Harle v. Langdon's Heirs
Citations
- 60 Tex. 555
- 1883 Tex. LEXIS 377
Syllabus
<p>1. Judgment.— Where A. purchases land from B. prior to the rendition of a judgment foreclosing a vendor’s lien on the land for the benefit of O., A., not being made a party to such judgment, is not bound by it. No action can be taken to vacate the satisfaction of such judgment against A. alone.</p> <p>2. Consolidation.— In two suits, where the rights and privity of the plaintiff in one are the same as those of the defendant in another, the subject matter being the same, and no prejudice to the right of any person is shown, the consolidation of the two causes, though technically irregular, would not be sufficient ground for a reversal of the cause.</p> <p>3. Lis pendens.— The plea of lis pendens cannot be taken advantage of where the party pleading it is not affected by the judgment in the suit pending; as, where his right depended upon a lien which that judgment was to enforce, and not the judgment itself.</p> <p>4. Same.— Where the judgment enforcing such lien was known to the party pleading lis pendens, and he relied upon it, this is an admission on his part that he knew of the adverse claim asserted in that suit, and in such case the law affects him with notice that such judgment might be set aside on writ of error, and the right of the adverse party to prosecute such a writ within the prescribed legal time.</p> <p>5. Judicial sale — Voluntary purchases.— While the correct rule is, that a judicial sale, or sale under execution upon a decree or judgment authorizing such sale, though erroneous and not void, will be sustained where a stranger to the judgment is the purchaser, even where he knows that an appeal is pending or contemplated, yet such rule rests upon a policy which has not ' been made to apply to purchases voluntarily made from a party to the suit. Treadway v. Eastburn, 57 Tex., 211; Stroud v. Casey, 85 Tex., 754, and other-authorities cited and approved.</p> <p>6. Title — Writ of error.—A purchaser from one who has obtained a judgment in a suit of tr
Judges: Stayton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State ex rel. Andreu v. CanfieldSupreme Court of Florida· 1898-01-15· cited 40×
- Ransom v. City of PierreEighth Circuit· 1900-04-16· cited 30×
- Fidelity Union Casualty Co. v. HansonTexas Commission of Appeals· 1932-01-06· cited 18×
- McDonald v. AyresTexas Commission of Appeals· 1922-06-12· cited 16×
- Randall v. SnyderTexas Supreme Court· 1885-07-01· cited 12×
- Rector v. FitzgeraldEighth Circuit· 1894-01-29· cited 11×
- Edwards v. HalbertTexas Supreme Court· 1885-07-01· cited 10×
- Whelan v. KillingsworthCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1976-05-25· cited 7×
- Smith & Vail Co. v. BurnsMississippi Supreme Court· 1895-03-15· cited 5×
- Huckins v. LeitnerCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1889-11-06· cited 3×
- Bowen v. ClymerFifth Circuit· 1897-02-02· cited 1×
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Gray v. BrignardelloSupreme Court· 1864-04-18· cited 74×
- Luckett v. TownsendTexas Supreme Court· 1848-12-15· cited 65×
- Gibbs v. BelcherTexas Supreme Court· 1867-04-15· cited 19×
- Clarey v. Marshall's HeirsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1836-06-01· cited 16×
- Hickcock's Sons v. BellTexas Supreme Court· 1877-07-01· cited 13×
- Hart v. MillsTexas Supreme Court· 1873-07-01· cited 11×
- Brown v. LaneTexas Supreme Court· 1857-07-01· cited 10×
- Morton v. WelbornTexas Supreme Court· 1858-07-01· cited 10×
- Herndon v. RiceTexas Supreme Court· 1858-07-01· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.