|Court of Appeals of Kentucky.|
|ADAMS et al. v. FEEDER et al.|
|June 4, 1897.|
Appeal from circuit court, Knox county.
"Not to be officially reported."
Action by H. Feeder and others against Harriet Adams and others to enforce a vendor's lien.
Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
The petition alleges that Sampson sold to the defendants William and Harriet Adams a house and lot for $600, of which sum $300 was paid in cash, and the vendees executed their joint promissory note for the balance of the purchase money, $300, due 12 months after date, with interest, the note reciting that it was given for the purchase money due on the land, and that a lien was retained to secure its payment. It further alleges that the vendor, Sampson, has executed and delivered to the defendant Harriet Adams a general warranty deed for the house and lot, retaining a lien for the payment of the note sued on, and that she had been put in possession of the property, and then occupied it. The payee, Sampson, assigned this note as a collateral security to the plaintiffs, to protect an obligation he owed them. They enforced their lien by proper proceeding, and had the collateral sold, and became by purchase the owners of it. This suit was then instituted against the payees of the note, for a personal judgment against the payors, and for an enforcement of the lien by a sale of the property for which it was executed.
The defendant Harriet Adams says that she is, and was at the time of the execution of the note, a married woman, and denies the right of plaintiffs to a personal judgment against her, or that plaintiffs acquired any lien on the property for which the note was executed by reason of their purchase of the note itself, and, as the defendant Harriet Adams is a married woman, no personal judgment was rendered. We cannot concur in this contention. The lien passed as an accident by the assignment of the note to appellees, and they thereby became entitled to the lien by which its payment was secured. Having accepted the vendor's title to the land, she is estopped from denying him the right to subject the same to the payment of the purchase money. We perceive no error to appellant's prejudice, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
ADAMS et al. v. FEEDER et al.
Last Update Tuesday, 18-Dec-2012 01:32:37 EST
Copyright © 2015 by the KYGenWeb Team. All
rights reserved. Copyright of submitted items
belongs to those responsible for their authorship or
creation unless otherwise assigned.