49 Neb. 276 | Neb. | 1896
This case has been submitted under rule 2, upon an agreed printed abstract. The facts are that one Colton, who had been the owner of the southeast quarter of section 15, township 23, range 3, in Stanton county, in 1889 contracted to sell the same to one Lindner. March 3,
As to the plaintiff, the question presented is the correctness of the court’s holding that it was not entitled to foreclosure. We think, upon the record made, this holding was erroneous. The appraisement in the foreclosure case was clearly erroneous in treating the lien at that time as a senior incumbrance, and on motion in that case undoubtedly the appraisement might have been set aside and corrected. To fee sure the purchaser was not before the sale in a position to attack the appraisement; but it is highly probable that on becoming the purchaser he was in such a position that he might have made an application to the court, which would have given him relief. That question is not, however, before us, because the appraisement stood without question, Oleson became the purchaser, the sale was confirmed, and the property conveyed to him without any objection to the appraisement, so far as the record discloses. Appraisers at such sales under our law act judicially (Sessions v. Irwin, 8 Neb., 5; Vought v. Foxworthy, 38 Neb., 790); and the purchaser at a judicial sale is charged with notice of the condition of the title and of the appraisement. (Norton v. Nebraska Loan & Trust Co., 35 Neb., 466, 40 Neb., 394.) In the case cited it was held that the purchaser was not justified in relying on statements made to him by the sheriff and clerk, because he was bound to take notice of the record. We think it follows from these principles that the appraisement, unless set aside, becomes conclusive, and a portion of the terms of the sale; that, therefore, Oleson expressly bought subject to the mechanic’s lien, and cannot be heard now to assert that his purchase was on terms different from those shown by the record. He contends that the necessary facts do not exist to raise an estoppel in pais; but this is not a case of estoppel in pais. If it is an estoppel at all it is one of record. Indeed, we re
We think, also, that the demurrer to the answer of Fahrenholz should have been overruled. The property was originally subject to both liens. Because the mechanic’s lien was deducted in making the appraisement, the land was sold at a less sum than it would have brought had the lien not been deducted. The result of this was a deficiency judgment against Fahrenholz on the mortgage for an amount just so much greater than it otherwise would have been. He is still personally liable to the plaintiff for the debt creating the mechanic’s lien, and we think he has such an interest in the controversy as to entitle him to insist upon subjecting the property to the lien. It is argued that he was a party to the foreclosure case and cannot be heard to dispute that record; but he is not disputing it. He is insisting that this case be adjudicated in accordance with the record and that Ole-son shall not dispute it.
The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to take an account of the amount due on the mechanic’s lien and to enter a decree of foreclosure accordingly.
Judgment accordingly.