Scott v. O'Neil's Adm'r

• Decision Date: 15 May 1901
• Citation: 62 S.W. 1042
• Parties: SCOTT v. O'NEIL'S ADM'R et al. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

62 S.W. 1042

SCOTT v. O'NEIL'S ADM'R et al. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 15, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Fayette county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Exceptions by Dennis O'Neil's administrator and others to report of sale of land. Judgment sustaining exceptions and setting aside sale, and John Scott appeals. Reversed.

C Suydam Scott, for appellant.

Forman & Forman, for appellees.

O'REAR J.

Lots Nos. 2, 5, and 9 of Dennis O'Neil's estate, and situated on Bowyer street and South Broadway, in Lexington were sold at commissioner's sale under decree of the Fayette circuit court. After due advertisement, they were sold to appellant at public auction, he being the highest and best bidder. Before the sale they were appraised by two appraisers selected and sworn by the commissioner. The appraisements and purchase prices are as follows:

Lot No. 2, appraised at	$ 430	sold for	$ 450
Lot No. 5, ' '	225	sold for	305
Lot No. 9, ' '	650,	sold for	910
		----------------	------
	$1,305		$1,665

Upon the filing of the report of sale, the heirs at law of the decedent, Dennis O'Neil, filed exceptions because of the gross inadequacy of the prices; it being asserted that the lots had for several years before the sale been valued in assessments for taxes at the aggregate sum of from $3,000 to $4,500. On the trial of the exceptions, the only evidence offered was proof that the lots had been so valued in assessments, and one Ball testified that he had erected a building on one of the lots as tenant of O'Neil, and paid $50 per month rent for it; that the building burned before the appraisement and sale; and that by the terms of the contract he was to have nothing for the building. This was all the proof, all of which was objected to by the purchaser (appellant), and a judgment was rendered setting aside the sale, and ordering the property resold.

In the first place, the evidence of what the property had been valued at in assessments for taxation was wholly irrelevant. It was but hearsay,--the opinion of the assessor or the taxpayer, given out of court, and with no opportunity for cross-examination.

The testimony of the tenant may well be questioned as to its relevancy, but, at best, it was of scant value in this case because the conditions under which he paid the $50 per month rent had very materially...