Martin v. Turner
| Decision Date | 03 February 1909 |
| Parties | MARTIN et al. v. TURNER. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Floyd County.
"Not to be officially reported."
Suit by Ballard Martin and others, children of Job Martin, against Preston Turner, to quiet title to land which A. J. Davidson also sought to sell for a purchase-money note of Job Martin through whom plaintiffs claimed. From the judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiffs and Davidson appeal. Affirmed on plaintiffs' appeal, and reversed or Davidson's appeal.
May & May, for appellants.
James Goble, for appellee.
On December 15, 1887, J. M. Lackey sold and conveyed to F. S Martin a tract of several hundred acres of land in Floyd county. Martin paid about one-half the purchase money and executed a note for the balance. On May 30, 1891, F. S Martin, having fallen in debt to J. B. Turner in the sum of $1,500, executed to him a title bond by which he sold Turner, in satisfaction of his debt, about 225 acres of the tract which Lackey had conveyed to him. On June 1, 1896, F. S. Martin and wife sold and conveyed to Job Martin 75 acres of the land which was included in the boundary covered by the bond to Turner. The purchase-money note to Lackey was still unpaid. Job Martin agreed to pay $350 for the land. He paid down $150, which was credited on the Lackey note, and executed a note for $200 more, which A. J. Davidson, who then held the Lackey note, agreed to accept. Davidson released his lien on the 75 acres, and on February 3, 1897, J. B. Turner having fallen in debt to Max Stadler & Co., they brought suit against him for the debt and attached the tract of land covered by the bond which F. S. Martin had executed to him. Their attachment was sustained. The land was sold and was bought by them. They on January 20, 1898, assigned their bid to Preston Turner, who was a son of J. B. Turner. Preston Turner filed his assignment in the suit in which the sale had been made and moved the court to make him a deed. At this juncture, F. S. Martin, who had been a party to the action from the beginning, filed a petition setting up that he had been overreached in the execution of the bond to Turner and had been prevented by sickness from making his defense. He asked that the judgment be set aside and the bond canceled. Issue was taken on this pleading. Job Martin brought a suit asking that his title to the 75 acres which he had bought be quieted. A. J. Davidson brought a suit setting up his purchase-money lien and asking that it be enforced. He also showed that F. S. Martin had executed a mortgage to him on the remainder of the land outside of that which was covered by the bond to J. B. Turner. He sought a foreclosure of this mortgage also. All these cases were consolidated and heard together. By a judgment entered at the September term, 1900, the court dismissed the petition of F. S. Martin. He adjudged that A. J. Davidson had a lien upon the tract of land for the balance of his purchase money, and also a lien on the part of it that was mortgaged to him for his mortgage debt; but he provided that the land outside of that sold J. B. Turner should be sold, the proceeds to be applied to Davidson's debt. The judgment then contains these words: "All questions of litigation arising between Preston Turner and Job Martin are reserved by the court for future adjudication." Then follows a judgment declaring that Preston Turner was the owner of the tract of land sold in the action, and by a subsequent order a deed was made to Preston Turner for the land, which was approved by the court. The remainder of the F. S. Martin tract was sold under the judgment, but, not bringing a satisfactory price, the sale was by consent set aside, and Davidson agreed to take it at the price of $1,900, which was agreed to by all the parties, and it was thereupon conveyed to him. The $1,900 paid the entire balance of his purchase-money lien except the note for $200, which was a lien on the 75 acres conveyed to Job Martin, and this note he had not sought to enforce, but had expressly reserved it out of the controversy, and Preston Turner by his answer in substance also prayed to same effect. After all this had been done, Job Martin died, and this suit, after his death, was brought by his children, Ballard Martin, etc., against Preston Turner, to quiet their title to the 75 acres. A. J. Davidson sought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Mitchell
...reserved by him for hearing in another case. 34 Corpus Juris, page 797; 24 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d Ed.), 776; Martin et al. v. Turner, Ky. 1909, 115 S.W. 833; Burns et al. v. Nichols, 、Tex. Civ. App. 1918, 207 S.W. 158; Hardin v. Hardin et al., 26 S.D. 601, 129 N.W. 108, Even if such a......
-
State Mortgage Corporation v. State
...Louisville (Ky.) 85 S. W. 727; State v. Liles (Tex. Civ. App.) 212 S. W. 517; Burns v. Nichols (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 158; Martin v. Turner (Ky.) 115 S. W. 833; Buhler v. Hubbell, 56 Hun, 450, 647, 10 N. Y. S. 254; Haralson v. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 62 S. W. 788; Ahlers v. Smiley, 11 ......
-
Noble v. Hubbard
...the champerty statute does not apply to judicial sales. Preston v. Breckinridge, 86 Ky. 619, 6 S.W. 641, 10 Ky. Law Rep. 2; Martin v. Turner, Ky.App., 115 S.W. 833; Anderson v. Daugherty, 182 Ky. 800, 207 S.W. Id., 169 Ky. 308, 183 S.W. 545; Lashley v. Duvall, 226 Ky. 685, 11 S.W.2d 708; Ch......
-
Sidebottom v. Mitchell
...the adjudication of that claim. I consider the circumstances here distinguishable from the complications involved in Martin et al. v. Turner, Ky., 115 S.W. 833 (1909). Our policy is to avoid a multiplicity of actions. Roy v. Roy et al., 246 Ky. 36, 54 S.W.2d 362 (1932). We do not permit a c......