Barbee v. Fox
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 323 — EQUITY APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHAKCERY COURT. L The paper filed by appellees, styled an answer and cross-petition, is. not a motion to have the action re-tried, and appellees not having complied with the law by appearing and moving to have the action re-tried within the time prescribed by law, are deprived of any right to make defense.
Read the full summary
Case 323 — EQUITY APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHAKCERY COURT. L The paper filed by appellees, styled an answer and cross-petition, is. not a motion to have the action re-tried, and appellees not having complied with the law by appearing and moving to have the action re-tried within the time prescribed by law, are deprived of any right to make defense. (Kinney v. O’Bannon, 6 Bush, 692.) 2. The report which the order of June 24th, 1870, confirms, expressly reserves the right to redeem, which is equivalent to an express reservation of that right in the order. 3. The court should have confirmed that…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Lewis
In 1855 McAtee brought an action in the Louisville chancery court under an act of the general assembly, entitled “An act to charter the city of Louisville," approved March 24, 1851, for the purpose of enforcing his lien as-contractor upon certain lots of land belonging to Thos. W. Fox. In pursuance of the judgment rendered in the action, the lots were, February 23, 1857, sold by the marshal of the court, and purchased by appellant Barbee. The sale was reported to court, approved, and confirmed, and a deed made to appellant.
Thos. W. Fox was at the time a non-resident of the state, and before…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Back v. Bank of JamestownCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
- Bess v. HaganCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1885
- Lingenfelter v. Carlisle's Admr.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1883
- Randall v. L. B. Redd & Bros.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1886