Bean v. Meguiar

• Decision Date: 06 February 1895
• Parties: BEAN et al. v. MEGUIAR et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

29 S.W. 306

BEAN et al. v. MEGUIAR et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 6, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Meguiar, Helm & Co. against Ann E. Bean and others to recover a tract of land. From a decree made, setting aside a sheriff's deed to plaintiffs, and ordering a sale of so much of the interest of defendant Ann E. Bean in the land as would pay the amount bid by plaintiffs at the sheriff's sale, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

O'Rear & Bigstaff, for appellants.

Tyler &amp Apperson, for appellees.

GUFFY J.

This suit was brought in the Montgomery circuit court by appellees to recover a tract of land alleged to be in the possession of appellants, and which appellees had purchased at execution sale made by virtue of an execution in favor of R. Reid Rogers against Ann E. Bean, who was, as charged by plaintiffs, the owner of a life estate in said land. Appellants resisted the recovery upon the ground that the execution sale was defective, and that the sheriff's deed to appellees conferred no title, and because appellants acquired title under the will of James Bean, deceased, and that Ann E. Bean did not acquire any interest in the land that could be subjected to the payment of her debts, and pleaded and filed a copy of the will with their answer. The cause was finally transferred to equity, and upon final hearing the court adjudged that the execution sale was invalid, and set aside the same, and canceled the sheriff's deed made to appellees, and also adjudged that appellant Ann E. Bean had a life estate in said lands subject to sale for her debts, less a homestead right of $1,000; that the levy of the execution thereon was valid; and that appellees were entitled to a lien on said estate for the sum bid for the land at the said sale, viz. $501.97, besides interest and cost,-and adjudged a sale of enough of said interest, as appraised, to pay same. Appellants have appealed to this court.

The copy of the will is not copied in the record; hence, it must be presumed by this court that the will authorized the judgment of the court below. See Huffaker v. Bank, 13 Bush, 644; also, case of Bowman v. Holloway, 14 Bush, 426. This being true, and it appearing that the execution was valid, and that appellees had paid the amount bid for the life estate in the land, the judgment of the court below seems to be in accordance with the law and...