Legal Opinion

Curry v. Cox

Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

Decided March 6, 1925PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Dietzman

Affirming.

Appellant brought this action to quiet his title to a described boundary. By answer and counterclaim, appellee claimed that the land in question belonged to him as a part of a larger boundary he owned. The trial court, on motion of the parties, transferred this action to the common law side of the docket for jury trial. At the- conclusion of the whole testimony, the court peremptorily instructed the jury to find for the appellee, which it did, and from the judgment entered on this verdict, this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant traced his title to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Tennis Coal Co. v. HensleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
  2. Saylor v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Stephenson Lumber Co. v. HurstCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
  2. Foust v. HillCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1926
  3. Charles v. McCoyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1927
  4. J. Walter Wright Lumber Co. v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1965

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API