Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 Kan. 228

Britton v. Hunt

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 15, 1872

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1872-01-15

Error from Lyon District Court. Ejectment, brought by Hunt, who claimed to be the legal and equitable owner of the premises in controversy. Britton, answered, admitting possession, but denying plaintiff’s title and right of possession. The case was tried at the December Term 1870, upon an agreed statement of facts, a sufficient statement of which appears in the opinion.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1941

6 state decisions

2018721880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Kingman, C. J.:

¶2E. D. Bassett and wife executed a mortgage on block five in the town of Hartford, Lyon county. Soon thereafter the wife died, and a little later Bassett died, leaving a son, a minor. J. H. Hunt became the administrator of Bassett’s estate. An action was brought by the holder of the mortgage against the administrator to foreclose the mortgage. The heir was not made a party to the action. A judgment was rendered against the administrator of foreclosure, under which the block was sold, and a sheriff’s deed in due time made to the purchaser. The defendant in error by regular conveyances became the holder of the title under the sheriff’s deed, and brought an action of ejectment to 'recover the property, and on a trial by the court obtained judgment for the recovery of the real estate mentioned. The only question in the case is, Lid the purchaser under the judgment of foreclosure obtain the legal title to the property? We think , he did not. The land descended to the heir, burdened with the lien of the mortgage, and subject in certain contingencies to the payment of the debts of the decedent. The land so belonging to the heir, he became a necessary party to any suit affecting the land. The legal title was in him, and he was interested also in contesting the claim against his *233property. The administrator might have been joined with the heir if it was desired to obtain further relief against the estate of the decedent. The authorities on this point seem to be harmonious, or nearly so. No judgment or decree can be entered until the heir is before the court. Story’s Eq. Pl., §194; 4 Kent’s Com., 185, side page; 2 Hilliard on Mort., 140; Barbour on Parties, 494; Graham v. Carter, 2 Henning & M., 6; Mayo v. Tomkins, 6 Munford, 520; Lane v. Erskine, 13 Ill., 501; Moore v. Starks, 1 Ohio St., 369.

¶3The judgment must be reversed.

All the Justices concurring.
/9/kan/228 · .json · Public domain