122 Neb. 20 | Neb. | 1931
This is an appeal from the action of the district court for Lancaster county overruling a motion to confirm an execution sale had upon a judgment at law and sustaining objections to the confirmation of such sale.
The facts disclose that upon the 7th day of August, 1929, Frank Barry, appellant, recovered a judgment in the sum of $305.40 against Kenneth D. Horton, appellee, in the municipal court of Lincoln, Lancaster county, and on the 8th day of August, 1929, a transcript of said judgment was filed in the office of the clerk of the district court for said county and recorded in the execution docket; that at the time of the filing and recording of said judgment appellee Kenneth D. Horton was the owner in fee simple of lot 3, block 13, Martin Heights Addition to Lincoln, in said county, against which there was of record a mortgage in favor of the American Savings & Loan Association in the sum of $3,700, which was duly filed and recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Lancaster county on the 25th day of April, 1929. There were also two mechanics’ liens of record, one in favor of the Holland Lumber Company in the sum of $1,345.93 and one in favor of the Reimers-Kaufman Company in the sum of $150.04, both of which were first liens against the real .estate above described.
On August 10, 1929, the Holland Lumber Company filed its petition in the district court for Lancaster county against Kenneth D. Horton et al. to foreclose its mechanic’s lien. In June, 1929, the United States Supply Company filed its mechanic’s lien with the register of deeds of said county and on the 9th day of September, 1929, filed its petition in the district court for Lancaster county against the said Kenneth D. Horton to foreclose said lien. By order of said court the said two actions were consolidated and known as Holland Lumber Company v. Kenneth D. Horton. The American Savings & Loan Association was made a defendant in said actions and filed its answer and cross-petition in said action as consolidated for the purpose of foreclosing its mortgage bond of $3,700. A decree was
' On October 8, 1930, Frank Barry, the judgment creditor, caused an execution to be issued out of the district court for Lancaster county, directing the sheriff to levy upon the real estate above described. Accordingly, the sheriff levied upon said real estate, which was advertised for sale as provided by law and sold on November 11, 1930; the said Frank Barry bidding- $171 for the same.
On November 12, 1930, a motion to confirm said sale was- filed in behalf of the said Frank Barry in said court. The American Savings & Loan Association filed objections to the confirmation' of sale, setting up that the property heretofore described was theretofore sold at a judicial sale under an order of court in the case entitled “Holland Lumber Company v. Kenneth Horton,” the sale being on liens
The court below overruled .the motion to confirm the sale and the judgment creditor, Frank Barry, appeals.
From this statement and history of facts the question raised by appellant is whether or not he lost his right to enforce his judgment lien by execution, and levy because of the foreclosure proceedings and the acquisition of title to the property by the American Savings & Loan Association after the attachment of the judgment lien.
On August 8, 1929, when the transcript of the judgment
On October 8, 1930, when the execution on appellant’s judgment was ordered out, we find that the Holland Lumber Company and the Reimers-Kaufman Company had foreclosed their liens, their actions for such foreclosures having-been consolidated in one action, and that said lienors had purchased the property in question for the amounts of their liens. Subsequently said lienors conveyed their interests in the property to the American Savings & Loan Association, the association paying therefor the amounts of said liens. Therefore, the association had the record title, with the fact that Frank Barry, the judgment creditor, was not made a party to the foreclosures of the mechanics’ liens.
“The right of a judgment creditor to take out an execution on his judgment is a substantial right; and this right can only be taken away or suspended by some act, suit or proceeding for this purpose in compliance with law.” Halmes v. Dovey, 64 Neb. 122.
Had said judgment creditor been made a party to the foreclosures of the mechanics’ liens, his judgment lien would have been subsequent to said liens and the mortgage of the American Savings & Loan Association. The fact that he was not made a party to such foreclosures does not in any sense expunge or do .away with the prior liens against the property in so far as the judgment creditor is concerned. The judgment creditor had the right to issue out an execution on his judgment and sell any interest the judgment debtor may have had in the property subject to all prior liens. The real estate was not sold on execution sale in behalf of the judgment creditor subject to all the prior liens thereon.
In case of Hibbard v. Weil & Kahn, 5 Neb. 41, this court said: “A sale upon execution vests in the purchaser all the rights of the judgment debtor to the property, but that right is subject to all liens prior to the lien of the judgment on which the execution sale is made.” This has been the law of this state for many years.
We are committed to the rule, as heretofore set out, that a judgment creditor has the right to take out an execution on his judgment and under it to sell the property and take whatever interest the judgment debtor may have therein by virtue of said sale under execution, provided the property was sold under execution subject to all prior liens thereon. In this case under the- execution sale the property was not sold subject to the prior liens thereon and the trial court was correct in refusing to confirm the sale thereunder. The judgment of the trial court is therefore
Affirmed.