A purchaser at a sale on execution stands, in most jurisdictions, in the position of any other purchaser for value, and takes free from any equitable claims upon the land, or claims based on unrecorded instruments, of which he has no notice, actual or constructive, at the time of his purchase.96 In some states, however, an exception to

94. Simpson v. Montgomery, 25 Ark. 365, 99 Am. Dec. 228; Huling v. Abbott, 86 Cal. 423, 25 Pac. 4; Bourquin v. Bourquin, 120 Ga. 115, 47 S. E. 639; Johnson v. Gibson, 116 111. 294, 6 N. E. 205; Trentman v. Eldridge, 98 Ind. 525; Bailey v. Binney, 61 Me. 361; Clark v. Mcneal, 114 N. Y. 287, 11 Am. St. Rep. 638, 21 N. E. 405; Church v. Ruland, 64 Pa. St. 432; Rogis v. Barnatowich, 36 R. I. 227, 89 Atl. 838; Phillis v. Gross, 32 S. D. 438, 143 N. W. 373; Yost v. Crutcher, 112 Va. 870, 72 S. E. 594.

95. Lee v. Cato, 27 Ga. 637, 73 Am. Dec. 746; Lewis v. Phillips, 17 Ind. 108, 79 Am. Dec. 457

Young v. Wiley, 183 Ind. 449, 107 N. E. 278; Trull v. Bigelcw, 16 Mass. 406, 8 Am. Dec. 144; Mullins v. Butte Hardware Co., 25 Mont. 525, 87 Am. St. Rep. 430, 65 Pac. 1004; Anderson v. Roberts, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 515, 9 Am. Dec. 235; Odom v. Rid-dick, 104 N. C. 515, 7 L. R. A. 118, 17 Am. St. Rep. 686, 10 S. E. 609; Coombs v. Aborn, 29 R. I. 40, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1248, 08 Atl. 817; London v. Youmans, 31 S. C. 147, 17 Am. St. Rep. 17, 9 S. E. 775; Bowman v. Holland, 116 Va. 805, 83 S. E. 393.

96. Meek v. Skeen, 60 Fed. 322, 8 C. C. A. 641; Uallett v. Alexander, 50 Colo. 37, 34 L. R.

A. (N. S.) 328, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1277, 114 Pac. 490; Tyler v. Johnson, 61 Fla. 730, 55 So. 870; Gorman v. Wood, 68 Ga. 524; Rogers v. Smith, 146 Ga. 373, 91 S. E. 414; Mcfadden v. Worthington, 45 111. 362; Home Savings & State Bank v. Peoria Agricultural & Trotting Society, 206 111. 9, 99 Am. St. Rep. 132, 69 N. E. 17 (semble); Mcmillan v. Hadley, 78 Ind. 590; Gower v Doheney, 33 Iowa, 36; Lee v. Bermingham, 30 Kan. 312, 1 Pac. 73; Walker v. Mcknight, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 467; Dow v. Whitney, 147 Mass. 1, 16 N. E. 722; Hart v. Gardner, 81 Miss. 650, 33 So. 442, 497; Paine's Lessee v. Mooreland, 15 Ohio, 435, 45 Am. Dec. 585; Boynton v. Win-slow, 37 Pa. St. 315.

97. Sturdivant v. Cook, 81 Ark. 279, 98 S. W. 964; Mountain Home Lumber Co. Ltd. v. Swartwout, 30 Idaho, 559, 166 Pac. 271; Lewis v. Taylor, 96 Ky. 556, 29 S. W. 444; Banning v. Edes, 6 Minn. 402; Mcadow v. Black, 6 Mont. 601, 13 Pac. 377; Mcclenaghan v. Mcclena-ghan, 1 Strob. Eq. (S. C.) 295, 47 Am. Dec. 534; Mckamey v. Thorp, 61 Tex. 648; American Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Hel-gesen, 67 Wash. 572, 122 Pac. 26; Collins v. Smith, 57 Wis. 284, 15 N. W. 192.

98. Hunter v. Watson, 12 Cal.

363, 73 Am. Dec. 543; Riley v. Martinelli, 97 Cal. 575, 21 L. R. A. 33, 33 Am. St. Rep. 209, 32 Pac. 579; Lusk v. Reel, 36 Fla. 418, 51 Am. St. Rep. 32, 18 So. 582; Pugh v. Highley, 152 Ind. 252, 71 Am. St. Rep. 327, 44 L. R. A. 392, 53 N. E. 171; Hallo-way v. Platner, 20 Iowa, 121, 89 Am. Dec. 517; Gower v. Doheney, 33 Iowa, 36; Mcnamara v. Mc-namara, 167 Iowa, 479, 149 N. W. 642; Columbia Bank v. Jacobs, 10 Mich. 349, 81 Am. Dec. 792; Sipley v. Wass, 49 N. J. Eq. 463, 24 Atl. 463; Wood v. Chapin, 13 N. Y. 509, 67 Am. Dec. 62; Sternberger v. Rag-land, 57 Ohio St. 148, 48 N. E. 811.

98a. Gray v. Denson, 129 Ala. 406, 30 So. 595; Hendrix v. Southern Ry. Co., 130 Ala. 205, 89 Am. St. Rep. 27, 30 So. 596; Frost v. Yonkers Sav. Bank, 70 N. Y. 553; Clute v. Emmerich, 99 N. Y. 342, 2 N. E. 6; Hicks v. Skinner, 71 N. C. 539; Bur-gin v. Burgin, 82 N. C. 196.

Occasionally the innocent purchaser at execution sale is pro tected as against unrecorded instruments which might have been recorded, but not as against equities which were not susceptible of record. Tennant v. Watson, 58 Ark. 252, 24 S. W. 495; Mississippi Valley Co. v. Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R. Co.,

Even though the purchaser at execution sale has notice of the adverse claim of another, he takes the land unaffected thereby, if the rights of the judgment creditors were superior thereto, his position being analogous to that of a purchaser with notice from a purchaser without notice. Consequently, when, as may be the case in a number of states," the lien of the judgment or execution is superior to an equity or conveyance which is prior in point of time, owing to the want of notice thereof to the judgment creditor, the purchaser under the execution, even though having notice, is not affected by such equity or claim.1 But if the lien of the judgment or execution is subject to a pre-existing equity or conveyance, either because the judgment creditor had notice thereof, or because such is the law of the state,2 the purchaser at execution sale, if he hasnotice of such outstanding right in a third person, takes subject thereto.3