Legal Opinion · Dissent

McFall v. Ford

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided October 10, 1931No. 29,752Published

1DissentHarvey, J.

I accord with the view that appellant’s contention for the definition of the word “sold,” as used in R. S. 60-3460, cannot be sustained, and that to do so would destroy the force of the section. My view is that it means a confirmed sale as distinct from the sale alone. But this distinction is without practical difference, so far as this case is concerned. The section provides, in short, that real estate once sold shall not again be liable for sale (1) for any balance due on the judgment under which it had been sold, (2) or for “any judgment or lien inferior thereto and under which the holder…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stacey v. TuckerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1927
  2. Shrigley v. BlackSupreme Court of Kansas · 1903
  3. State Bank v. MartySupreme Court of Kansas · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API