Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

83 Ky. 417

Brown v. Ferrell

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided December 3, 1885

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · decided 1885-12-03

Case 61 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL PROM'CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT. .No lien exists in favor of the vendors as against the infant' remainder-man, because the deed shows on its face that the purchase money was paid. (General Statutes, chapter 63, article^,, section 24.) The infant defendant’s interest accrued long after the purchase, and! subject to the payment of the purchase money, which the proof shows has never been paid.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““When any real estate shall he convoyed, and the consideration, or any part thereof, remains unpaid, the grantor shall not have a lien for the same against bona fide creditors and purchasers, unless it is stated in the deed what part of the consideration remains unpaid.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Whiteley v. Central Trust Co. of New York

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1885-12-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 2005

1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

301885189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

JUDGE PBYOB

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Section 24, article 1 of chapter 63, General Statutes, provides, '“that when any real estate shall be* conveyed, and the consideration, or any part thereof, .remains unpaid, the grantor shall not have a lien for* the same against bóna fide creditors and purchasers,, unless it is stated in the deed what part of the consideration remains unpaid.”

¶3The conveyance in this case by William Ferrell to-his son John contains this provision: to have and to hold “unto said John Ferrell during life, and at. his death to his heirs by blood.”

¶4At the time of the conveyance John, the son, had no children, but subsequently married, and has one child, an infant, who is a defendant to the action, and a party to this appeal.

¶5The purpose of this proceeding by the father was. to subject the land sold the son to the payment of' the purchase money; and regarding the infant as. being vested with the title in remainder, both the vendee, John Ferrell, and his infant child, were-made defendants.

¶6It is plain that the notes for which the land was-sold were executed for the purchase money, and although the recital in the deed acknowledges payment in full, no part of, the purchase money was, in. fact, paid. The parties to the conveyance supposed, that the recital in the notes that they were executed. *419for the land gave to the vendor a lien for the purchase money.

¶7In order to retain a lien against bona fide creditors and purchasers, it must appear from the conveyance what part of the consideration remains', unpaid; but as between the parties to the instrument, the vendor and the vendee, the lien exists for* the purchase money whether mentioned in the deed or not, and, therefore, the vendor in this cáse had the right to subject the entire estate to the payment, of the purchase money. '\

¶8The infant child had a vested interest in the land,, but still those in remainder occupied the position of purchasers as well as the life tenant, and held the-land subject to the vendor’s lien.

¶9Section 10, article 1 of chapter 63, General Statutes, provides: “If any estate shall be given by deed or will to any person for his life, and after his death’ to his heirs, or the heirs of his body, or his issue or’ descendants, the same shall be construed to be an estate for life only in such person, and a remainder in fee-simple in his heirs, or the heirs of his body, or his issue or descendants.”

¶10This conveyance, by reason of the statute, under which it must be construed, gives to John an estate for life, remainder to his heirs.

¶11The child, who is now the remainderman, and who would take the estate in the event the father should die, being before the court when the judgment was rendered directing the land sold for* the purchase money, the purchaser at the decretal sale became vested with the absolute title.

¶12*420Neither after-born children, nor the heirs of John, the grantee, can assert any “claim” after John’s death, because all who had any interest •either for life or in remainder were before the ■court when the judgment of sale was entered. To hold differently would preclude the vendor from enforcing his lien, or cause the judgment or proceedings to be opened by those who might possibly have an interest in the land if the life tenant .had never been divested of title.

¶13The proceedings below were had in good faith, rand whether so or not, the court below having ■complete jurisdiction over the subject-matter, as well as all the parties in interest, the purchaser’s title is perfect, and the judgment below requiring .him to take the land must be affirmed.

/83/ky/417 · .json · Public domain