One who purchases property pendente lite is bound by the decree in the pending suit, and that decree is not subject to collateral attack at the instigation of the purchaser.93

Where the defendant, pending an action to recover land, acquires deeds from a former owner, he is put on inquiry as to plaintiff's title, and plaintiff's prior unrecorded deeds from defendant's grantors would evidence plaintiff's superior title and defendant would not be an innocent purchaser.94

The law does not prevent a landowner in possession from conveying the land during the pendency of his suit to remove a cloud from the title, nor prohibit any one from purchasing such land under such circumstances.95

A mechanic's lien fixed by judgment is superior to the interest of one purchasing the property during pendency of the suit."

An action by one creditor to subject property to the payment of a judgment, in which it is decreed that the judgment is a lien on the property, binds one who purchases during the pendency of the action, so far as the rights of plaintiff are concerned, but the lis pendens does not extend to other claims not mentioned in the pleadings or judgment, nor operate to the benefit of other creditors who are not parties to the action.97

The title of a pendente lite purchaser is not necessarily void, but is valid as between the parties to the transfer, and depends for its validity as to the pendente lite purchaser entirely on the result of the pending litigation.98

One who withholds his title to real estate from record until proceedings by the county to foreclose a lien for taxes result in a de

prior lien, and takes subject to the decree establishing such priority. Smith v. Kimball, 13 P. 801, 36 Kan. 474.

One who accepts a deed to land, after commencement of an action for specific performance of a contract to convey to a third party, is a purchaser pendente lite, and takes title subject to such action. Kitchener v. Jehlik, 118 P. 1058, 85 Kan. 684.

93 Dever v. Eureka Bank, 164 P. 166, 100 Kan, 365,

94 Blackwell v. Harts (Okl.) 167 P. 325.

95 Gilbreath v. Smith, 50 Okl. 42, 150 P. 719.

96 South Texas Lumber Co. v. Epps, 48 Okl. 372, 150 P. 164.

97 St. John v. Strauss, 55 P. 845, 60 Kan. 136.

98 Guaranty State Bank of Okmulgee v. Pratt (Okl.) 180 P. 376.

99

cree and sale of the land, is a purchaser pendente lite, with notice of all the rights which the county claims in the foreclosure proceedings. Likewise, a party who withholds a conveyance of real estate from record until after an action to quiet title against his grantor has been commenced by one who is ignorant of the existence of the deed is a purchaser pendente lite, and is bound by the judgment rendered in the action.1

Where a grantee of real estate, subject to a prior mortgage, was never in possession of the land, and with knowledge of the foreclosure proceedings against his grantors upon the assumption of their continued ownership of the land, did not record his deed, or otherwise give notice of his title until after judgment and order of sale in the foreclosure case, such grantee would, in an action against him to quiet title, be regarded as a purchaser pendente lite, and would not be permitted to avail himself of the fact that he had not been made a party to assert that his right of redemption had not been foreclosed and barred.2

In an action for the recovery of money, in which an attachment is issued, and levied upon an equitable interest of the debtor in real estate, the legal title to which is in a person who is not a party to the action, there is no lis pendens against a subsequent purchaser for value and without knowledge, from the holder of the legal title." § 1923. Persons bound by decree

A purchaser of realty from a party to a pending action involving the title thereto is bound by the judgment rendered therein against his grantor, and acquires no greater rights than his grantor has.*

99 Board of Com'rs of Atchison County v. Lips, 76 P. 851, 69 Kan. 252.

1 Caldwell v. Bigger, 90 P. 1095, 76 Kan. 49.

2 Smith v. Worster, 54 P. 676, 59 Kan. 640, 68 Am. St. Rep. 385.

3 Travis v. Topeka Supply Co., 22 P. 991, 42 Kan. 625.

4 Baker v. Leavitt, 54 Okl. 70, 153 P. 1099; Bell v. Diesem, 121 P. 335, 86 Kan. 364.

A purchaser of land at an execution sale, who buys pending a suit to determine whether another judgment is not a prior lien to that under which the sale was made, is bound by the decree in such suit. Smith v. Kimball, 13 P. 801, 36 Kan. 474.

Where an action to quiet title on a tax deed is brought against one who, if alive, owns the patent title, and against his unknown heirs, if he is dead, the grantee in a deed executed after the action by those who are heirs if such death has taken place is in the same position as an original defendant, and

A mortgage executed after an action had established lis pendens against land in favor of the plaintiff does not attach, and the plaintiff, as purchaser under his judgment, takes title clear of the mortgage.5

While a pendente lite purchaser must take notice of the facts contained in the record, he is affected only to the extent to which the judgment goes in the suit."

The rule of lis pendens has no application to independent titles not derived from any of the parties to the action, nor from any one in privity with them."

as such entitled to question the validity of the tax deed. Parker v. Vaughn, 116 P. 882, 85 Kan. 324.

Where one took a tax title to land and subsequently paid taxes thereon as agent for the insane owner, and the owner's heirs sued the agent's heirs for possession, one who purchased from the agent's heirs, pending suit, with full knowledge of its pendency and purpose, and under an agreement to defend it, has no special standing in equity to complain that plaintiffs were dilatory in starting proceedings or that the cause was determined on its merits. Hudson v. Herman, 107 P. 35, 81 Kan. 627.

Property held by defendant in replevin under a redelivery bond is in custodia legis, and persons claiming title thereto by purchase from him pending suit are bound by a final judgment against him. Sherburne v. Strawn, 34 P. 405, 52 Kan. 39.

The judgment of the district court, affirmed on appeal, establishing an award against a condemning railway company, is conclusive upon its successor which acquired its rights pending the litigation as to the right of the parties recovering the judgment to do so. Schmuck v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 123 P. 887, 87 Kan. 152.

Where a railroad company instituted proceedings to condemn a right of way, and the commissioners appointed to assess damages made an award for the land proposed to be taken from which the owner appealed, and the railroad company thereupon took possession of the land and constructed its railroad, and while the appeal was pending sold its property, rights, and franchises to another railroad company, which entered upon the land condemned and used the same, and thereafter judgment was rendered upon the appeal increasing the award, the judgment so rendered was binding upon the purchasing company, though not a party to the appeal. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Murphy, 90 P. 290, 75 Kan. 707.

5 Employés Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Crafton, 63 Okl. 215, 164 P. 473.

6 Guaranty State Bank of Okmulgee v. Pratt (Okl.) 180 P. 376. Harrod v. Burke, 92 P. 1128, 76 Kan. 909, 123 Am. St. Rep. 179.

[END OF VOLUME 2]

(1799)