Makemson v. Braun
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 15 — RULE— APPEAL FROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The fact that the first sale at which appellee made his bid was not reported to the court by the master and acted on before the subsequent sale which was confirmed, is no reason why the bidder should not account for the difference. Watson’s Admr. v. Violett, 2 Duvall, 333; Am. & Eng.
Read the full summary
Case 15 — RULE— APPEAL FROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The fact that the first sale at which appellee made his bid was not reported to the court by the master and acted on before the subsequent sale which was confirmed, is no reason why the bidder should not account for the difference. Watson’s Admr. v. Violett, 2 Duvall, 333; Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 12, pp. 233-4. 1. The bidder or purchaser at a decretal sale does not thereby become tbe owner of the property, hut is nothing more than a preferred bidder or proposer for the purchase, depending upon the acceptance of the bid by the…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE GUFFY
delivered the opinion oe the court.
J. W. Makemson assignee of Jas. J. Braun, Jr., brought suit in the Pendleton Circuit Court for the settlement of the estate of Braun, assigned to him for the benefit of creditors, and in said suit a judgment was entered directing the master commissioner to sell a certain tract of land.
At the October term, 1894, of the said court the commissioner made report of sale. The report shows that on the 3d day of September, 1894, he offered the land for sale, and that J. J. Braun bid the sum of $8,100 for the entire tract of 180 1-2 acres of land, also to…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Hruska v. FaheySupreme Court of Iowa · 1941
- Walker v. GravesTennessee Supreme Court · 1939
- Blakeley's Admx v. HughesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
- Cowper v. Weaver's Admr.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1905
- Hundley v. SumrallCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.