Wilson v. Petzold

• Decision Date: 24 November 1903
• Citation: 76 S.W. 1093,116 Ky. 873
• Parties: WILSON et al. v. PETZOLD.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

76 S.W. 1093

116 Ky. 873

WILSON et al. v. PETZOLD.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 24, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Division.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Herman Petzold against E. W. Wilson and others to foreclose a mortgage.Lula Bently purchased at the sale, and from an order confirming the sale she and defendants appeal.Affirmed.

M. A D. A. & J. G. Sachs, for appellants.

Lieber & Lincoln, for appellee.

NUNN J.

This action was instituted in the Jefferson circuit court in May 1902, by the appellee, Herman Petzold, to enforce a mortgage on real estate in the city of Louisville executed by the appellantsE. W. Wilson and wife.Final judgment was entered October 25, 1902, directing a sale of the mortgaged property to satisfy the debt, and requiring notice of the sale to be given by printed handbills, and also by advertisements in the Louisville Evening Times for three consecutive days next preceding the day of sale, in compliance with the act of March 24, 1902(Acts 1902, p. 213, c. 92).The advertisement was properly made by handbills, and was also advertised in the Louisville Evening Times on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, November 6th, 7th, and 8th; and the sale was made November 10, 1902, thus excluding Sunday.One of the appellants, Lula Bently, became the purchaser at the sale but refused to comply, assigning as grounds therefor, first that the sale was not advertised for three days next preceding the day of sale, as required by law; second, that certain special tax liens existed against the property sold, the holders of which were not made partiesdefendant.The court, upon due notice, summarily ascertained these special taxes and liens under the statute(Ky. St. 1899, § 989), overruled the exceptions, and confirmed the sale.

The only question to be determined by the court upon this appeal is whether or not the publication of this advertisement of sale in the Louisville Evening Times on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday next preceding the day of sale, on Monday, was in compliance with the requirements of the statutes.It is contended by the appellants that it was not a compliance that the advertisement should have been in a Sunday issue, to have met the requirements, and the Louisville Evening Times, by reason of its not being published on Sunday, was and is not a daily paper.We are of the opinion that it was and is a daily paper,...