Baskett v. Sellars
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Cask 2 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT. The word “children,” as used in the deed presented for construction by the court, is a word of purchase and not of limitation.
Read the full summary
Cask 2 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT. The word “children,” as used in the deed presented for construction by the court, is a word of purchase and not of limitation. (1 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “Habendum; ” 4 Kent, 468; Webb, &c., v. Harris, &c., 3 B. M., 404; Carr and Wife v. Estill, 16 B. M., 308; Johnson v. Johnson, &c., 2 Met., 331; True v. Nicholls, 2 Duv., 547; Cessua, &e., v. Cessua’s Adms’r. &e., 4 Bush, 516.) Tlie word “children” was used in the deed in the sense of heirs; but if not so used the habendum is inconsistent with the granting clause, and where…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion oe the court.
A. H. B. Early executed mortgages to the appellees on the tract of land in controversy. The fee-simple title of the land was sold hy the Commissioner of the Henderson Circuit Court pursuant to a judgment of that court foreclosing said mortgages. The appellant purchased said land at the decretal sale. He filed exceptions to the report of sale, disclosing the fact that the mortgagor, A. H. B. Early, owned only a life estate in said land, remainder to any children that she might have.
The granting clause in the deed under which A. H. B. Early held…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bodine's Adm'rs v. ArthurCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
- Ratliffe v. MarrsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1888
3Cited by12 opinions
- May v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1919
- Utter v. SidmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Hall v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1905
- Beedy v. FinneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- McFarland v. HatchettCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.