32 rmnsnxn nicronrsn.
phering what letters are used. In the first place, are such solemn
instruments between parties as deeds of conveyance and contracts
to be defeated because by the spelling, or by the omission or inser-
tion of a letter which does not affect the sound, or because, in many
instances, a very good lawyer has made a very bad script, you cam
not exactly read the words ? Every one knows that in those cases we
go back and read tl1e context, and through that we are enabled to
read what word was written; that is, having read what is behind
arid what is before, we arrive at what the word that should be there
is. This is according to the experience of every lawyer, under such
circumstances. These are our views of this case, although it is ar-
gued otherwise; and when we come to `consider that this is a tran-
script of a judgment of the Ramsey county district court, placed
upon the judgment docket of Dakota county; that an execution is-
sued on that judgment from Ramsey county, which describes the
° names of the parties so that there can be no mistake about them;
that the sheriff levied upon the land which he intended to levy upon
by virtue of the judgment, in which he says it was Ambs’ land, and
says he sells it as Ambs’ land; and, added to that, there is a deed, A
and also a return, which the sheriff makes,—then, bring all these to-
gether, and compare them with this docket, and we do not think that
any sensible man would hesitate to decide that it is Mr. Frederick
Ambs whose name is placed upon that docket. We are therefore of
opinion that that judgment was properly recorded in Dakota county;
that the sale under it was a valid sale of all the interest which Fred-
erick Ambs and August Whitman had at that time in the land in
controversy.
It appears to us that there is no reason to doubt that Ambs had a
title to four of the lots in question which could be sold, and which
were subject to that execution; that as to those four lots the bill of
the plaintiff asking that l1is title may be established must be dismissed,
and the title declared to bein the defendants in this suit. But with
regard to the remainder of the property, which is much the larger
portion, it appears that, long before this judgment was rendered, Mr.
Frederick Ambs had made a conveyance to Peter Ambs of the whole
land, except these four lots, and that this conveyance was put on record
before this judgment was rendered. It is true that Frederick Amhs
afterwards acquired the legal title to that property. He had a bond,
however, for the title when he conveyed to Peter Ambs. It is insisted
by defendants here that the title, in passing through Frederick Ambs,
against whom there was this judgment, became affected with the
lien of that judgment. But we are of a different opinion. We he-
lieve the t1·ue doctrine to be that in this case, by reason of the con-
veyance that Frederick Ambs made to Peter Ambs before he got the
title, when he did get it, it inured to the benefit of Peter Ambs; and
that is the law of the state of Minnesota. There is some question
raised as to whether that is the law of Minnesota except where there