|Court of Appeals of Kentucky.|
|ARTHUR et al. v. INGRAM et al.|
|March 30, 1893.|
Appeal from court of common pleas, Knox county.
Not to be officially reported.
Action by E. F. Arthur and others against Ingram and Davidson and others for an injunction restraining defendants from removing timber from certain lands claimed by plaintiffs.
From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
In an action to restrain defendants from removing timber from certain lands of which plaintiffs claimed to be the patentees, it appeared that there were marked lines and courses, with fencing almost entirely around the lands in dispute, erected by a claimant under a prior patent and conveyances, under whom defendants claim; and that such claimant and his successors have been in continuous possession for more than the statutory period. Held, that a judgment for defendants was proper.
Wm. Lindsey and Wilson & Rawlings, for appellants.
W. J. Hendrick and Reid Rogers, for appellees.
We think it plain from the facts of this record that the appellants were led to obtain their patents under the belief that the calls or courses of the conveyances or patents under which the appellees claim did not embrace the land in controversy. There were marked lines and courses, with fencing almost entirely around this land, erected by the then claimant, who, and his vendees or successors, have been in the continuous possession long beyond the statutory period. When the courses of several calls were rerun by the surveyor, Tuggle, it leaves no room for dispute, and this accords with the claim, use, and possession under the patent to Meyers and Dougherty for so long a time. The patents of 1882 and 1889, in so far as they interfere with this possession and title of the appellees, are void, and the proof shows that the appellants must have had actual notice of appellees' right when their patents were issued, and were relying on the calls of the patent under which appellees claim to show that this land, although occupied for years, and the most of it fenced in, was vacant, and subject to entry and survey. It is also immaterial whether the appellants had or not notice of the possession of appellees. The facts show the possession and title, and that appellants have no title in law or equity to the disputed territory.
ARTHUR et al. v. INGRAM et al.
Last Update Tuesday, 18-Dec-2012 01:31:07 EST
Copyright © 2015 by the KYGenWeb Team. All
rights reserved. Copyright of submitted items
belongs to those responsible for their authorship or
creation unless otherwise assigned.