The J. B. Watkins Land Mortgage Company v. Mullen
Decision Date | 01 October 1898 |
Docket Number | 240. [*] |
Citation | 8 Kan.App. 705,54 P. 921 |
Parties | THE J. B. WATKINS LAND MORTGAGE COMPANY v. M. A. MULLEN |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Opinion Filed October 20, 1898.
Error from Rush district court; J. E. ANDREWS, judge. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Bishop & Mitchell, and J. H. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error.
H. E Winterburn, and J. W. McCormick, for defendant in error.
Judgment was rendered against the defendants, including M. A. Mullen and the land ordered sold without appraisement. An order of sale was issued and the land sold to J. B. Watkins for $ 500. A motion was made to confirm the sale. On the 11th day of January, 1894, M. A. Mullen filed objections to the confirmation, and afterward was permitted to file an answer and cross-petition to the petition of plaintiff. She alleged in substance: That the title of the plaintiff to the land conveyed in the mortgage sought to be foreclosed was void, because that title was derived through conveyances from a certain administrator's deed made by one Thomas Kennedy, as administrator of the estate of Bridget O'Connor, deceased; that the conveyance made by said Thomas Kennedy as administrator was void, because the land so sold was the homestead of Bridget O'Connor and was sold by said administrator to pay debts contracted prior to the issue of the patent, and that such sale for such purpose was void under the provision of section 2296 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (1878), which is as follows:
"No land required [acquired?] under the provisions of this chapter shall in any event become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the issuing of the patent therefor."
She further alleged in her answer that M. A. Mullen had begun on June 9, 1887, an action in the district court of Rush county, Kansas, against J. S. Smith, S. J. Collins, W. F. Gilmore, A. H. Teeter and William Neild to set aside all of said conveyances, which action was numbered 447 of the records of the district court of Rush county. She did not allege that the defendant William Neild, who was the original payee of the mortgage sued on by the plaintiff in this action, was ever served personally with summons or that he ever answered in said action.
To this answer and cross-petition plaintiff filed a reply. The J. B. Watkins Land Mortgage Company was substituted as plaintiff instead of Henry Dickinson, the cause was tried to the court on the issue joined without a jury, and judgment rendered for the defendant M. A. Mullen. The findings and judgment are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sache v. Gillette
...involved, as to matters not presented in the pleadings, was held void on indirect attack. Such is the law in Kansas. Wilkins v. Mullen, 54 Pac. 921, 8 Kan. App. 705, where the court approves the rule as laid down in 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 246, to the effect that a judgment of a court havin......
-
Baldwin v. McDonald
... ... Baldwin and Virena ... Baldwin to foreclose as a mortgage a deed absolute on its ... face and a contract between the ... 608, 46 S.E. 603, 102 Am. St. Rep. 950; ... Watkins Land Mortg. Co. v. Mullin, 8 Kan.App. 705, ... 54 P. 921; ... E ... Lonabaugh, W. L. Walls and W. E. Mullen, for defendant in ... The ... amendment of ... ...
-
Johnson v. Mckinnon
... ... direction, and the title of such attorney to land purchased ... by him at a judicial sale decreed in ... 'jurisdiction' by this court. In Garvin v ... Watkins, 29 Fla. 151, text 165, 10 So. 818, text 821, ... this ... 491, 86 Am ... Dec. 643; J. B. Watkins Land-Mortgage Co. v. Mullen, ... 8 Kan. App. 705, 54 P. 921 ... [45 ... Railroad Company had a right to restitution as against the ... party ... ...
-
Sache v. Wallace
...there involved, as to matters not presented in the pleadings, was held void on indirect attack. Such is the law in Kansas, Watkins v. Mullen, 8 Kan.App. 705, 54 P. 921, where court approves the rule as laid down in 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d Ed.) 246, to the effect that a judgment of a court ha......