Lord v. . Meroney

Bynum, J. It is claimed that this case differs from the case of Lord v. Beard, ante 5, in this, that other parties, strangers to the decrees made in the case, and not parties to the sales made under the orders of the Court in the original action, have become the bona fide purchasers and gran- *16 lees of the premises from the first purchaser, Dr. Hall, and ■that therefore the case is taken- out of the rule, 'that all relief must be sought in the original action', and th^t the ■Court has lost jurisdiction to interfere against these subsequent purchasers by summary proceedings in the‘.cause. But these purchasers, although strangers to the decree of sale, by their purchase submit themselves to the jurisdic-tion of the Court in respect to the purchase. All acquiring title under the master’s sale take subject to the jurisdiction. “They take with 'a knowledge of the power of the Court over titles thus- acquired, and take no better or more perfect title as against the intérference of the Court, than any of the preceding grantees had. Hall v. Clawson, 60 N. Y. 339. When the Court in the first suit acquired jurisdiction •oven the subject matter of the action, it was from that time? ■as it were, in custodia legis, until the final- disposition of the •case by the payment of the purchase money and execution of the deed to the purchaser, by the regular order of the Court. The Meroneys can be m no better condition than Hall, the first purchaser, for they bought as confessed in their answer with actual notice that the purchase money had not been paid by Hall, but that in lieu thereof, only a guardian note for the money had- been given. The land therefore remained bound for the purchase money, and this proceeding is in the nature of a proceeding in rem to sub-' .ject that specific property to its payment. The original suit in equity drew this land within its jurisdiction, and draws all parties interfering with it, where it and they must remain until- the debt is satisfied. The Court lays hand upon the 'corpus of the thing so as to enforce its decrees in whosoever’s possession it may be found; and all those who claim title, mediately or immediately, through the first judgment of the Court and before the final disposition of the cause, must claim subject to the rights of the *17 parties to the original suit, and to the orders of the Court,' made or to be made in that suit. The rights acquired by the defendants in the land are held subject to the lien of the plaintiffs for the purchase money. The right of the plaintiffs to the relief they claim is so clear that it is a matter of regret that they have resorted to the wrong jurisdiction for redress. The settled -principles upon which the Courts act in the enforcement of ■even the most obvious rights must be maintained. It is better for parties who mistake their remedy to submit to temporary delay in reaching their- rights, than that the ■Courts should confound wholesome distinctions established ■by a uniform course of decisions and inculcated by the pith and spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure. Lord v. Beard, ante 5. Error. .Pee, Cueiam. Judgment reversed and action dismissed.