Williamson v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Williamson v. Jones

2 Ky. Op. 97, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 417

DecidedJuly 2, 1867

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ky. Op. 97 (Williamson v. Jones) 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

Williamson v. Jones, 2 Ky. Op. 97, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 417 (Ky. Ct. App. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Bobertson:

The appellee’s house and two lots, worth, as we may infer, at least $1,000, were sold for about $127 by an unusually precipitate procedure against him as a non-resident, without actual notice. The judgment for the sale and confirmation of it was erroneous for at least two reasons: First, there was no affidavit that the appellee had no personal property sufficient to pay the debt, as required by the 251st section of the Oode of Practice, and a decision thereon in Payne against Witherspoon cited in the notes. Second — Beasonable time for excepting to the report of sale was not allowed. This court has never recognized less than three days as reasonable time; but, in this case¿ the report was prematurely confirmed the day after it was filed.

Wherefore, the judgments of sale and confirmation were erroneous, and are therefore reversed. The creditor having been the purchaser, this reversal would entitle the appellee to restitution of the property sold, had there been no transfer to the appellant. And, as he was only substituting as the purchaser, he must, as hitherto adjudged, be considered and treated as standing in his shoes.

[98]*98Wherefore, the Circuit Court properly vacated the conveyance to him; and we see no error in the allowance of rents.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Bobertson:

The appellee’s house and two lots, worth, as we may infer, at least $1,000, were sold for about $127 by an unusually precipitate procedure against him as a non-resident, without actual notice. The judgment for the sale and confirmation of it was erroneous for at least two reasons: First, there was no affidavit that the appellee had no personal property sufficient to pay the debt, as required by the 251st section of the Oode of Practice, and a decision thereon in Payne against Witherspoon cited in the notes. Second — Beasonable time for excepting to the report of sale was not allowed. This court has never recognized less than three days as reasonable time; but, in this case¿ the report was prematurely confirmed the day after it was filed.

Wherefore, the judgments of sale and confirmation were erroneous, and are therefore reversed. The creditor having been the purchaser, this reversal would entitle the appellee to restitution of the property sold, had there been no transfer to the appellant. And, as he was only substituting as the purchaser, he must, as hitherto adjudged, be considered and treated as standing in his shoes.

[98]*98Wherefore, the Circuit Court properly vacated the conveyance to him; and we see no error in the allowance of rents.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ky. Op. 97, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-jones-kyctapp-1867.