Where the transferee of a note secured by a deed forecloses thereon in equity, and makes the receiver of the insolvent assignor a party, and the receiver raises no question as to a partly erroneous description of the property in the petition and proceedings, but acknowledges service of a petition and rule nisi to confirm the sale of the property, as correctly advertised, sold, and described in the petition for confirmation, and the sale is thus confirmed with a correct deed to the purchaser, one who subsequently buys another note secured by the same deed is bound by such foreclosure. He can not maintain on his note a second foreclosure on the theory that the first proceeding was void because the pleadings and procedure therein contained the partly erroneous description of the property. Accordingly, the judge properly found for the defendants on their pleas of res judicata and estoppel.
Under these rules and the undisputed facts, the present plaintiff, as a subsequent transferee from the grantee of two $250 notes, was not entitled to maintain a second foreclosure. This is true since his purchase from the grantee was not made until the first transferee had completed the foreclosure on its $2000 note by a decree, a sale of the property for less than that amount, and a deed to the purchaser; and since the present plaintiff took no greater rights than the grantee had when the $250 notes were transferred. Before such transfer, the receiver of the grantee, as a party to the first foreclosure, had acknowledged service of the petition to confirm the first foreclosure sale and an order thereon to show cause why the sale should not be confirmed, in which petition the property was correctly described, and had waived all further service and notice, without questioning in any way the accuracy of descriptions of the property as made in the previous petition, verdict, or decree, or the procedure thereunder. Accordingly, the present plaintiff, as a privy of the grantee and its receiver, was bound by these acts of the receiver; and the judge did not err in finding against the plaintiff on the pleas of res judicata and estoppel filed by the defendants.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. *Page 810
