Hankins v. Hankins' Admr.

• Decision Date: 26 January 1917
• Citation: 173 Ky. 475
• Parties: Hankins, et al. v. Hankins' Administrator, et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

173 Ky. 475

Hankins, et al. v. Hankins' Administrator, et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided January 26, 1917.

Appeal from Muhlenberg Circuit Court.

WALKER WILKINS for appellants.

BELCHER & BELCHER for appellees.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY WILLIAM ROGERS CLAY, COMMISSIONER — Reversing.

Maud Hankins, Eva Hankins Felts, J. W. Hankins and Oma Hankins were the owners of five tracts of land. Maud Hankins, Eva Hankins Felts and her husband, Dr. Logan Felts, brought suit in the Muhlenberg circuit court against J. W. Hankins and his wife, Eva Hankins, and Oma Hankins, an infant over fourteen years of age, to sell the five tracts of land, on the ground that they could not be divided among the several owners without materially impairing the value of each interest therein. Judgment was entered on April 21st, 1911, ordering a sale of the land. Said land was subsequently sold and T. H. Hansford became the purchaser. After the sale had taken place and the purchaser had executed bonds for the purchase price, but before the sale was confirmed, J. W. Hankins died intestate and without issue, leaving surviving him his widow, Eva Hankins, and Maud Hankins, Eva Hankins Felts and Oma Hankins, as his only heirs at law. George W. Milam was appointed his administrator. Later on, an order purporting to have been entered by consent was entered, reviving the action against George W. Milam, administrator of J. W. Hankins, and Maud Hankins, Eva Hankins Felts and Oma Hankins, the heirs of J. W. Hankins. By the same order the sale was confirmed and the purchaser directed to pay to Maud Hankins, Eva Hankins Felts and Oma Hankins jointly that part of the proceeds due to the said J. W. Hankins, deceased.

Some time thereafter, George W. Milam, as administrator of J. W. Hankins, deceased, and Mrs. Eva Hankins, widow of J. W. Hankins, brought this suit against Maud Hankins, Eva Hankins Felts and her husband, Dr. Logan Felts, Oma Hankins, an infant over fourteen years of age, T. H. Hansford and his wife, M. A. Hansford, to set aside the order of revival in the above case and all orders subsequent thereto, on the ground that the order of revival was not entered by consent, but was obtained by fraud of the plaintiffs. Proof was heard and the chancellor granted the prayer of the petition. From the judgment so entered the defendants appeal.

In view of the conclusion of the court, we deem it unnecessary to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to show that Milam, the...