32. 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 640. See Smith v. Gale, 144 U. S

509, 36 L. Ed. 521; Zeigler v. Daniel, 128 Ark. 403, 194 S. W. 246; Bensley v. Mountain Lake Water Co., 13 Cal. 306, 73 Am Dec. 575; Tripp's Adm'r v. Bailey, 152 Ky. 369, 153 S. W. 452; Alter-auge v. Christiansen, 48 Mich. 60, 11 N. W. 806; Jorgenson v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 25 Minn. 206: Wood v. Price, 79 N. J. Eq. 620, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 772, Ann. Cas. 1913A, mo, 81 Atl. 983; Sheridan v. Andrews, 49 N. Y. 478; Todd v. Outlaw, 79 N. C. 235; Sprague v. Stevens, 37 R. I. 1, 91 Atl. 43; Vicars v. Sayler, 111 Va. ?07, 68 S. E. 988; Phillips v. Tompson, 73 Wash. 78, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 672, 131 Pac. 461.

2 R. P. - 68 original pleading has been filed, and defendant has been served with process,33 except in so far, perhaps, as a right to affirmative relief may be asserted by defendant in his answer or cross complaint.34

A purchaser is affected by a lis pendens only if the land in litigation is described in the pleadings with such reasonable certainty as to enable the purchaser to know that it is the land which he is proposing to purchase.35

The doctrine of lis pendens applies, not only against a person who acquired the property in litigation from a party thereto by voluntary conveyance, but also against one who acquires the interest of such a party by judicial36 or execution37 sale.- It does not apply as against one who, pending the litigation, acquires the interest or supposed interest of one who is not a party

33. Stein v. Mcgrath. 128 Ala. 175, 30 So. 792; Welton v. Cook, 61 Cal. 481; Hurd v. Case, 32 111. 45; Olson v. Leibpke, 110 Iowa, 594, 80 Am. St. Rep. 327, 81 N. W. 801; S. C. Hall Lumber Co. v. Gustin, 54 Mich. 624 20 N. W. 616; Jorgenson v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 25 Minn. 206; Bailey v. Mcginnis, 57 Mo. 362; Moss v. N. Y. Elevated Ry. Co., 27 Abb. N. C. 318; Zane v. Fink, 18 W. Va. 693.

34. Bridger v. Exchange Bank, 126 Ga. 821, 56 S. E. 95; Mc-guire v. Gilbert, 270 111. 160. 110 N. E. 377; Hart v. Hayden, 79 Ky. 348; Garver v. Graham, 6 Kan. App. 344, 51 Pac. 344; Compare, S. C. Hall Lumber Co. v. Gustin, 54 Mich. 624, 20 N. W. 616, and see 7 Columbia Law Rev. p. 282; Mullanphy Sav. Bank v. Schott, 135 111. 655, 25 Am. St. Rep. 401. 26 N. E. 640.

35. Miller v. Sherry, 2 Wall (U. S.) 237, 17 L. Ed. 827;

Mitchell v. Amador Canal & Mining Co., 75 Cal. 464, 17 Pac. 246; Norris v. I1e, 152 111. 190, 43 Am. St. Rep. 233, 38 N. E. 762; Boyd v. Emmons' Adm'r, 103 Ky. 393, 45 S. W. 364; Allan v. Poole, 54 Miss. 323; Griffith v. Griffith, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 317; Todd v. Outlaw, 79 N. C. 235; Mcwhorter v. Brady, 41 Okla. 383, 140 Pac. 782; Lewis v. Mew, 1 Strob. Eq. (S. C.) 180; Boshear v. Lay, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 163; Seibel v. Bath, 5 Wyo. 409, 40 Pac. 756.

36. Randall v. Duff, 79 Cal. 115, 3 L. R. A. 754, 756, 21 Pac. 610: Randall v. Lower, 98 Ind. 255; Rider v. Kelsey, 53 Iowa, 367, 5 N. W. 509.

37. Brinkley v. Sanford. 99 Ga. 130, 25 S. E. 32; Ellis v. Sisson, 96 111. 105; Gibbs v. Davis, 93 Ky. 466, 20 S. W. 385; Ettenborough v. Bishop, 26 N. J. Eq. 262.

A suit pending in one county which affects land lying in another county of the same state has been regarded as binding on a purchaser from a party thereto,40 and a suit pending in a federal court would seem to affect a purchaser of land lying anywhere in the same district.41 The full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution has been held, however, not to require the court of one state to subject a purchaser of land lying therein to the results of litigation in a court of another state.42

There is a conflict in the decisions as to whether a suit to assert a conveyance or enforce an incumbrance,

38. Miller v. Sherry, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 237, 17 L. Ed. 827; Scarlett v. Gorham, 28 111. 319; Parsons v. Hoyt, 24 Iowa, 154; Harrod v. Burke, 76 Kan. 909, 92 Pac. 1128; Herrington v. Herrington, 27 Mo. 560; Merrill v. Wright, 65 Neb. 794, 101 Am. St. Rep. 645, 91 N. W. 697; Allen v. Morris, 34 N. J. Eq. 159; Parks v. Jackson, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 442, 25 Am. Dec. 656; Green v. Rick, 121 Pa. St. 130, 2 L. R. A. 48, 6 Am. St. Rep. 760, 15 Atl. 497; Johnson v. Irwin, 16 Wash. 652, 48 Pac. 345.

39. Stout v. Lye, 103 U. S. 66, 26 L. Ed. 428; Cooney v. Coppock, 119 Iowa, 486, 93 N. W. 495; Newdigate v. Jacobs, 9 Dana (Ky.) 17; Fuller v. Scrib-ner, 76 N. Y. 190; Stewart v. Wheeling & L. E. Ry. Co., 53 Ohio St. 151, 29 L. R. A. 438, 41 N. E. 247; Cradlebaugh v. Pritchett, 8 Ohio St. 647, 72 Am. Dec. 610; Winchester v. Paine, 11 Ves. Jr. 194; Trye v. Aidborough, 1 Ir. Ch. 666.

40. Marshall v. Whitley, 136 Ga. 805, 72 S. E. 244; Wick-liffe's Ex'r v. Breckenridge's Heirs, 1 Bush (Ky.) 427. And see Carr v. Lewis Coal Co., 96 Mo. 149, 9 Am. St. Rep. 328, 8 S. W. 907. But a contrary view is expressed in Benton v. Shafer, 47 Ohio St. 117, 7 L. R. A. 812. 24 N. E. 197.

41. Rutherglen v. Wolf, 1 Hughes 78, Fed. Cas. No. 12,175; Atlas Ry. Supply Co. v. Lake & River Ry. Co., 134 Fed. 503; Wilson v. Hefflin, 81 Ind. 35; Stewart v. Wheeling & L. E. Ry. Co., 53 Ohio St. 151, 29 L. R. A. 438, 41 N. E. 247.

42. Shelton v. Johnson, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 672; Carr v. Lewis Coal Co., 96 Mo. 149, 9 Am. St. Rep. 328, 8 S. W. 907 (dictum). And see Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc Co. 57 N. Y. 616. Contra, Fletcher v. Ferrell, 9 Dana (Ky.) 372.

43. That it does have such effect, see Boiling v. Carter, 9 Ala. 921; Thorns v. Southard, 2 Dana (Ky.) 475. That it does not, see Newman v. Chapman,

2 Rand. (Va.) 93, 14 Am. Dec. 766; Douglass v. Mccrackin, 52 Ga. 596. See, also, Mccutchen v. Miller, 31 Miss. 65, 85; Page v. Street, Speers Eq. 159, 212.