" 'Where the acknowledgment is to a stranger, and it appears that it was the intention that the acknowledgment made to him should be communicated to and influence the creditor, it is just as effectual to defeat the statute of limitations as, if it had been made directly to the creditors or his authorized agent. See also First National Bank etc., et al. v. Gamble, Adm'r., 134 Tex. 112, 132 S.W.2d 100, 125 A.L.R. 265: Wentland v. Stewart, 236 Iowa 661, 19 N.W.2d 661, 161 A.L.R. 1206; Orange Investment Co. v. Coyle (Tex. Civ. App.), 95 S.W.2d 1372; Middlebrooksv. Cabaniss, 193 Ga. 764, 20 S.E.2d 10; 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, page 412; and 34 Am. Jur., Limitations of Actions,

629, 33 P. 44, 45. Heard v. Heard (La.App.) 149 So. 156; Bowe v. Ledworowsky et al., 215 Wis. 1, 253 N.W. 791; Kienke v. Hudson, 126 Neb. 551, 253 N.W. 687; Howard v. Windom et al., 86 Tex. 560, 26 S.W. 483; Orange Inv. Co., Inc., v. Coyle et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 95 S.W.2d 1372; Martin v. Somervell County, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 308, 52 S.W. 556; 37 C.J. p. 1149, par. 627. Intervener assails as error the action of the court in holding there was no fact issue to be submitted to the jury, and decreeing that appellee had the superior lien because the uncontroverted testimony shows the deed of trust lien held by the deceased was never recorded, and that intervener had neither actual nor constructive notice of the existence of such lien, and hence was an innocent purchaser.