Ford v. Mayo
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 14 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT. No act or statement of appellant that amounts to an estoppel is proved. As to the elements necessary to constitute an estoppel, see Bigelow on Estoppel, 480; Biddle v. Mercie Mining Co., 14 Cal., 279; Wood v. Miller, 37 Pa.
Read the full summary
Case 14 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT. No act or statement of appellant that amounts to an estoppel is proved. As to the elements necessary to constitute an estoppel, see Bigelow on Estoppel, 480; Biddle v. Mercie Mining Co., 14 Cal., 279; Wood v. Miller, 37 Pa. St., 379; Hamilton v. Central Ohio R. Co., 44 Md„ 551; Continental Bank v. Bank of Commonwealth, 50 N. Y., 575; Blair v. Wait, 69 N. Y., 112; 6 Wait’s Actions and Defenses, pp. 680, 684, 685; Rudd v. Matthews, 79 Ky., 479. 1. Appellant having stood by and seen the property in controversy sold without asserting…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered tiie opinion oe the court.
The appellant, in 1876, purchased at decretal sale a *84lot described as No. 40, in square 4, in the town of Catlettsburg. After said sale Avas confirmed and deed made, R. B. McCall purchased at another decretal sale in the same suit a lot described as No. 8, in square 4. After the confirmation of said sale McCall sold said lot to the appellee, who improved the same. Thereafter the appellant instituted this action of ejectment to recover the possession of said lot. He contends that the lot that he purchased as No. 40 is really lot No. 8 that was…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Valentine v. LamontNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1953
- O'Meara v. McDermottMontana Supreme Court · 1909
- Valentine v. LamontNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952