Hendrix v. Nesbitt
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 108 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL FROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The action to enforce the mortgage upon the Nicholas county land could only he maintained in that county. (Civil Code, sec. 62; Webb v. Wright, 1 Bush, 107.) 2. The court should have sustained exceptions to report of sale because the sale was not advertised as required by the judgment.
Read the full summary
Case 108 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL FROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The action to enforce the mortgage upon the Nicholas county land could only he maintained in that county. (Civil Code, sec. 62; Webb v. Wright, 1 Bush, 107.) 2. The court should have sustained exceptions to report of sale because the sale was not advertised as required by the judgment. The commissioner was required to advertise the sale in the same way that execution sales are required to be advertised, which is by written notice. A printed notice is not a compliance with the statute. (Gen. Stats., chap. 38, art. 12, sec 2,…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OP THE COURT.
In 1886 T. J. Hendrix, to secure payment of various debts lie owed J. M. Nesbitt, executed a mortgage on *654a tract of land containing seventy-five acres, and on Ms half interest in a tract of three hundred and seventy acres, both being situated in Bath county. In 1877, to indemnify J. M. Nesbitt as surety in certain sale bonds he subsequently paid off, T. J. Hendrix executed another mortgage on a lot of land situated in Nicholas county, and on his half interest in the tract of three hundred and seventy acres, J. N. Hendrix, joint owner, uniting hr…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hedger v. AllmoslechnerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1939
- First Connecticut Small Business Investment Co. v. HoffmanConnecticut Superior Court · 1970