Newman v. Ecton
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
*Case 90 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION. 1. The sale could not have been had under the provisions of sec. 491 of the Civil Code, because the estate is not a “particular estate,” but a defeasible fee as held by this court in Ecton v. Smith, 6 Ky.
Read the full summary
*Case 90 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION. 1. The sale could not have been had under the provisions of sec. 491 of the Civil Code, because the estate is not a “particular estate,” but a defeasible fee as held by this court in Ecton v. Smith, 6 Ky. L. R„ 216. 2. The Code was intended to furnish a complete system of laws in a condensed-form relating to pleading and practice, and by its express provisions laws within the purview of its provisions are repealed. (Civil Code, sec. 838 Broadus v. Broadus, 10 Bush, 307.) 1. The repealing clause of the General…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion op the court.
In the case of Ecton v. Smith, decided in September, 1884 (6 Ky.L.R.,216), it was held that the character *654of estate held by Alice Ecton, etc., under her father’s will was a defeasible fee. At the suit of Ecton and his wife, Alice, this estate, or a part of it, was sold in a proceeding conforming to the requirements of chapter 63, General Statutes, article 6, and the lots purchased by the appellant. It is insisted that the adoption of the Code of Practice repealed the General Statutes in so far as it affected sales of contingent interest in land or…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McClure v. CrumeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
- Ecton v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1884
- Osborne v. Osborne's TrusteesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920