.80 FEDERAL REPORTER.
Lsmrnmr v. Prim and others. `
(0'vircait Court, D. Mnnesota. June Term, 1886.)
1.`JUDGMENT—DECREE or Bram CoUnr—Esror·rr:L—Rms Anaunrcsrs.
Where a decree has been obtained in a Minnesota state district court against
non-resident defendants, in a suit begun by the publication of summons,
and, upon their appearance within one year rom the time judgment was ren-
dered, an order was made bythe district court reopening the case, and per-
mitting the defendants to come in and defend, and afterwards another suit
was brought and transferred to the United States circuit court, held, that the
order allowing defendants to come in and defend nulliiied the decree as a
judgment ren adjudicata, and cannot be relied upon as concluding the parties.
2. SAME—·DOCKE'1`ING JUDGMENT—DECIPHERING NAME on Docxmr—NAMm To
nn Rnan in Commcrion WITH Conraxrr.
Atranscript of judgment of the Ramsey county district court, docketed in
. Dakota county, did not have the defendant’s name legibly and correctly
spelled. Afterwards an execution, which described the name correctly, is·
sued on the judgment, and the sheriif levied upon the land whichhe intended
to levy upon by virtue of the judgment. and sold it as the land of defendant,
and made hisreturn, and gave his deed to the purchaser. Held, that all these
facts should be taken into consideration in deciphering the name on the judg·
ment docket, and that the judgment was properly recorded, and that the sale
under it was valid.
3. DEED—AF'FER·ACQUIRED Trrrs Inunns ro GnAu·rEn—CovmNANr or Trrnm
—LrEN or JUDGMENT.
A conveyance, with covenant of title, made by a grantor who has a bond
for a deed, and before he obtains the legal title, vests the legal title in the
grantee eo instantl when the grantor obtains it, and there is no space of time
1n wh;ch the lien of a judgment obtained against said grantor, after the con-
veyance was made, can attach against the land.
In Equity.
U. L. Lampfrey, for plaintiff.
Williams at Goodenow, for defendant.
ltlimzsa, Justice. This is a chancery suit, brought originally in the
state court, and transferred to this court. It was an action under
the statutes of the state of Minnesota to quiet title to real estate in a
case where the possession was not in either party. Those statutes
exist throughout all the western states, as far as I know, and the in-
tention of the framers of them generally was that an action in the
nature of an action of ejectment should be brought, and the proper
issues made, to determine the state of the title, and to quiet the title.
A The supreme court of the United States has held that while these may
be called actions of ejectment in the state courts, inasmuch as the
remedy to be applied, and the right asserted, are essentially of an
equitable character, in the federal courts they are to be treated as
bills in chancery, in the nature of a bill to quiet title. This suit is
brought against persons, some, or perhaps all, of whom are non-resi-
dents, though in this case they have appeared and answered. The
plaintiff relies upon two propositions to justify a decree against the
defendants to quiet his title. The hrst of these is that the records
which he produces, the deeds of conveyance, and derivation of title