93 Kan. 514 | Kan. | 1914
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is an appeal from a ruling of the district court refusing to confirm a sale of real estate.
The appellant was plaintiff in an action against Kennedy to recover damages. When the action was commenced he caused an attachment to be levied upon certain real estate as the property of Kennedy. Judgment was taken by default; the attachment was sustained and the property ordered sold to satisfy the judgment. Thereafter, on March 5, 1913, an order of
In the brief of Annie Griswold, appellee, it is stated that on the hearing of the motion to confirm her counsel called the attention of the court to the fact that the sale purported to be a sale of the whole title instead of the interest of the judgment creditor, and that thereupon the court examined the papers and stated that the proceedings were not in accordance with the court’s order, which was to sell the interest of Kennedy, and that thereupon the court refused to confirm the sale. None of the facts relied upon by the appellee is shown in the abstract. In her brief it is suggested that it was the duty of the appellant to bring up the complete record and satisfy this court that there was no possible ground for the action of the court in refusing to confirm. On the contrary, if the abstract prepared by the appellant was not complete, or if it failed to set out portions of the record upon which the appellee desired to rely, it devolved upon her to prepare a counter-abstract. As the case is presented to us, it shows the refusal of the court to confirm a sale which the record, including the order of sale and
“Prior to 1893 the statute required confirmation when the sale had in all respects been made ‘in conformity to the provisions of this article.’ (Gen. Stat. 1868, ch. 80, § 458, Gen. Stat. 1889, § 4556.) But the legislature of 1893 amended this section and provided that the sale shall be confirmed if the court ‘finds the proceedings regular and in conformity with law and equity.’ (Laws 1893, ch. 109, § 26, Code 1909, § 500.)” (p. 528.)
The court has a discretion whether to order the sale confirmed or not, but the discretion must be exercised upon equitable principles, and not arbitrarily. (Bank v. Murray, supra.)
If there was any mistake in the entry of the original judgment the court has power at any time to order it corrected to speak the truth; but no reason appears for refusing to confirm the sale.
Counsel for appellant practically concede that Kennedy has only an equitable interest in the real estate attached; but it is said that at the time the suit was brought and the attachment levied they proceeded upon the assumption that he owned the absolute title. It is true, as they suggest, that appellant could acquire by the attachment only a lien upon whatever Kennedy's interest in the property was, and could sell nothing more than his interest in the property.
Reversed with directions to confirm the sale.