Thompson v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Thompson v. Taylor

28 Ky. 398, 5 J.J. Marsh. 398, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 51

DecidedApril 8, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Ky. 398 (Thompson v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Taylor, 28 Ky. 398, 5 J.J. Marsh. 398, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 51 (Ky. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Buckner,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendants in error, filed their hill in chancery against Thompson, to foreclose his equity of redemption in a tract of land, which he had conveyed to them by deed of Mortgage.

The court rendered a decree in their favor, and appointed a commissioner to sell and convey the mortgaged premises, unless the amount mentioned in tire decree should be paid, on or before a day appointed, which was not in term-time. The commissioner made a sale of as much of the land as satisfied the decree; and a deed of conveyance was executed to the purchaser. His report was returned 1.0 court with the deed, which were confirmed, and the deed ordered to be recorded; io reverse which, Thompson prosecutes this writ of error. The decree ought to have appointed a day in,term-time, for the payment of the money, so [399]*399ib;it the court might determine, whether it hud been made.

M o nroe., for plaintiff.

Bui, U is now too late to rectify the error; because a reversal of the dec-ee could not affect the validity of -he sale, and could, therefore, be productive of no beneficial consequence. ■

The decree must be affirmed with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judge Buckner,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendants in error, filed their hill in chancery against Thompson, to foreclose his equity of redemption in a tract of land, which he had conveyed to them by deed of Mortgage.

The court rendered a decree in their favor, and appointed a commissioner to sell and convey the mortgaged premises, unless the amount mentioned in tire decree should be paid, on or before a day appointed, which was not in term-time. The commissioner made a sale of as much of the land as satisfied the decree; and a deed of conveyance was executed to the purchaser. His report was returned 1.0 court with the deed, which were confirmed, and the deed ordered to be recorded; io reverse which, Thompson prosecutes this writ of error. The decree ought to have appointed a day in,term-time, for the payment of the money, so [399]*399ib;it the court might determine, whether it hud been made.

M o nroe., for plaintiff.

Bui, U is now too late to rectify the error; because a reversal of the dec-ee could not affect the validity of -he sale, and could, therefore, be productive of no beneficial consequence. ■

The decree must be affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Ky. 398, 5 J.J. Marsh. 398, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-taylor-kyctapp-1831.