Bradford v. Jones

• Decision Date: 31 October 1912
• Parties: BRADFORD v. JONES et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

150 S.W. 387

150 Ky. 355

BRADFORD v. JONES et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 31, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Whitley County.

Action by Clinton Bradford against M. B. Jones and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

See also, 148 Ky. 50, 145 S.W. 1105.

E. L Stephens and Henry Bond, both of Williamsburg, for appellant.

Tye &amp Siler, of Williamsburg, for appellees.

CLAY C.

On February 6, 1904, plaintiff, Clinton Bradford, sold a lot of ground in the city of Williamsburg to M. B. Jones. The consideration was $100 cash and two notes, one for $100 payable six months from date, and one for $50, payable 12 months from date, each bearing interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum from date until paid, and secured by a lien on the property conveyed. Subsequently Jones sold the property to Al Angel.

Plaintiff brought this action against defendants M. B. Jones and Al Angel to enforce his vendor's lien. Jones filed an answer, set-off, and counterclaim, pleading, in substance that plaintiff had conveyed the land to him with covenant of general warranty; that on the 3d day of August, 1904, one S. Stanfill instituted an action in the Whitley circuit court, wherein he asserted paramount title to a portion of the property conveyed; that defendant gave plaintiff due notice of the pendency of the action, and requested him to defend; that plaintiff had notice of the pendency of the action and of the nature thereof for a sufficient length of time prior to the trial to afford him an opportunity to defend the same; that the action came on for hearing, and was tried by a jury at the regular November term, 1906, of the Whitley circuit court; that plaintiff was present, and testified for defendant at the trial of the action; that the jury was impaneled, trial had, and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff, Stanfill, for a certain portion of the land conveyed by plaintiff, Bradford, to defendant, and more particularly described in the answer; that thereupon Stanfill, by virtue of his judgment, took possession of that part of the land recovered by him, and ousted defendant therefrom. Said land, from the possession of which defendant was so deprived and ousted, was a part of the land conveyed by the plaintiff, Bradford, to defendant, and was the most valuable part of the land so conveyed. The answer then sets forth certain improvements erected by defendant upon the...