KING u. DUNDEE M0sTGAGE & TRUST INVEST. 00. 33
are covenants of title; but we are satished that here there was a
covenant of title; that it was an ordinary deed of bargain and sale
with such covenant, the result of which was that ea insmnti, when
Frederick Ambs acquired the legal title from the party against whom
he held this bond, it vested in Peter Ambs, his grantee, the title
under the deed made long before. There was no space of time when .
this lien could attach. The making of the deed, through Frederick V
Ambs, transferred at once, instantly, without a moment’s delay, the
title, and thus was acquired by Peter Ambs, to whose benefit it in-
ured. The lien of the judgment did not attach while the title was in
that transition state. The result of that is that the plaintiff in this
case, who claims under that deed, has a just right; and that the title
set up under this judgment should be declared null and void; and that
the plaintiff, as far as this portion of the property is concerned, is
entitled to the relief claimed, as against these defendants holding
under that judgment sale; and that is the decree of this court.
There is also a defense of a tax title, which Judge NELSON has ex- A
amined, and which he states establishes no title. I think it was
shown that that was not a valid title, and the plaintiff should be re-
lieved as against it. Therefore the relief is complete against the de-
fendants, except as to those four lots already described.
A decree will be entered accordingly.
  I
Kms, Sheriff, etc., v. DUNDEE Momcacm & Tausr Iuvmsrnmmr Co.,
Limited. ·
(Circuit Oourl, D. Oregon. July 3, 1886.)
1. Equ1TY—B1I.L or REVIEW—PARTIES.
Where the defendants in a decree were not necessary parties to the suit,
one or more of them may maintain a bill of review to reverse the same with-
out making the co-defendants parties thereto.
2. SAMn—DEcnsn IN UNITED Sraras Crncurr COURT-—BILL or Rnvmw.
A decree of the United States circuit court will not be reversed, on a bill of
review therein, because in the mean time the state court has put a construc-
tion on a clause of the state constitution contrary to that of the circuit court
in making said decree.
Bill of Review. -
James F. Watson, for plaintiffs.
William H. Ejinger, for defendantst
Dmnr, J. This is a bill of review, brought to reverse a decree
given by this court on September 4, 1884, in a suit wherein the de-
fendant herein was the plaintiff, and the plaintids herein and sundry
others were the defendants. The original suit was brought to re-
strain the plaintiiis herein, Sol King, as sheriff of Benton county, and
v.28F.1io.1—3