Reed v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 15 April 1823 |
| Parties | Reed v. Brooks. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
A WRIT OF ERROR ON A DECREE OF THE BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT.
CRITTENDEN for plaintiff in error;
POPE and HARDIN for defendant.
1. Where the admissions of an agent are part of the res gestae, they may be given in evidence against his principal; but in no other case.
2. Inadequacy of price, however great, is not, per se, a ground for setting aside a sale of land made under execution; but evidence of such inadequacy is admissible.
3. But a judgment of the circuit court, overruling a motion to quash a sale, will not be reversed merely because the judge refused to hear evidence of inadequacy, of price, when, if he had heard it, from the want of any auxiliary facts or circumstances, the motion ought to have been overruled.
Statement of the case.
This was a motion to set aside a sale of land, made by the sheriff in virtue of an execution issued in the name of Rawson against Reed. The execution appears to have issued upon a judgment for the costs of a proceeding had at the suit of Reed against Rawson, for a forcible entry and detainer; and Brooks was the purchaser of 762 acres, parcel of a larger tract upon which the sheriff had levied the execution, at the price of $16.25, being less than the amount of the execution. Reed, the plaintiff in the motion, read, on the trial of the motion, the execution and endorsements thereon, and the sale bond, with the endorsements, which he proved were in the hand-writing of James I. Dozier, who was admitted to be the attorney at law for Rawson. It was also admitted, that Rawson was a tenant of Brooks, upon a part of the land sold; that Reed had brought a writ of forcible detainer against Rawson that the suit was dismissed and judgment given for costs, on which the execution had issued, and that Brooks had employed lawyers, and defended the suit for Rawson. Reed then offered to prove that the 762 acres of land were worth $10 per acre that James I. Dozier confessed that he tore down the advertisement put up by the sheriff, of the sale of the land that he was present with Brooks at the time the land was sold, and that Brooks was to give him $600 for his attention to the business.
To this proof Brooks objected, and the objection was sustained. Read also offered to prove that Rawson said he knew nothing of the sale of the land, until the sheriff came upon the premises with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campau v. Godfrey
...and no excuse being shown for the delay, there being no fraud shown, complainant was not entitled to relief in equity. In Reed v. Brooks, 13 Ky. 127, 3 Litt. 127, inadequacy of price, however great, was held not sufficient for setting aside a judicial sale on motion. And no case has been ci......
-
Southern Express Co. v. Fox & Logan
...longer be affected by his declarations, they being merely hearsay." The same rule has often been announced by this court. Thus, in Reed v. Brooks, 13 Ky. 127, the said: "The confessions of an agent can not be admitted as proof either of his agency or of acts done by him as agent. Where what......
-
Southern Express Co. v. Fox & Logan
...longer be affected by his declarations, they being merely hearsay." The same rule has often been announced by this court. Thus, in Reed v. Brooks, 13 Ky. 127, the court "The confessions of an agent cannot be admitted as proof either of his agency or of acts done by him as agent. Where what ......