Earl v. Porter

Opinion by

Judge Hines:

As the appeal here is from the judgment directing the sale, and not from the order confirming it, a reversal could not affect the title of the purchaser, notwithstanding the fact that the purchaser was an attorney of record in the case, and must be presumed to be cognizant of whatever defect there may have been in the proceeding. Although the purchaser may be a party to the action he acquires the same rights by purchase under the decree as if he were a stranger to- the record. The case of Miller v. Hall, 1 Bush (Ky.) 229, is practically overruled in Yocum v. Foreman, 14…