any claims of plaintiff to or concerning this land, and without any knowledge or information whatsoever of the claim asserted here by plaintiff.” That issue was therefore presented by appellant himself. The release does not purport to release the land from the vendor’s lien for $1,200 sued on. The deed under which appellant claims reserved a lien for the purchase money evidenced by the $1,200 note. The release introduced by appellant referred to a deed conveying two sections, 82 and 100. The deeds in appellant’s chain of title convey only one section. Appellant himself offered in evidence the deed to sections 84 and 100, showing note for $2,400, and the release in question only released the land from the lien retained to secure that note. If appellant examined the title to his own section of land, he was bound to know,' or at least have been placed in possession of facts which would have led to the knowledge, that the release did not refer to the deed in which the vendor’s lien was retained.
The motion will be therefore overruled.