Skip to main content
· 5/10/1919

Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Judd

Citations

  • 104 Kan. 757
  • 180 P. 763
  • 1919 Kan. LEXIS 353

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Partition — Jurisdiction of Court to Do Equity. As a general rule, a court in decreeing partition has power to adjust the equitable rights of all the parties interested in the estate, so far as they relate to and grow out of the relation of the parties to the common property.</p> <p>2. Same — Judicial Sale — Mistake in Amount Necessary to Redeem — Tender of Balance — Redemption Allowed. In a suit for partition, the findings show that plaintiff originally owned an undivided one-third interest'in the land, consisting of a quarter section, and attempted in good faith to redeem its interest from the lien of a judgment foreclosing a mortgage on the quarter, but by mistake took the amount of the judgment as the basis for estimating the amount necessary to redeem, whereas the land had sold for $63.37 more than the judgment, interest, and costs. The court determined the amount necessary to redeem, gave plaintiff credit for two-thirds of the taxes advanced by it prior to the foreclosure, and credit for one-third of the excess in the hands of the clerk, and after allowing the defendant, who claimed to be the owner of the entire' quarter by virtue of a manual transfer of the certificate of sale in the foreclosure, credit for taxes paid by her, found there was a deficiency of $8.46 in the amount of redemption money remaining in the hands of the clerk. Held, it was not error to render judgment providing that, upon payment of the deficiency, plaintiff should be decreed to be the owner of a one-third interest, and ordering partition.</p> <p>8. Same. There is no hard or fast rule as to the amount of deficiency which a court of equity may regard under all the circumstances of the case as too small to prevent redemption.</p> <p>4. Same — Equitable Interest of Appellant in Land. In view of the findings as to the manner in which the defendant acquired her interest in the property, which formerly belonged to her sons, there was no error in allowing pl

Judges: Portee

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.