lien claim in Kentucky

2017(Footnote omitted.) After considering the parties’ oral arguments in addition to their written motions, the Jefferson Circuit Court found in favor of Brown Noltemeyer, holding that: (1) the failure of Prodigy’s use of the specific language “subscribed and sworn to” in its mechanic’s lien proved fatal under the Hub City and KRS 376.080 analysis; and (2) Brown Noltemeyer’s statements in the New Vision bankruptcy proceedings “did not constitute judicial admissions that would estop Brown Noltem-eyer from challenging the enforceability of the lien.” See Reece v. Dixie Warehouse & Cartage Co., 188 S

1947Among the latest of the opinions to that effect, and cited by appellee’s counsel, is Pineville Steam Laundry v. Phillips, 254 Ky. 391 , 71 S. W. 2d 980 , in which it was stated that the sale under execution in such circumstances was “illegal and unauthorized by law, and passed nothing to the purchaser.” A number of other cases to the same effect are cited, as we have said, but none of them involve the question in this case *572 as urged by appellant, and which is, that McCoun, the defendant in the execution, waived his right to prevent an execution sale of his property by becoming the chief ac

1947Among the latest of the opinions to that effect, and cited by appellee’s counsel, is Pineville Steam Laundry v. Phillips, 254 Ky. 391 , 71 S. W. 2d 980 , in which it was stated that the sale under execution in such circumstances was “illegal and unauthorized by law, and passed nothing to the purchaser.” A number of other cases to the same effect are cited, as we have said, but none of them involve the question in this case *572 as urged by appellant, and which is, that McCoun, the defendant in the execution, waived his right to prevent an execution sale of his property by becoming the chief ac

1936In Insurance Company of North America v. Cheathem, 221 Ky. 668 , 299 S. W. 545 , it was held that the institution of a suit to enforce a mortgage lien is'a foreclosure proceeding within the meaning of the provisions of the policy, although strict foreclosures had been abolished in this state by section 375 of our Civil Code of Practice.

1936In Insurance Company of North America v. Cheathem, 221 Ky. 668 , 299 S. W. 545 , it was held that the institution of a suit to enforce a mortgage lien is'a foreclosure proceeding within the meaning of the provisions of the policy, although strict foreclosures had been abolished in this state by section 375 of our Civil Code of Practice.

1935The word ‘redeem’ implies the existence of a debt, and negatives the idea of an absolute sale.” In Musgat v. Pumpelly, 46 Wis. 660 , 1 N. W. 410 , the court held that the word “redeem,” when used in legal documents and contracts, is ordinarily understood to mean to release. property pledged or mortgaged from the lien or claim of the pledgee or mortgagee.

1899In the case of Baker v. Baker, 87 Ky. 461 , [ 9 S. W. 382 ], this court said: “In that case (Yocum v. Foreman, 14 Bush, 494 ) the property sold under the erroneous judgment belonged to the defendant, and alleged debtor to the plaintiff; and, in stating the rule, it was limited in its application to title acquired un-‘ der a judicial sale as against a defendant..

1899In the case of Baker v. Baker, 87 Ky. 461 , [ 9 S. W. 382 ], this court said: “In that case (Yocum v. Foreman, 14 Bush, 494 ) the property sold under the erroneous judgment belonged to the defendant, and alleged debtor to the plaintiff; and, in stating the rule, it was limited in its application to title acquired un-‘ der a judicial sale as against a defendant..

1899In the case of Baker v. Baker, 87 Ky. 461 , [ 9 S. W. 382 ], this court said: “In that case (Yocum v. Foreman, 14 Bush, 494 ) the property sold under the erroneous judgment belonged to the defendant, and alleged debtor to the plaintiff; and, in stating the rule, it was limited in its application to title acquired un-‘ der a judicial sale as against a defendant..

1869Hitt ( 2 Dana, 204 ), under the act of 1811, which gave a landlord the right to distrain the goods of his tenant or sub-tenant, but if a tenant should have made a bona fide sale of his goods, they were not liable, this court held, that a mortgage by a tenant was a sale of the goods within the meaning of the statute, and a prior lien claim to that of the landlord.