Case ID: ky_69/html/0423-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGE ROBERTSON", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case 38 — PETITION EQUITY —
    January 17.
    Anderson v. Summers.
    APPEAL PROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT.
    1. Land sold and conveyed by the heir to a tona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration is not liable to a judgment against the vendor and his co-heirs in an action brought after the alienation for the debt of their ancestor from whom the land descended.
    2. A sale of the land under such judgment, especially when the vendee of the heir becomes the purchaser, does not constitute an eviction by a paramount title, or a breach of the vendor’s warranty of title.
    ¥m. Johnson,.......... For Appellant,
    CITED
    Revised Statutes, see. 8, chap. 40, 1 Stanton, 552.
    17 B. Mon, 532-3, Chambers, &c. v. Davis, &c.
    Muir & Wicklirre,........For Appellee,
    CITED
    Civil Code, sections 153, 409.
    15 B. Mon. 270, Lambert v. Ingram’s adm’r.
   JUDGE ROBERTSON

delivered the opinion op the court.

As the appellee Summers, as bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration, held the legal title of Thomas D. Anderson in the sixty-four acres of land which descended from his father, Benedict Anderson, that interest was not liable to the judgment against Thomas and his co-heirs on an action brought after the alienation; the sale of it therefore under that judgment, and especially the purchase by Summers himself, did not constitute an eviction under a paramount title, and consequently did not entitle Summers to the judgment rendered in his favor in this action for a misjudged breach of T. D. Anderson’s general Avarranty of title.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a dismission of the petition.