11 Ky. Op. 280 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1881
Opinion by
The principal question in this case, and out of which all this litigation originated, has been under consideration for some time, and the conclusion reached by the court is, that the circumstances connected with the execution of the conveyance by R. E. Parker to Collier are such as to require that the claims of the latter should be postponed to those of the creditors of R. E. Parker, and that the chancellor acted properly in subjecting the property thus conveyed to the payment of their several'demands. After the service of the summons on R. E. Parker in favor of Wilcox on the notes, or one of them assigned by Thos. E. Parker, the former declared his intention to so fix his property as to place it beyond the reach of Wilcox, and in a short time thereafter applied to know if he would receive a deed for the land, and upon his refusal to accept the conveyance, or about -that time, he visited his brother-in-law (the appellant) in Boone county, Indiana, and on his return in June, 1876, caused the conveyance in controversy to be prepared, executed and recorded, by which his brother-in-law, for the alleged consideration of $5,000 in hand paid, became the purchaser and absolute owner of his entire estate, except the 75 acres of land upon which a lien was retained for the notes assigned by Thomas Parker to Wilcox.
On the appeal of Hobbs we find no error to the prejudice of the appellant. It seems from the pleadings in the original action by Wilcox on the notes that an attachment was issued and levied on the land, the subject of this controversy, including the 11^ acre tract, and that the attachment as to this particular parcel of land was waived; that a mortgage had been executed by Parker to Abbott for profession! services rendered, and the latter, by petition in equity, sought to foreclose this mortgage. Hobbs
We are satisfied that Hobbs, in his deposition taken prior to the action of Abbott, had forgotten that a conveyance had been made him, doubtless from the fact that he really had no interest in the land, and the father of R. E. Parker really executed the conveyance to his son that Plobbs himself should have executed. The waiver of the attachment by Wilcox on this particular tract, while it had the effect to discharge the lien created by it, did not deprive him of the right to resort to other legal steps SO' as to subject the land to his debt. The levy of his execution on the land created a lien, even if the sale was quashed, and when the chancellor undertook to enforce Abbott’s lien created by the mortgage he had complete jurisdiction to determine all the liens and their "priorities, whether by the levy of an execution or otherwise. Besides, the record shows a return of nulla bona on the executions, and this would give the chancellor jurisdiction. The judgment dismissing the petition of Hobbs was therefore proper, and the judgment determining the liens as between Abbott and Wilcox must also be affirmed.
The heirs of Matt Parker were not necessary parties, as the title had passed out of him by both the conveyance to Plobbs and to his son, and while the waiving order as to Collier was irregular it was not void. In the case cited by counsel the waiving had not been given sixty days before the first day of the succeeding term of the court, while in this case it had been given ninety instead of sixty days, more time than was required to be given by the code.
As to the sale of the two tracts of 44 and 52 acres of land the court did right in confirming the sale. There was no fraud or
As to the fifteen acre tract bought by Hobbs of Matt Parker, there is nothing showing that it belonged to R. E. Parker, or that he had any interest in it, and the judgment on the cross-petition of Wilcox is also affirmed. The appellants were entitled to a homestead, and all the original appeals as well as the cross-appeals are affirmed.
This opinion embraces the appeals of Parker v. Wilcox, the appeal of Collier v. Same, the appeal of Hobbs v. Wilcox, and the cross-appeal of Wilcox, and the appeal of Parker v. Wilcox and Beckley.