.YOUNG v. nm 1>u:rBo¤. 47
mation had been set aside, Carson made a deed, and from that springs
one of the titles upon which defendants rely. ` It is the settled law of
Nebraska that the title of a purchaser at an execution sale depends not
alone upon his bid or payment of the purchase money, but upon the
confirmation of the sale; also that one purchasing at an execution sale
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court asito matters affecting ·
— that sale, and that a court has power during the term to vacate or mod-
ify its own orders, orto rescind decrees. Phillips v. Dawley, 1 Neb. 320; .
Bank vt Green, 10 Neb. 134, 4 N. W. Rep. 942; Phlland v. Wilcox, 17
Neb. 50, 22N. W. Rep. 71; Gregory v. Tingley, 18 Neb. 322, 25 N. W.
Rep. 88. Itfollows fromthese facts and decisions that the sale, though
temporarily confirmed,was finally set aside, and that no rights of a third
partyiacerued during thetime that the sale was apparently confirmed. A
Hence this chain of title presented by defendants must fail. t
; A second chain of titleis under a conveyance made by an attorney in
fact. . On thc31st day of·.March, 1874, Jane Y. Irwin entered into a
contract with Scott, Boyd & La Master, for the platting and sale of the
land. They entered upon the land soon thereafter, and surveyed and
plattediit. On the 24th of August, 1875, Jane Y. Irwin executed· a
power of attorney. to William T. Donavan, to enable him to make con-
veyances t0=purchasers when- sales were made by Scott, Boyd &: La Mas-
» ter, and to facilitate their operations under their contract of March, 1874.
On the 25th day of October, 1879, a deed was executed by Donavan, as
attomey in fact, for the land to one John P. Lantz, who on the same day
conveyed it to Samuel W. Little. At the time of these conveyances the
·land was worth $70,000, and the conveyances were made for $1,000.
Within aimonthfthereafter a revocation of the power of attorney given
to Donavan was placed on record, and the conveyances by the attorneys
in fact to Lantz, and by Lantz to Little, were made with the intention of
xlefrauding Jane,Y. Irwin; and the revocation of the power of attorney
was known to the subsequent purchasers, as=wel1»as··all the facts stated
therein, prior to their purchases. Obviously the plaintiti“’s land cannot
be taken away by any such transactions as these. When one holding .a
· power of attorney, which has beenlying dormant for over four years,
conspires with a third party to make a conveyance in the name of his
principal of land worth $70,000 for $1,000, and immediately a revocation
.0f that power of attorney `is placed upon the record, clearly the first
purchaser acquires no rights, and subsequent purchasers, taking. with
knowledge,·are~ in no ebetter condition. But it is earnestly insisted by _
defendants that these conveyances transferred the legal title, and that
whateverrights plaintiff may have can be established only in a court of
equity, and that, upon the facts as found, judgment must go for de- »
fendants. They also insist that on a moticnfor judgment upon special
iindings inquiry is limited. to the facts stated in the findings, and that
the court may not examine the testimony for further facts; and upon this
say that the power of attorney is not disclosed in the tindi·ngs,cnorthe
revocation thereof; ·hence the court has no information as to theterms,
" limitations, orllanguage of either of these instruments. It may bethat