Case ID: kan_74/html/0560-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mason, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hugh Cameron v. Augustus H. Griesa et al.
    
    No. 14,632.
    (87 Pac. 679.)
    SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
    Judicial Sales — Defective Notice — Injunction. The fact that a sheriff’s notice of the sale of real estate on execution fails to describe with sufficient definiteness the property to be sold affords no ground for a suit by the judgment defendant to enjoin the sale.
    Error from Douglas district court; Charles A. Smart, judge.
    Opinion filed November 10, 1906.
    Affirmed.
    
      Edward T. Riling, for plaintiff in error.
    
      William W. Nevison, for defendants in error.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

An execution was levied upon land belonging to Hugh Cameron, who brought a suit seeking to enjoin its sale upon the ground that it was exempt because it was his homestead. He was denied relief, and prosecutes error. Whether the property was exempt was a question of fact, which was heard and determined upon conflicting oral testimony. The finding made by the trial court did not lack support in the evidence and is not subject to review here.

The injunction was asked upon the further ground that the sheriff’s notice of sale was defective in that it failed to specify the county or state in which the property to be sold was situated. If the description was in fact insufficient the defect was a mere irregularity, for which the defendant had ample remedy in the ordinary course of procedure by objection to the confirmation of the sale. In such a case injunction does not lie. (16 A. & E, Encycl. of L. 403-405; 3 Freeman, Executions, 3d ed., § 436.) The judgment is affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.