STANG v. REDDEN• 11
. = ` A
Brine v. BEDDEN. —
(Circuit Uourt, D. Kansas. June 8, 1886.)
1. MonreAen—Fo1zmcnosrms-S.41.n-—Conr1nMAr1ou—Tirr.n on Pcncmsmn.
’l`he judicial confirmation of a foreclosure sale vests in the purchaser the
full equitable right to the mortgaged premises, whether any deed is executed
and delivered to him or not. ·
2. SAME-—R1e1=m· or Puncrusrm Barons Rmcounme Dunn.
The colorable legal title which, until the recording of a foreclosure deed,
the mortgagor retains, is held by him, and those claiming under him, merely
in trust for the purchaser, and those claiming under him. ‘
3. S.mn—Norrcm.
The foreclosure record is constructive notice, to all claiming under the
mortgagor, of the outstanding equities vested in the purchaser at such fore-
closure sale. ,
In Equity.
Petition for rehearing of bill and cross-bill to quiet title; complain-
ant claiming, by mesne conveyances, from the purchaser at a judicial
sale on foreclosure; defendant claiming, by mesne conveyances, un-
‘ der a subsequent purchase from the mortgagor.
Lawrence, Welch tf Lawrence, for Mr. Stang.
A. L. Redden and W. W. Harris, for Mr. Bedden.
Banwmn, J. A petition for rehearing was presented at the last
term. The facts in this case are these: Away back in 1859 or 1860
a man named Bussum owned a tract of land in Shawnee county, gave
a mortgage, and_that mortgage was foreclosed, the property sold, and
the sale confirmed, but no deed ever made. By various conveyances
from the purchaser at that sheriff’s sale title passed to Stang. The
land was uninclosed and unoccupied. In 1883 Bussum, the orig-
inal owner, (the mortgagor,) quitclaimed to one McClure. He brought
suit in the district court of Shawnee county against Stang to quiet
his title; obtained service by publication, Stang being a non-resident.
Upon such service, no appearance having been made, default was
taken, and a decree entered quieting his title. After that decree had
been entered McClure deeded to Redden. Within a year Stang en?
tered his appearance in that court, obtained an order setting aside ‘ ·
the decree, and leave to file answer. He filed an answer, and then
removed the cause to this court. Bedden, who purchased after the
entry of the decree, and before the order setting it aside, was made a
party defendant, and a cross-bill was iiled by Stang against Redden,
charging that he held only the naked legal title in trust. Upon those
facts a decree was entered in this court last term in favor of Stang, V
‘ adjudging that his was the full equitable title, and that Redden sim- _
ply held a legal title in trust for him.
Now, after carefully considering the full arguments presented on
this rehearing, I see no reason to change the decree. The supreme