Cited by

As said in Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73, 76 , , he takes “only the title that he [the party] had.” As pointed out in the cited case and in Flanery v. Kusha, 147 Minn. 156 , , such a purchaser is not entitled to the protection of a bona fide purchaser for value at a sale under an execution or a judgment.

In Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , , this section was construed and distinguished from 2 Mason Minn. St.

In Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , 38 N.W.

Wieland v. Shillock, 23 Minn. 227 ; Dillon v. Porter, 36 Minn. 341 , ; Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ; Kipp v. Clinger, 97 Minn. 135 , .

Al-drich v. Chase, 70 Minn. 243 , ; Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ; White v. Gurney, 92 Minn. 271 , .

“If proper application for leave to defend be seasonably made, and be accompanied with an answer setting up a defense to the action, it is granted as a matter of right.” Fifield v. Norton, 79 Minn. 264, 265 , ; Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , , limiting Washburn v. Sharpe, 15 Minn. 43 (63), and Frankoviz v. Smith, 35 Minn. 278 , ; Wheaton Flour Mills Co. v. Welch, 122 Minn. 396 , ; Doherty v. Ryan, 123 Minn. 471 , .

The following cases fully sustain his right to defend: Frankoviz v. Smith, 35 Minn. 278 , ; Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ; Nye v. Swan, 42 Minn. 243 , ; Bausman v. Tilley, 46 Minn. 66 , ; Fifield v. Norton, 79 Minn. 264 , ; Fink v. *474 Woods, 102 Minn. 374 , ; Long v. Long, 112 Minn. 400 , , 140 Am.

Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ; Cutler v. Button, 51 Minn. 550 , ; Bogart v. Kiene, 85 Minn. 261 , , and in DeLaittre v. Chase, 112 Minn. 508 , , the right of the defendant not personally served to come in and defend under said section 4113 is thus stated: After he “has actual notice of the ju

Waite v. Coaracy, 45 Minn. 159 , ; Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , .

Frankoviz v. Smith, 35 Minn. 278 , ; Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ; Cutler v. Button, 51 Minn. 550 , ; Fifield v. Norton, 79 Minn. 264 , ; Bogart v. Kiene, 85 Minn. 261 , ; Fink v. Woods, 102 Minn. 374 , .

Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ; Aldrich v. Chase, 70 Minn. 243 ; ; Maurin v. Carnes, 80 Minn. 524 , .

It was early held that section 5267, G. S. 1894, applied to actions to determine adverse claims to real estate, and authorized the granting of relief from defaults upon application made by parties interested, who were designated as “other persons or parties unknown.” G. S. 1894, § 5818; Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , .

Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ; Welch v. Marks, 39 Minn. 481 , ; Drew v. City of St.

Under the doctrine of Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , , Whitacre and his successors possessed no right of action based upon the sale by Lord to Martin.

Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ; Boeing v. McKinley, 44 Minn. 392 , ; Nye v. Swan, 42 Minn. 243 , ; Bausman v. Tilley, 46 Minn. 66 , ; Fifield v. Norton, 79 Minn. 264 , .

Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73, 75 , ; Boeing v. McKinley, 44 Minn. 392, 394 , ; Bausman v. Tilley, 46 Minn. 66 , .

Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ; Welch v. Marks, 39 Minn. 481 , ; Drew v. City, 44 Minn. 501 , .

In the case of Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , , Chief Justice G-ilñllan, referring to a question of this kind, in the course of his opinion (page 76) uses this language: “The second question in the case is, does a purchaser in good faith from the successful party in a judgment determining the title to real estate come within the rule which protects

Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ( 38 N. W. Rep.

Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ( 38 N. W. Rep.

Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ( 38 N. W. Rep.

This is the construction placed on section 66, in Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ( 38 N. W. Rep.

Lord v. Hawkins, 39 Minn. 73 , ( 38 N. W. Rep.