February, 1915, to the plaintiff, these rights of the judgment debtor were entirely foreclosed. The plaintiff then possessed all of the rights of the judgment debtor to which the judgment lien attached at the date it was docketed. The validity of such judgment and of the execution proceedings is not in any manner attacked. The decision of this court in Buttz v. James, 33 N. D. 162, 156 N. W. 547, determining the status of James, title was not rendered until February, 1916. Manifestly, if the decision of this court in such case had been the reverse, the plaintiff's title, pursuant to such sheriff’s deed, would have remained unimpaired. Assuredly, it may not be premised, pursuant to the allegations of this complaint, that the defendant, with prescient or prophetic knowledge, could forecast the decision of this court in such case. Upon such decision by this court in that case the complaint predicates a cause of action. The decision in that case did not pretend to wholly deprive James of title in the land. It served simply to set aside the conveyance made so far as it interfered with the rights of creditors and the rights of the trustee in connection therewith. See Buttz v. James, 33 N. D. 162, 178, 156 N. W. 547; Phillips v. Phillips, 179 N. W. 671, 672; 12 R. C. L. 597; Brasie v. Minneapolis Brewing Co., 87 Minn. 456, 92 N. W. 340, 67 L. R. A. 865, 889, 94 Am. St. Rep. 709. The trial court properly took judicial notice of the determination made in that case. See 7937, C. L. 1913; Beyer v. Investors’ Syndicate, 47 N. D. 358, 182 N. W. 934.
The complaint plainly is insufficient to allege or show grounds of either fraud or conspiracy to sell or dispose of a worthless title. § 5984, C. L. 1913, has no application upon the facts as alleged. It is clear that the purchaser at the sale upon the execution proceedings was subject to the doctrine of caveat emptor. In the absence of fraud such purchaser could not complain of defects in the title.
The assignee of such purchaser, in the absence of an express warranty, stands in no stronger position. 39 Cyc. 1672. He would be in no stronger position if he had redeemed from such purchaser. See Copper Belle Mining Co. v. Gleason, 14 Ariz. 548, 134 Pac. 285; note 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 481; note 36 L. R.A. (N.S. 1218. Upon the complaint the plaintiff purchased the assignment of the sheriff’s certificate with the same knowledge and notice of rights existing therein as the company possessed. He stands in no better position than the Mercantile Company. See 39 Cyc. 1415.
The order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent.
