The phrase "judicial knowledge" has in many instances been stretched into a cover for mistakes of omission made in the preparation of a case for trial, especially where the equities were obvious. Our cases of Smith v. Redwine, 26 Tenn. App. 104, 168 S.W.2d 185, and Kivett v. Cardwell, 26 Tenn. App. 372, 175 S.W.2d 334, and the cases therein referred to, set forth certain resolutions adopted by the HOLC. But they were proven and constituted a part of the record in those cases. If we recognize judicially facts adjudicated in another case, it makes those facts, although unsupported by evidence in the case at bar, conclusive against the opposing party without any opportunity on his part to meet and overcome them. 20 Am. Jur. "Evidence", Sec. 84, p. 102.

"An insurmountable barrier to the relief which the complainant seeks must be recognized in the fact and circumstance that the building and loan association agreed in writing, and without reservation, to accept bonds in the amount of $2481.48 `In Full Payment and Discharge of Said Indebtedness.'" See, also, Home Owners Loan Corp. v. Aiello, 62 R.I. 353, 5 A.2d 649; Watters v. Harris, 147 Neb. 1081, 26 N.W.2d 182, 184, 185; Fender v. McCain, 144 Neb. 58, 12 N.W.2d 541; Smith v. Redwine, 26 Tenn. App. 104, 168 S.W.2d 185, 186; Gordon v. Young, 146 Neb. 578, 20 N.W.2d 616, 620; Jessewich v. Abbene, 154 Misc. 768, 277 N.Y. Supp. 599; Dayton Mtg. Inv. Co. v. Theis, 62 Ohio App. 169, 23 N.E.2d 511; Meek v. Wilson, 283 Mich. 679, 278 N.W. 731; Miners Sav. Bk. v. Hart, 349 Pa. 468, 37 A.2d 570; Council v. Cohen, 303 Mass. 348, 21 N.E.2d 967; Pye v. Grunert, 201 Minn. 191, 275 N.W. 615, 276 N.W. 221; Empire Mtg. Inv. Co. v. Bratton, 198 Ga. 865, 32 S.E.2d 907, 909; Johnson v. Matthews, 301 Ill. App. 295, 22 N.E.2d 772; First Citizens Bk. Tr. Co. v. Speaker, 250 App. Div. 824, 294 N.Y. Supp. 737; Local Fed. Sav. L. Assn. v. Harris, 188 Okla. 214, 107 P.2d 1012; Kudack v. Port Washington Nat. Bk. Tr. Co., 32 N.Y.S.2d 203; Neavitt v. Upp, 57 Ariz. 445, 114 P.2d 900; Dime Bk. Tr. Co. v. Walsh, 143 Pa. Super. 189, 17 A.2d 728, 730, 731; Weber v. Sternad, 69 Ohio App. 258, 39 N.E.2d 623, affirmed 140 Ohio St. 253, 43 N.E.2d 227; Haroldsen v. Yeates, 104 Utah 398, 140 P.2d 350; Southwestern Sav. L. Co. v. Di Luzi

" Certiorari was denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See Smith v. Redwine, 26 Tenn. App. 104, 168 S.W.2d 185. In Washington the court places the burden of showing the knowledge of the Loan Corporation upon the holder of the second mortgage.

The question of the validity of notes secured by second mortgages in cases like this one has been before many courts, and the great weight of authority is to the effect that they are invalid and cannot be enforced. Some of the leading cases are McAllister v. Drapeau, 14 Cal.2d 102, 92 P.2d 911, 125 A.L.R. 800 and note III, p. 810; Anderson v. Nelson, 110 Colo. 374, 134 P.2d 1053; Smith v. Redwine, 168 S.W.2d (Tenn.App.) 185; Lavery v. Rizza, 126 Conn. 132, 9 A.2d 819; Meek v. Wilson, 283 Mich. 679, 278 N.W. 731; Murphy v. Omaha Loan Bldg. Ass'n, 141 Neb. 230, 3 N.W.2d 403. Other cases are cited in 5 John Marshall Law Quarterly, p. 373; Notes, 110 A.L.R. 250, and 121 A.L.R. 119; McVicar v. Peters, 12 Wn.2d 92, 120 P.2d 485, supra. Many other cases might be cited here, but we deem it unnecessary as they are included in the above-cited authorities.

There are cases which hold that the agreement is void in any event if the mortgagee agreed with the Home Owners' Loan Corporation to accept its bonds in full settlement of his claim: Cook v. Donner, 145 Kans. 674, 66 P.2d 587; Chaves County Building Loan Assn. v. Hodges, 40 N. Mex. 326, 59 P.2d 671.Sirman v. Sloss Realty Co., 198 Ark. 534, 129 S.W.2d 602; Shivers v. Liberty Building-Loan Assn., 16 Cal.2d 296, 106 P.2d 4; Lavery v. Rizza, 126 Conn. 132, 9 A.2d 819; Chicago Title Trust Co. v. Szymanski, 289 Ill. App. 600, 7 N.E.2d 608; Brown v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 331 Ill. App. 490, 36 N.E.2d 612; Bay City Bank v. White, 283 Mich. 267, 277 N.W. 888; Ridge Investment Corporation v. Nicolosi, 15 N.J. Misc. 569, 193 A. 710; Smith v. Redwine, ___ Tenn. ___, 168 S.W.2d 185; McVicar v. Peters, 12 Wn.2d 92, 120 P.2d 485; Ganchoff v. Bullock, 234 Wis. 613, 291 N.W. 837. There are some authorities which hold that the agreement is valid even if not disclosed to the Home Owners' Loan Corporation: McMillan v. Palmer, 198 Ark. 805, 131 S.W.2d 943; Krause v. Swanson, 141 Neb. 251, 3 N.W.2d 407.

Often appraisals were made when values were low but expected rise in value with improved economic conditions afforded some hope that by obtaining the relief offered by H.O.L.C. the owner might eventually save his home by paying off both H.O.L.C. and the balance due the original mortgagee. These views accord with our recent holding in Smith v. Redwine, Tenn. App., 168 S.W.2d 185, 186, where Judge Burnett, speaking for this Section of the Court, said: "The courts have uniformly held that secret second liens to a senior lien of the H.O.L.C. are void and unenforceable. McAllister v. Drapeau, 14 Cal.2d 102, 92 P.2d 911, 125 A.L.R. 800; and numerous authorities therein cited. But where the second lien was taken by the creditor with full knowledge of the H.O.L.C., it has been uniformly held that they are valid and enforceable.