¶1Opinion.— Held correct; for even if the Lorance note had been for purchase money, the lien of plaintiff was a prior lien.
¶2A remittitur of the judgment for use and occupation of the land having been entered, the judgment is affirmed.
¶3Aeeibmed.
2 Posey 278
Lorance v. Davis
Decided July 1, 1880
Decided 1880-07-01