¶1It seemed to be conceded upon the argument of this case, that the validity of the title depended upon the question' of service of summons, and that was the question considered by the court.
¶2The question whether the subsequent purchasers and mortgagees were not bound by the Us rendens and judgment was not discussed.
¶3It seems to me there is enough in it to warrant the granting of a reargument, and I so vote.