FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF KING CITY v. LOUIS N. BOWMAN ET AL., Aрpellants.
Division One
March 29, 1929.
15 S. W. (2d) 842
On the whole we conclude that the demurrer was well ruled. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. All concur.
Fielding P. Stapleton and J. W. McKnight for appellants.
The substantive facts are not controverted and may be briefly stated. The common source of title of the land in controversy was Maggie A. Bowman, the deceased mother of the principal defendant herein, Louis N. Bowman. Maggie A. Bowman died intestate in the month of September, 1917, owning and seized of the described land. She was survived by her husband, William L. Bowman, and by one child and descendant, the principal defendant herein, Louis N. Bowman, who was a minor of eighteen years at his mother‘s death. It is admitted by the parties herein that the estate of Maggie A. Bowman was duly administered by her surviving husband, William L. Bowman, as the administrator of her estate, in the Probate Court of Gentry County, in which county decedent resided at the time оf her death.
On February 11, 1919, and during the minority of the principal defendant, Louis N. Bowman, the surviving widower of the decedent, William L. Bowman, executed and delivered to the First National Bank of King City (which, at that time, was the corporate name of the plaintiff bank) a deed of trust, purporting to convey to Robert Stanton, trustee for said bank, an undivided one-half interest in the land in controversy to secure the payment of William L. Bowman‘s promissory note of even date therewith for $1900, payable to the order of said First National Bank of King City on June 18, 1920, with interest on the principal sum from date at seven per cent per annum, payable annually. The deed of trust aforesaid contained the usual provisions, and empowered the trustee named therein to sell the described land, in the event of default in the payment of the principal and interest of said note when due and payable, at public vendue, for cash, to the highest bidder at the court house door in the city of Albany, Gentry County, Missouri, upon the giving of thirty days notice of the time, terms and place of sale, and of the property to be sold, by advertisement in some newspaper printed and published in Gentry County. Pursuant to the powers conferred by said deed of trust, the trustee named therein proceeded to sell the undivided one-half interest in and to the described lands, purported to have been conveyed by said deed of trust, on April 8, 1922, after the maturity of said note and default in the payment thereof, and the plaintiff bank being the highest and best bidder therefor at and
On July 6, 1920, the defendants herein, Louis N. Bowman (said Louis N. Bowman being then more than twenty-one years of age) and Elizabeth Bowman, his wife, executed and delivered a deed of trust, conveying to George Ward, trustee for Hiram Danbury, an undivided one-half interest in and to the land in controversy to secure the payment of their promissory note of even date for $2500, payable to the order of Hiram Danbury (who is the father-in-law of defendant, Louis N. Bowman) on or before one year after date, with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum from the date of said note.
On April 4, 1921, William L. Bowman and his wife, Lydia C. Bowman (said William L. Bowman having remarried), conveyed, by warranty deed, an undivided one-half interest in and to the lands in controversy to George Ward and William Millan, the said deed reciting that it is made subject to the deed of trust and the promissory note secured thereby, dated February 11, 1919, held by the said First National Bank of King City, which deed of trust, and the note secured thereby, the grantees, George Ward and William Millan, assume and agree to pay and discharge.
On August 9, 1923, the First National Bank & Trust Company of King City (plaintiff herein) commenced a suit or action for partition of the land in controversy, making Louis N. Bowman, Hiram Danbury and George Ward parties defendant therein. All of the said defendants in the partition action were duly served with summons therein. The petition in said partition action is cast in two counts. The first count of said petition is conventional in form, alleging that the plaintiff bank and the defendant Louis N. Bowman are tenants in common of the described land (being the same land now in controversy), and that the share or interest of the plaintiff bank therein is an undivided one-half thereof, and that the share or interest of the defendant Louis N. Bowman therein is an undivided one-half thereof, subject to the deed of trust, dated July 6, 1920,
“Comes now the defendant, Louis N. Bowman, and for separate answer to plaintiff‘s petition, denies each and every allegation of fact and matter alleged and contained in said petition and in each and every count thereof.
“Further answering, this defendant admits that he is the owner of the undivided one-half interest of Lots 15 and 16, in Block Eleven, of Kate Carter‘s First Addition to King City, and that said interest is subject to the rights of Hiram Danbury, beneficiary in the deed of trust mentioned in plaintiff‘s petition.
“Further answering, this defendant denies that this defendant is indebted to the plaintiff for one-half of the reasonable rental value of said property for three years before the 8th day of August, 1923.
“Wherefore, this defendant, having fully answered, prays to be discharged and for his costs in this behalf expended.”
The said answer is signed by Louis N Bowman, pro se, and is verified by him under oath according “to the best of his knowledge and belief.”
It appears from the testimony of the defendant Louis N. Bowman in the instant suit, that said Louis N. Bowman, after having been served with process, together with a copy of the petition, in the partition suit, consulted a lawyer of his own selection, and that such lawyer prepared the answer so signed and filed by Louis N. Bowman (and above quoted) in the partition suit.
The partition suit came on for trial and hearing in the Circuit Court of Gentry County on September 14, 1923, and an interlocutory judgment therein was made and entered by said court, reciting that the defendants therein, Louis N. Bowman and Hiram Danbury, appeared in person and by attorney; that the cause was submitted to the court upon the pleadings and the evidence adduced, and that the
It further appears from the record herein that William L. Bowman, by quitclaim deed dated February 12, 1925, conveyed to the plaintiff bank whatever right, title, interest or estate he then had in the land in controversy, and that, on September 14, 1925, and after the commencement of the present action, William Millan by quitclaim deed, conveyed to the defendant Louis N. Bowman whatever right, title or interest he then had in said land.
“Q. Mr. Ward, you have been connected with the First National Bank & Trust Company for a good many years, haven‘t you? A. Yes, sir. Q. You knew Mrs. Bowman, that is Maggie A. Bowman, the mother of this defendant, and the person from whom this title devolved, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. During her lifetime, she had transacted her business there at the First National Bank, had she not? A. Yes, sir, most of it, and I presume, all of it. Q. Mr. William L. Bowman transacted his business there with you A. Why, I think the major portion of it; I couldn‘t say he had done all of his business with us. Q. And you know the defendant Louis N. Bowman and have known him most of his life? A. Yes, sir. Q. Down to the time of this partition suit, with whom had he transacted his business? A. Largely with the First National Bank. Q. And when you say that the defendant, and Mr. William L. Bowman, and Mrs. Maggie A. Bowman had transacted their business largely with the First National Bank, that means that they had transacted their business largely with you? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were in the аctive charge and control of that bank? A. Yes, sir. . . . Q. You had handled a great many matters in the probate court? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you are generally familiar with the probate laws of this State? A. Reasonably so. Q. Now, at that time, you took for the bank a mortgage on the William L. Bowman interest; did you draw that mortgage? A. I think I did. Q. It was your custom there in the bank usually to draw the mortgages for the bank? A. Yes, sir. . . . Q. State to the court how you made that mortgage on an undivided half interest in that piece of property? A. For the reason that Mr. Bowman. had always said to me that he had filed his declaration taking a child‘s part in the estate, which would give him a half interest in the property. Q. Now, you have just stated that you know generally about the probate laws of this State, didn‘t you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Isn‘t it a fact, Mr. Ward, that you knew at that time that no one ever heard of a husband taking a child‘s part in his wife‘s real estate? Had you ever heard about that, heard of it being possible for a husband to take a child‘s part in his wife‘s real estate? A. I never heard that question raised. Q. You never heard that question raised, but don‘t you knоw yourself that the only right a husband had in his wife‘s real estate, without a will, was the right to
The defendant, Louis N. Bowman, testified on his own behalf, on direct examination: “Q. You gave a mortgage to George Ward, as trustee for Hiram Danbury, dated July 6, 1920, you remember you did give this mortgage? A. Oh, yes, I know I gave the mortgage. Q. When you went to give that mortgage, the mortgage states that you only had an undivided one-half interest in this property in suit. Do you know how that happened to be put in there? A. Only as I remember the mortgage was drawn there by Judge Sullinger or Mr. Ward—I don‘t know which it was—they are both the legal and financial advisers of the community, and we naturally went to eithеr one of them. Q. Was Judge Sullinger the financial adviser? A. No, I said he was the legal adviser; but what I was trying to get at, either it was Mr. Ward, or the Judge, who drew the paper and fixed it up. Q. Now, this mortgage showed an undivided one-half interest. Where did you ever get the idea you only had an undivided one-half interest in this property? A. Well, I don‘t know that I can answer that directly. That was all I was generally conceded to have in it, and in all my dealings at the bank, I don‘t think that it was that I ever asked anybody point blank how that was—I don‘t know—it was written in the mortgage that way, and I took it for granted that the probate court had left me that much of it. Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Ward what interest you had, or anything? A. I don‘t know that I ever did. . . . Q. From whom did you get the impression that you only had a half interest in this property? A. Well, I don‘t know that I can answer it. That is rather a hard question to answer, because that impression, I don‘t know where it dates from. Mr. Ward never told me in so many words that, but my business was done there, and I suppose my impression was gained there in business with the bank, but that is rather a hard thing to state, because I don‘t know where my impression began. Q. You nevеr consulted with anyone else about what interest you had other than Mr. Ward, did you? A. No, sir.” Cross-examination: “I am a high school graduate, and had some university work at the University of Missouri in the School of Journalism, two years’ work in the School of Journalism. . . . Q. And, of course, you remember the sheriff served a summons on you in the partition suit of this property? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Mr. Danbury is what relation of yours? A. Father-in-law. Q. You and Mr. Danbury came up to Albany to consult some lawyer about what kind of answers were to be filed in it? A. Yes, sir. . . . Q. He was a practicing lawyer here in Albany at that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. And had been, down at King City, where you ran your newspaper? A. Yes, sir. Q. Acquainted with you and your father, was he not? A. Yes, sir. Q.
The trial court thereupon entered a judgment, wherein it “is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the right, title, estate and interest of the parties to this action in and to said lands be and the same is hereby adjudged to be, as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of said lands in fee simple, except an undivided one-fourth interest in said lands of the life estate of William L. Bowman, which said interest is subject to the lien of $1900 as aforesaid, that is, the sum of $1825, with interest at rate of six per cent per annum since April 8, 1922, which said interest belongs to defendant Louis N. Bowman, and that the other defendants have no right, title, estate or interest in and to said lands, and the costs are taxed against defendants Louis N. Bowman аnd Bessie Bowman.” After unsuccessful motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, the defendants were allowed an appeal to this court from the judgment so entered.
Error is assigned by the appellants upon the several grounds that the trial court erred in finding and holding that the Circuit Court of Gentry County had jurisdiction of the partition suit hereinabove mentioned, and in finding and holding that the parties thereto had the right to partition of the land in controversy, for the reason that the plaintiff bank and the defendant Louis N. Bowman, the respective parties plaintiff and defendant in said partition suit, were not joint tenants, tenants in common, or coparceners, of the land in controversy, and therefore statutory partition, is not maintainable as between said parties; that the trial court erred in finding and holding that the judgment in said partition suit is res adjudicata as respects all matters therein adjudged, and therefore is conclusive as between the parties to the partition suit, and in finding and holding that the defendant Louis N. Bowman is estopped to question or controvert the
I. At the time of, and upon, the death of Maggie A. Bowman, the common source of title, which occurred in September, 1917, her surviving husband, William L. Bowman, under the then existing law of this State, became vested of curtesy consummate, which is a freehold estate for life, in the land in controversy, for, at that time, tenancy by the curtesy had not been abolished by statute in this State, but still remained, as introduced in this State as a part of the common law, as being the common-law right (sometimes inaccurately called the marital right) of the surviving husband in the realty of his deceased wife, except in the instance that the wife shall die without any child or other descendants in being capable of inheriting, in which instance the surviving widower was, by virtue of Section 350, Revised Statutes 1909 (Sec. 320, R. S. 1919), entitled to one-half of the realty belonging to the wife at the time of her death, absolutely, subject to the payment of the wife‘s debts. Tenancy by the curtesy was not abolished in this State until the enactment, by the General Assembly, of an act, approved on March 29, 1921, and which became effective and operative on June 20, 1921, which, by its terms, abolished curtesy, and in lieu thereof gave to the surviving widower the same share in the real estate of his deceased wife that is provided by law for the widоw in the real estate of her deceased husband, subject to the same rights of election and the same limitations. [Laws 1921, p. 119.] It is clear, therefore, that William L. Bowman, the widower of Maggie A. Bowman, and the father of the defendant, Louis N. Bowman, was seized of a life estate only in the land in controversy upon the death of his wife, and that the defendant Louis N.
Apparently believing, and proceeding under the impression, that the deed of trust aforementioned had conveyed to the trustee therein named an undivided one-half interest, in fee simple, in the said land, and that the plaintiff bank, as the purchaser at the trustee‘s sale thereunder, had acquired and become vested with an undivided one-half interest, in fee simple, in said land by virtue of the trustee‘s deed (although such inference is not conclusive upon the record herein), the plaintiff bank brought a suit for partition of said land in the Circuit Court of Gentry County, making Louis N. Bowman a party defendant to such partition suit. The evidence herein discloses that summons, together with a copy of the petition in said partition suit, were duly and regularly served upon, and delivered to, the defendant therein, Louis N. Bowman (who is also the principal defendant in the instant cause), who consulted and employed a lawyer of his own selection in the mattеr of the partition suit. The evidence herein further discloses that said lawyer, at the instance and request of the defendant Louis N. Bowman, drafted an answer to the petition filed by the plaintiff bank in the partition suit, which answer contains the specific admission of the defendant Louis N. Bowman, that “he is the owner of the undivided one-half interest of Lots 15 and 16, in block eleven, of Kate Carter‘s First Addition to King City” (being the land now in controversy), and which answer was signed by Louis N. Bowman, pro se, was verified under oath according to his best knowledge and belief, and was duly filed by him as his pleading in the partition suit. Upon such pleading of defendant Louis N. Bowman, the partition suit proceeded to trial, resulting in an interlocutory judgment, reciting that the defendant therein, Louis N. Bowman, appeared in person and by attorney, and that the partition cause was submitted to the Circuit Court of Gentry County upon the pleadings and the evidence adduced, and a
It is argued by the appellants that the Circuit Court of Gentry County was without jurisdiction in the partition suit, for the reason that the plaintiff bank was not seized of any interest in fee in the land in controversy, but was seized of a life estate only in said land, and therefore the plaintiff bank, at the time of the commencement of the partition suit, was not a joint tenant, tenant in common, or coparcener with the defendant therein, Louis N. Bowman, who held title to the whole of said land in fee simple, subject to the curtesy, or life estate, therein of his father, by inheritance from his deceased mother, Maggie A. Bowman, and hence statutory partition could not be maintained between the parties under the decisions of this court in Atkinson v. Brady, 114 Mo. 200, and Stockwell v. Stockwell, 262 Mo. 671, and others cases, wherein it is ruled that a life tenant (only, and as such) cannot maintain statutory partition against a remain-
It cannot be gainsaid that the Circuit Court of Gentry County had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the partition suit. Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is defined as “the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action. . . . Such jurisdiction the court acquires by the act of its creation, and possesses inherently by its constitution; and it is not dependent upon the sufficiency of the bill or complaint, the validity of the demand set forth in the complaint, or plaintiff‘s right to the relief demanded, the regularity of the proceedings, or the correctness of the decision rendered.” [15 C. J. 734. 735.] Section 22, Article VI, of our State Constitution, invests the circuit court with “exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil cases not otherwise provided for.” Section 2436, Revised Statutes 1919, provides: “The circuit courts in the respective counties in which they may be held shall have power and jurisdiction as follows: . . . Second—Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil cases which shall not be cognizable before the county courts. probate courts and justices of the peace, and not otherwise provided for by law.” Section 1996, Revised Statutes 1919. provides that the petition in a partition suit “shall be filed in the circuit court of the county in which such lands, tenements or hereditaments lie.” The land in controversy lies wholly within Gentry County. Thus it appears, without possibility of question or doubt, that the Circuit Court of Gentry County had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the partition suit, and of the res, or land, sought to be partitioned. Such court also had jurisdiction over the person of the defendant therein, Louis N. Bowman, who was a resident of Gentry County and who was personally served in Gentry County with a copy of the summons, together with a copy of the petition, in the partition suit.
As we have said, the evidence adduced in the partition suit, and upon which evidence the judgments of the Circuit Court of Gentry County, interlocutory and final, rendered in the partition suit. were predicated, is not incorporated, or set forth, in the record in the instant cause. The petition in the partition suit avers that the plaintiff bank and the defendant Louis N. Bowman are tenants in common of the land in controversy, and that each of said parties is entitled to an undivided one-half thereof. The Circuit Court of Gentry County, by its interlocutory judgment in the partition suit, found that “the allegations of plaintiff‘s рetition herein are true,” and
II. Inasmuch, therefore, as the Circuit Court of Gentry County had jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and of the parties, in the partition suit, it follows that the judgments, interlocutory and final, made and entered therein are res adjudicata as respects all matters therein adjudged, including the interests and titles of the respective parties in and to the lands now in controversy, and are conclusive and binding upon the parties to the partition suit (in the absence, as here, of any evidence of a reversal of such judgments upon appeal or writ of error), unless there be substantial evidence in the instant collateral cause of actual fraud in the procurement of such judgments. In 34 Corpus Juris, 511, the general rule is thus stated: “A judgment rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, unless reversed or annulled in some proper proceeding, is not open to contradiction or impeachment, in respect to its validity, verity, or binding effect, by parties or privies, in any collateral action or proceeding, except for fraud in its procurement. Even if the judgment is voidable, that is, so irregular or defective that it would be set aside or annulled on a proper direct application for that purpose, it is well settled as a general rule that it is not subject to collateral impeachment so long as it stands unreversed and in force.”
It is furthermore said, in 34 Corpus Juris, 953: “In most jurisdictions partition has ceased to be regarded as a mere possessory action, and the judgment is generally held to be conclusive upon every right or title put in issue and decided, or which properly might have been litigated and determined. It therefore establishes the title of the parties to the land partitioned, and is conclusive as to any adverse claim of title or of possession on their part existing at the time of its rendition.” Such has been the uniform holding of this court. [Bobb v. Graham, 89 Mo. 200, 207; Holladay v. Langford, 87 Mo. 577, 582; Forder v. Davis, 38 Mo. 107, 118; Yore v. Yore, 240 Mo. 451, 464; Landis v. Overton (Mo. Sup.), 293 S. W. 371, 372, and cases there cited.]
III. It is contended, however, by the appellants that fraud was committed by the plaintiff bank upon the Circuit Court of Gentry County, and upon the defendant Louis N. Bowman, in the procurement of the judgments, interlocutory and final, in the partition suit. It is argued by appellants that a confidential and fiduciary relation existed between George Ward, the cashier of the plaintiff bank, and the defendant Louis N. Bowman and his father and mother; that Ward was the chief executive officer of the bank and was the confidential adviser of the Bowman family; that Ward, having assayed and assumed to advise William L. Bowman, the widower of Maggie A. Bowman, and Louis N. Bowman, the son of Maggie A. Bowman, as to their respective interests and titles in the land in controversy, was bound to know the nature and extent of their respective titles and interests in such land under the existing law of this State; that, relying on the advise of Ward as their confidential adviser, William L. Bowman and Louis N. Bowman were led to believe that each had an undivided one-half interest, in fee simple, in the land; that the plaintiff bank is chargeable with the knowledge of Ward, its cashier and chief executive officer, as to the respective titles and interests of William L. Bowman and Louis N. Bowman in the land, under the existing law of the State at the time of the death of Maggie A. Bowman; that the allegations of the petition filed by the plaintiff bank in the partition suit were false and untrue, and misstated the real and actual titles and interests of the parties therein; that the defendant Louis N. Bowman, acting and relying upon the advice of Ward, the cashier of plaintiff bank, was lulled into the bеlief that he had only an undivided one-half interest in fee in the land in controversy, and was therefore fraudulently cheated and deprived of his defense and legal rights in the partition suit; and that the Circuit Court of Gentry
However, we find from the record herein no substantial evidence of any fraud on the part of the plaintiff bank, or of its cashier, George Ward, in the procurement of the judgment in the partition suit, committed either upon the court or upon the defendant therein. Louis N. Bowman. There is no evidence herein that the plaintiff bank practiced any fraud or deception upon the court in the procurement of the partition judgment. The defendant therein, Louis N. Bowman, was sui juris; he consulted and emploved a lawver of his own selection in the matter of the partition suit, and the lawyer prepared an answer therein at the request and on behalf of Louis N. Bowman, who signed the answer pro se, verified and filed the same as his pleading in the partition suit; and the interlocutory judgment in the partition suit recites that the defendant Louis N. Bowman appeared on the trial thereof in person and by attorney. According to his own testimony in the instant cause, it is reasonably clear that the conduct and acts of Louis N. Bowman in the premises were not induced or controlled by any act or representation of the plaintiff bank, or of its cashier. George Ward. When asked where he got the impression that he had only an undivided one-half interest in the property. Louis N. Bowman replied: “That was all I was generally conceded to have in it, and in all my dealings at the bank. I don‘t think that it was that I ever asked anybody point blank how that was—I don‘t know—I took it for granted that the probate court had left me that much of it. Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Ward what interest you had. or anything? A. I don‘t know that I ever did. . . . Mr. Ward never told me in so many words that, but my business was done thеre, and I suppose my impression was gained there in business with the bank, but that is rather a hard thing to state, because I don‘t know where my impression began.”
Viewing the evidence herein in the light most favorable to the appellants, we cannot say that the evidence justifies the vacation and annulment of the judgment in the partition suit. The general rule is thus stated in 34 Corpus Juris, 283: “Mere failure to disclose to the adversary, or to the court, matters which would defeat one‘s own claim or defense is not such extrinsic fraud as will justify or require vacation of the judgment. Actual fraud as distinguished from constructive fraud is essential.” Our own court has said, in speaking to the same question, in Murphy v. DeFrance, 101 Mo. 151, 157: “A judgment procured by fraud may, of course, be set aside in
And, in Howard v. Scott, 225 Mo. 685, 712, it was pointedly said by LAMM, P. J., speaking for this division of our court: “Broadly speaking, it may be said that false evidence or a lying allegation in a petition is not sufficient to overturn a judgment after the term by a direct proceeding in equity; the idea being that there should be an end to a lawsuit, that every man should have his day in court—not two days—that for the general welfare of society litigants might better be held to take their chances of false swearing on the stand and false allegations in pleadings rather than to allow the reagitation of matters once passеd into the category of things adjudicated; for if equity on such ground vacate a judgment by a new one, why not overturn the latter by a new suit and so on without end. So that it
IV. The judgment of the trial court herein, in determining the interests of the respective parties in the land, awarded to the defendant Louis N. Bowman “an undivided one-fourth interest in said lands of the life estate of William L. Bowman, which said interest is subject to thе lien of $1900 as aforesaid, that is, the sum of $1825, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum since April 8, 1922.” This quoted part of the judgment is predicated upon the finding of the trial court, incorporated in said judgment, that the plaintiff bank, on April 8, 1922, purchased for the sum of $1825 the interest of William L. Bowman in the land, under foreclosure of the deed of trust, dated February 11, 1919, executed and delivered by William L. Bowman to Robert Stanton, trustee, to secure the payment of his debt of $1900 to the First National Bank of King City. but the notice or advertisement of which foreclosure sale was defective because published only twenty-nine days, instead of thirty days, as required by the terms of said deed of trust, and, therefore, that the lien of said deed of trust had not been extinguished; and that William L. Bowman had conveyed, on April 4, 1921, one-half of his interest in the land to George Ward and William Millan, subject to the lien of said deed of trust, and that thereafter, on September 14, 1925, William Millan had conveyed all of his right, title and interest in said land to the defendant Louis N. Bowman, who took and acquired the same subject to the unextinguished lien of said deed of trust. While appellant Louis N. Bowman assigns error in such holding and judgment of the trial court, he does not make further mention of the point in his brief, or cite any judicial authority in support of his assignment of error. Under such circumstance, we might well and properly treat the assignment of error as having been abandoned by the appellant. Moreover, the appellant seemingly admits that the former interest of his father, William L. Bowman, in the land is subject to the unextinguished lien of said deed of trust, for he says in
Finding no reversible error in the record before us, the judgment nisi must be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Lindsay and Ellison, CC., concur.
PER CURIAM:—The foregoing opinion by SEDDON, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All of the judges concur.
SEDDON, C.