Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/281

27e FEDBBAL REPOBTBB. �Nebraska. At the time that judgment was rendered Nuck- olls, the defendant therein, was seized in fee of the premises, and the judgment was therefore a lien upon the same. Sub- sequently to the rendition of said judgment W. P. Kellogg, under whom the plaintiflf claims, became the owner of the land, subjeot to the incumbrance, and desiring to pay off the judgment and remove the encumbrance he applied to one Meredith, who was the attorney of record for the judgment plaintiff, and paid to him the amount of the judgment, includ- ing interest and ail costs, except about six dollars due as clerk's costs, which latter was due to defendant Chandler, who ■was clerk of said state court when the proceedings resulting in said judgment were had. Meredith gave Kellogg a receipt in full for the amount of the judgment, interest and costs. �There is a conflict between Kellogg and Meredith as to the question how, and by whom, the clerk's costs were to be paid; Kellogg saying that Meredith promised to pay them, and Meredith insisting that Kellogg agreed to do so. The clerk to whom the costs were due (defendant Chandler) had gone out of office and was not then in Nebraska- When he subsequently returned and learned that Meredith had receipted in full for the judgment and costs, he called upon him and demanded his costs, which, not being paidj he applied to his successorin the clerk's office andprocured the issuance of an execution therefor, under which the land in question was sold and bought in by Chandler. The sale was afterwards confirmed by said district court, by which it is claimed that certain grave irregularities were cured. A deed was made by the sheriff to Chandler, ■who afterwards conveyed to defendant Paxton. Pive years after the judgment Kellogg moved to set aside the sale. The motion was overruled, but upon what ground does not appear. �1. It is insisted that the matters complained of by the plaintiff were finally adjudicated in the state court by the order confirming the sale and the subsequent order overruling the motion to set the sale aside. This renders it necessary for ua to determine what is the effect of an order of confirmation in such cases. The rule that where a court bas jurisdiction of a cause, but bas committed errors in its proceedings, its judgment ����