Wooldridge v. Jacob's guardian
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Oase 47 — EQUITY APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. The court below erred in adjudging the purchaser’s response insuffi- ■ cient. 2. An infant should have the privilege of redemption, inasmuch as he cannot control the sale of his land. 1. The act of 1878 does not apply to this case. The only object of that act is to protect a judgment debtor against the sacrifice of his land at execution sale. 2. The sale is not void, even if the act does apply to the case.
Read the full summary
Oase 47 — EQUITY APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. The court below erred in adjudging the purchaser’s response insuffi- ■ cient. 2. An infant should have the privilege of redemption, inasmuch as he cannot control the sale of his land. 1. The act of 1878 does not apply to this case. The only object of that act is to protect a judgment debtor against the sacrifice of his land at execution sale. 2. The sale is not void, even if the act does apply to the case. (Watson. v. Yiolett, 2 Duv., 333.)
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Cofer
Although the language of the act of April .9, 1878 (Acts. 1878, page 122), is, that before any real estate shall be sold under an order or judgment of a court, it shall be valued, and if it does not sell for two thirds of such valuation, the-defendant or his represefttatives may redeem it, it was not. intended to apply to a case like this, in which the real estate-of a ward is sold on the petition of the guardian under article-3. chapter 63, General Statutes..
Real estate sold under execution was required to be valued,, and the defendant had the right to redeem within twelvemonths, unless it…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Graves v. LongCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1888
- Cantrill v. Perry's Admr.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1885
- Lisle's Administrator v. LisleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1919
- Ware's Guardian v. WareCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930
- McCool v. O'BrienCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1942