Hutchins v. Chapman

Citations

• 37 Tex. 612

Syllabus

<p>1. A sheriff's sale of land in A. county was made in 1868, under a decree foreclosing a vendor’s lien, rendered in 1866 by the District Court of that county, in a suit against a defendant who was shown by the petition to be a resident of a different county in this State. The suit was instituted in 1860, when the statute required such a suit to be brought in the county of the defendant’s residence. Appellee purchased the land at the sheriff’s sale under the decree, but his title is impeached by the appellant on the ground that the decree was void for want of jurisdiction in the court which rendered it; and appellant further maintains that by the pendency of such suit he was not charged with constructive notice of the vendor’s lien. But held, that the decree was not void, although the jurisdiction of the court which rendered it might have been ousted if the defendant in the suit had pleaded to the jurisdiction at the proper time. And held further, that the pendency of the suit in A. county did charge the appellant with constructive notice of the vendor’s lien.</p> <p>3. The rulings in Scogin v. Perry, 33 Texas, 31, and Phillips v. Lesser, Id., 33, respecting the dormancy of judgments, referred to and approved.</p> <p>3. To constitute an innocent purchaser for value, such as will be protected against prior liens, the consideration must have been paid at the time of the execution of the deed, or before notice of any prior rights or equities.</p>