Finley v. Spratt & Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 19 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL EEOM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. Section 3, article 2, chapter 52, General Statutes, differs from section 2, article 2, chapter 47, Revised Statutes, in that the following is inserted for the first time in said section 3, to wit, “ but the conveyance must be acknowledged and recorded in the manner and time required by the chapter of this revision on the subject of conveyances.”
Read the full summary
Case 19 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL EEOM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. Section 3, article 2, chapter 52, General Statutes, differs from section 2, article 2, chapter 47, Revised Statutes, in that the following is inserted for the first time in said section 3, to wit, “ but the conveyance must be acknowledged and recorded in the manner and time required by the chapter of this revision on the subject of conveyances.” The foregoing words were put in said section for a purpose, to limit' the power of conveyance given by the first clause of said section. 2. A married woman’s deed can not fall within…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HINES
delivered the opinion oe the court.
For the purpose of securing the payment of $780, due in twelve months, with interest, E. F. Finley and wife executed and acknowledged, January 1, 1875, to Spratt & Co., a mortgage on a certain parcel of land in the city of Louisville belonging to Mrs. Finley. Suit was instituted by Spratt & Co. on the 1st day of July, 1876, to foreclose the mortgage and for personal judgment. The pleadings being completed, and showing that the mortgage was not recorded or lodged for record until the 10th of July, 1876, the principal issue presented was whether the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mounts v. MountsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Crawford v. TateCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899
- Dugan v. CornCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1884