Phillips v. Bowles

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Dietzman

Affirming.

In 1916, appellant bought; a piece of property, title to wliicli sbe took in ber own name. There was a remote vendor’s lien on tbis property, and thereafter snit was brought to foreclose that lien, in which snit appellant’s property was sold at a,commissioner’s sale. Appellant’s husband attended this sale for her and bought in the property. Through some misunderstanding at the time, the commissioner made the deed to the property of date October 4, 1920, in the husband’s name. This deed was later recorded on December 30,1920. We think it clearly…