Page 372, syllabus, second line from bottom, for lessor read lessee ERRORS NOTED IN PREVIOUS VOLUMES Volume 61 Page 364, line 8 from bottom, for appropriation read a proportion Page 364, line 9 from bottom, end of line, strike out an RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT ADOPTED DECEMBER 9, 1911. RULE IX., Subd. 6. (6) In all criminal appeals where the defendant is in custody and is unable to give bail, the judge of the superior court from which the appeal emanates shall file a certificate, and the cause will be advanced to the head of the docket and be heard on the first day of the succeeding term of the court, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. VINNQUITVO CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON [No. 9085. Department Two. April 5, 1911.] A. P. BURWELL, Appellant, v. V. HUGO SMITH, Respondent.1 VENDOR AND PURCHASER-TITLE-LIS PENDENS-PARTIES TO SUIT COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION. A lis pendens notice does not constitute a lien upon property, entitling the purchaser to rescind the sale, where a prior title was deraigned through a grantee not a party to the action, and it was not shown that the action had been commenced when the notice of lis pendens was filed. LIS PENDENS-NOTICE-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION. A lis pendens to be effective must be filed in compliance with Rem. & Bal. Code, § 243, requiring that the complaint be filled at or before the filing of the notice. LIS PENDENS-NOTICE-PARTIES TO SUIT. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 243, providing that subsequent purchasers shall be bound by notice of lis pendens, applies only to purchasers from parties to the action. Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Kauffman, J., entered March 25, 1910, upon findings in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on contract. Affirmed. Reeves Aylmore, Jr., for appellant, contended that the purchaser could rescind for any defect appearing on the face of the abstract. Smith v. Taylor, 82 Cal. 533, 23 Pac. 217; Boas v. Farrington, 85 Cal. 535, 24 Pac. 787; Taylor v. Wil'Reported in 114 Pac. 876. |