Lee v. Vanmeter

• Decision Date: 20 September 1895
• Citation: 98 Ky. 1,32 S.W. 137
• Parties: LEE et al. v. VANMETER et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

32 S.W. 137

98 Ky. 1

LEE et al. v. VANMETER et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 20, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Marion county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Minnie McAfee against A. Lee and others on a note, and to enforce certain liens. Vanmeter & Estes were afterwards made parties. From the judgment therein rendered, A. Lee and others appeal, and Vanmeter & Estes prosecute a cross appeal. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Thompson & McChord, for appellants.

H. P Cooper, for appellees.

GUFFY J.

It appears from this record that appellants, A. Lee et al., were the sureties of A. R. Russell, railroad tax collector for Marion county, and paid, as such, $2,000, for which sum said Russell executed to them his note for $2,000, dated 8th January, 1891, due 8th January, 1893, interest from date, and on same day mortgaged to appellants some horses and mares to secure the payment of said note, which mortgage was duly recorded in the proper office, and, in addition to the ordinary covenants, stipulated that said Russell should, at his own expense, use due care in raising and developing said horse stock and their increase, and keep same in good condition. It seems that appellants Lee and others assigned the said note to Minnie McAfee as collateral security for $2,000, with which to make said payment for Russell. Some time after the execution of the mortgage, it is claimed, said Russell employed appellees, Vanmeter & Estes, livery stable men, to train, develop, and feed said stock; that on the 9th of January, 1893, the said McAfee entered suit in the Marion circuit court for her note against A. Lee, etc., and soon afterwards, by amended petition, sought to enforce her liens upon stock embraced in said mortgage. In that suit appellees became parties, and claimed a lien on the stock in contest superior to the mortgage lien, for $202.90 due them for booting and training, and $225 for feeding and attention to said stock in contest. Some of the stock had been disposed of, and some increase had accrued. Some other questions were made and settled, which need not be noticed. The court below decided against appellees as to the lien for $202.90 for booting, etc., but adjudged that appellees had a lien on the stock for $225, for feed, etc., superior to the mortgage lien; and appellants, A. Lee et al., have appealed from the judgment so awarding the lien for the $225, and appellees,...