The rule does not apply where a title im perfect before suit brought, is perfected dur ing its pendency ; Hopkins v. McLaren, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 667; Gibler v. Trimble, 14 Ohio 323.
When one comes into possession of the subject of litigation, during proceedings in ejectment, he will be bound by the judg ment, though not a party, and may be eject ed under the judgment against his grantor ; Wade, Notice; Smith v. Trabue, 1 McLean, 87 Fed. Cas.. No. 13,116 ; Jackson v. Tuttle, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 233.
In law, the same effect is produced by the rule that each purchaser takes the title of his vendor only ; Zeiter v. Bowman, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 133; Shotwell v. Lawson, 30 Miss. 27, 64 Am. Dec. 145 ; Baker v. Pierson, 5 Mich. 456. This doctrine was originally confined to controversies over real estate ; Winston v. Westfeldt, 22 Ala. 760, 58 Am. Dec. 278; McLaurine v. Monroe's Adm'rs, 30 Mo. 462; but a purchaser of securities pen dente lite has been decreed to surrender them upon receiving the sum he had paid for them; Watlington v. Howley, 1 Desaus. (S. C.) 167; and the principle has been ex tended to a bond and mortgage, assigned by a trustee, pending a suit by the cestui que trust; In re M'Farlan, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 441. In County of Warren v. Marcy, 97 U. S. 105, 24 L. Ed. 977, Bradley, J., states a general rule that all persons dealing with property are bound to take notice of a suit by lis pendens, but that this rule does not apply to negotiable securities purchased be fore maturity nor to articles of ordinary commerce sold in the ordinary way. After citing Murray v. Ballou, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 566, as the leading American case relat ing to land, with regard to which the doc trine is uniformly applied, he cites Murray v. Lylburn, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 441, as con taining the whole law on the subject which has been carried out or applied by later cas es. Chancellor Kent, in that case, applied the rule to choses in action assigned by one of the parties pendente lite.
In Kieffer v. Ehler, 18 Pa. 388, it was held that the doctrine does not apply to a promis sory note bought before maturity, but with out actual notice of an attachment levied before the purchase. In Diamond v. Law rence County, 37 Pa. 353, 78 Am. Dec. 429, it was held that the doctrine applies to a non-negotiable instrument. In Winston v.
Westfeldt, 22 Ala. 760, 58 Am. Dec. 278, it was held that the doctrine does not apply to negotiable papr, the case being decided upon great considOration. To the same ef fect, see Leitch vi Wells, 48 N. Y. 585, over - ^^ ruling the same case in 48 Barb. (N. Y.)' 637. That the doctrine does not apply to negotiable securities, was held in Presidio Co. v. Stock Co., 212 U. S. 58, 29 Sup. Ct. 237, 53 L. Ed. 402; Mims v. West, 38 Ga. 18, 95 Am. Dec. 379 ; so of articles sold in the market in the usual course of trade ; Enfield v. Jordan, 119 U. S. 693, 7 Sup. Ct. 358, 30 L. Ed. 523.
In Chase v. Searles, 45 N. H. 511, the court refused to apply the doctrine to personalty ; in Carr v. Lewis Coal Co., 15 Mo. App. 551, it was applied to an article of ordinary com merce, cattle and grain. In McCutchen v. Miller, 31 Miss. 65, the doctrine was held ta apply with equal force to contracts in re gard to personalty and those concerning real estate. That it applies to personalty, except negotiable paper ; Reid v. Sheffy, 75 Ill. App. 136 ; contra, as to personalty ; Miles v. Lefi, 60 Ia..168, 14 N. W. 233 ; Winston v. West feldt, 22 Ala. 760, 58 Am. Dec. 278 ; it is held not to apply to shares of corporate stock ; Davis v. Signal Co., 105 Ill. App. 657: American Press Ass'n v. Brantingham, 75 App. Div. 435, 78 N. Y. Supp. 305. In State v. Board of Com'rs, 59 Kan. 512, 53 Pac. 526, it was held not to apply to commercial pa per, and in Calkins v. Bank, 20 S. D. 466, 107 N. W. 675, not to apply to one taking a chattel mortgage, pending an action to re cover the mortgaged property.
In divorce there is no lis pendens before decree as to the property included in the marriage settlement ; 7 P. D. 228.
The proceedings must relate directly to the specific property in question ; Lewis v. Mew, 1 Strobh. Eq. (S. C.) 180 ; Green v, White, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 242; Feigley v. Feig ley, 7 Md. 537, 61 Am. Dec. 375 ; Story, Eq. 13th ed. § 405; and the rule applies to no other suits ; Edmonds v. Crenshaw, 1 Mc Cord, Ch. (S. C.) 252. There must be prop erty which will be affected by the judgment ; St. Joseph Mfg. Co. v. Daggett, 84 Ill. 556 ; Dovey's Appeal, 97 Pa. 153.