Land v. Salem Bank
| Decision Date | 23 June 1939 |
| Citation | 279 Ky. 449,130 S.W.2d 818 |
| Parties | LAND v. SALEM BANK. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Livingston County; Chas. H. Wilson Judge.
Action to set aside a deed by Salem Bank against W. S. Land and others. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant, W S. Land, appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Berry & Reed, of Paducah, and H. Pate Wells, of Smithland, for appellants.
Charles Ferguson, of Smithland, for appellee.
CREAL Commissioner.
W. S. Land is appealing from a judgment setting side and holding void a deed from J. C. Sullivant and wife to him, dated February 19, 1934, and purporting to convey three tracts of land containing altogether approximately 316 acres.
The action was instituted by the Salem Bank against J. C. Sullivant and wife, W. S. Land and wife, and five other defendants, the petition setting up five notes against J. C. Sullivant and the defendants, other than those above named, which had been executed to the bank prior to the time the deed to Land was made. Apparently J. C. Sullivant was the principal in some of these notes and surety in others. It also set up a judgment for $1,469 rendered April 13, 1932, in its favor against A. F. Ward, T. L. Sullivant and J. C. Sullivant, in an action of the Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank against A. F. Ward, et al., in which it was adjudged that the Louisville Joint Stock Lank Bank had a first lien on certain land of A. F. Ward and that the Salem Bank had a second lien to secure their respective indebtedness and the land was ordered sold to satisfy the indebtedness. The record does not disclose what further proceedings were had for the enforcement of the judgment in that action. The entire indebtedness asserted against J. C. Sullivant and the other defendants who were parties to the notes and judgment aggregated something over $3,500. It was further alleged in the petition that the conveyance from Sullivant and wife to W. S. Land was made without valuable consideration and with intent to delay, hinder and defraud the creditors of Sullivant. It prayed judgment for the amount of the indebtedness set out against defendants and that the deed from Sullivant and wife to Land be set aside and held for nought; that it be adjudged a lien against the real estate described in the deed and in the petition and for the enforcement of the lien, etc.
Plaintiff filed a lis pendens notice as provided by law and later by amended petition made Allie Hughes and Calvin Corley parties, alleging that after the institution of the action and the filing of the lis pendens notice, W. S. Land and wife executed a mortgage to Hughes and Corley on the land in controversy and asked that that mortgage be cancelled and set aside; and later in a second amended petition found in the record with a notation that same was controverted, the bank and the trustee in bankruptcy of J. C. Sullivant, who had intervened, alleged that if the conveyance complained of was made for a valuable or any consideration (which was denied), it was so made and the property so conveyed with notice to the grantee of the fraudulent intent of the grantor; that the grantee knew of facts that would have put him on inquiry and were sufficient to constitute notice to him and that the consideration was insufficient and constituted notice of fraud.
By answer to the original petition, W. S. Land traversed the allegations thereof and alleged in substance that he purchased the land in controversy for a valuable consideration and without notice of any purpose of the grantor to cheat, hinder and delay his creditors and without knowledge of facts that would bring notice of such to him.
Allie Hughes and Calvin Corley by their separate answers denied the allegations of the second amended petition as against them. T. M. Vickers, administrator of the estate of A. M. Robertson, deceased, filed an intervening petition alleging that J. C. Sullivant was indebted to the estate of his decedent in a sum set forth in the petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mcbrearty v. Kentucky Commu. Tech. College
...if the person would be a necessary party for further proceedings in the circuit court if the judgment were reversed. Land v. Salem Bank, 279 Ky. 449, 130 S.W.2d 818 (1939); Hammond v. Department for Human Resources, 652 S.W.2d 91 (Ky.App.1983). We agree with KCTCS that the individual defend......
-
Fournier v. City of Lawrenceburg, No. 2007-CA-000490-MR (Ky. App. 4/11/2008)
...if the person would be a necessary party for further proceedings in the circuit court if the judgment were reversed. Land v. Salem Bank, 279 Ky. 449, 130 S.W.2d 818 (1939); Hammond v. Department For Human Resources, 652 S.W.2d 91 (Ky.App. In the case at bar, Fournier only named the City of ......
-
Watkins-El v. Ryan, No. 2006-CA-000268-MR (Ky. App. 4/27/2007)
...is not a party to the appeal. Clark Equipment Co., Inc. v. Bowman, 762 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Ky.App. 1988). See also, Land v. Salem Bank, 279 Ky. 449, 130 S.W.2d 818 (1939); Yocum v. Hamilton, 494 S.W.2d 731 (Ky. 1973); Schulz v. Chadwell, 548 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Ky.App. 1977); Boyle County Fiscal ......
-
Kesler v. Shehan
...a specific bequest pursuant to the will and each also had a one-twelfth interest in the residue of the estate. Land v. Salem Bank, 279 Ky. 449, 130 S.W.2d 818 (1939), holds that for purposes of appeal, a person is a necessary party if the person would be a necessary party for further procee......