Case Name: Doughty vs. Moss, &c.
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1866-01-09
Citations: 1 Bush 161
Docket Number: 
Parties: Doughty vs. Moss, &c.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
CASE 44 — PETITION EQUITY
JANUARY 9.
Doughty vs. Moss, &c.
APPEAL PROM HICKMAN CIRCUIT COURT.
1. An error in not directing the commissioner to sell only as much of the land as would satisfy the judgment, is a defect in the decree which will not be available when the entire tract of land did not sell for as much as the debt; nor will a slight error in the amount of interest in such a case be. available to set aside a sale.
2. The commissioner’s report of sale at the court-house, on a county court day, after sufficient notice, cures the alleged defect in the judgment in not prescribing the time and place of sale, even if such omission could be deemed error.
John Rodman, For Appellant,
CITED—
MSS. Op., 1857 ; Simpson’s adm’r vs. Dunlap.
3 Bibb, 183 ; Cox vs. Fenwick.
E. I. Bullock, For Appellee,
CITED—
2 Metcalfe, 550; Vanbussom vs. Maloney.

Opinion:
JUDGE ROBERTSON
delivered the opinion op the court:
As the entire tract of land decreed to be sold did not sell for as much as the debt, the owner may be presumed to have lost nothing by the error in not directing the commissioner to sell only as much as would satisfy the judgment, and that defect in the decree is not available to the appellant.
Nor had there been error in adjudging interest on interest, and thereby requiring a sale for more than was legally demandable, would it have been prejudicial to the appellant, because the excess was too slight to justify a presumption that, had the true amount only been adjudged, he would have paid it, and thereby have prevented the sale ; and because, also, neither he who bid at the sale, nor any other person, offered as much as was due, without the small excess in the decree.
The petition is substantially good, and the commissioner's report of a sale at the court-house on a county court day, after sufficient notice, cures the alleged defect in the judgment in not prescribing the time and place of sale, even if such omission could be deemed error.
No other error being suggested by counsel or perceived by the court, the judgment is affirmed.