Castleman v. Buckner

• Decision Date: 30 April 1918
• Citation: 202 S.W. 681,180 Ky. 350
• Parties: CASTLEMAN ET AL. v. BUCKNER ET AL.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

202 S.W. 681

180 Ky. 350

CASTLEMAN ET AL. v. BUCKNER ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 30, 1918

Appeal from Circuit Court, Boone County.

Suit by Buckner's trustee and others against John E. Buckner and others, in which there was a sale of property to T. B Castleman, exceptions to which by the purchaser and the guardian of infant defendants were filed; and from the ruling thereon both exceptors appeal. Affirmed.

D. E Castleman, of Erlanger, for appellants.

S. W Tolin, of Burlington, for appellees.

THOMAS J.

This is the second appeal of this case, the first one being reported under the style of Buckner's Trustee et al. v Buckner et al., 168 Ky. 302, 181 S.W. 1107. The suit was brought under the provisions of section 498 of the Civil Code of Practice to sell a lot in the town of Florence, Boone county, Ky. consisting of about three acres, the title to which is held by the trustee for the life of John Buckner with the remainder to his children and in the way specified in the section of the Code referred to.

The provisions of the section of the Code authorizing the sale seems to have been substantially followed, and in the first sale under the judgment the present appellant became the purchaser at the price of $750, which was duly reported by the master commissioner who made the sale; but before it was confirmed the infant defendants filed exceptions upon the ground that the amount of the bid was grossly inadequate, the property having been appraised in that sale at the sum of $1,500. The exceptions were overruled by the trial court, and from that order an appeal was prosecuted to this court, and in its opinion in the case referred to the judgment was reversed upon the ground that the exceptions to the sale should have been sustained. No other question was determined, and, under the well-recognized rule of practice prevailing in this state, all other questions which were raised, or could have been raised, are now res adjudicata. Upon a return of the case, another sale was ordered, which was duly made by the master commissioner, and the appellant again became the purchaser at the sum of $850, which was reported by the officer making the sale. Both the purchaser and the infants by their statutory guardian filed exceptions to this last sale, each of which was overruled, and from that judgment each of the exceptors prosecutes an appeal.

The exceptions filed by the appellant are that the provisions of the section of the Code under which the sale was ordered were not...