Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick
Mississippi Supreme Court
On appeal from the superior chancery court; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor. The opinion of the court gives a sufficient statement of the facts of the case. A purchaser at sheriff’s sale is supposed to take property with all its encumbrances, and there is no defence in this respect between real and personal property.
Read the full summary
On appeal from the superior chancery court; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor. The opinion of the court gives a sufficient statement of the facts of the case. A purchaser at sheriff’s sale is supposed to take property with all its encumbrances, and there is no defence in this respect between real and personal property. Calmes v. Forel, 6 S. & M. 190. A purchaser at a sheriff’s sale is affected with all the equities which bound the person whose equity he purchases; and is in fact not within the rule which protects a purchaser without notice. Dev. & Bat. 436; 1 Tuck. Com. B. 2, 362, and…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice ShaRkey
The appellant, who was complainant, sold a tract of land, containing about six hundred acres, to defendant Eleazer, in February, 1839, for £5000, and conveyed by deed. To secure the purchase, he took three promissory notes of defendant, but received no other security. The object of the bill is'to enforce the vendor’s lien. As between the two Kilpatricks, the case is well enough made out to entitle the complainant to the relief prayed. But William C. Kyle claims to hold the land free from the vendor’s lien. It seems that judgment was recovered against Eleazer in 1839, shortly after he…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bayley v. GreenleafSupreme Court of the United States · 1822
- Beekman v. FrostNew York Supreme Court · 1820
- Irvine v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kelly v. MillsMississippi Supreme Court · 1866
- Simmons v. Standard Publishing Co.Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1897