Crouch v. Wainscott
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 14. — ACTION BY J. T. WAINSCOTT AGAINST C. H. CROUCH TO ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARY OF HIS LAND. — February 22. Appeal from Owen Circuit Court. W. B. Moody, Special Judge. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION by
Judge O’Rear.
— Affirming.
The issue in this action of ejectment was the true location of the boundary line between the tracts of land owned by appellant and appellee. Originally, and many years ago, both tracts were included in one boundary, but it was partitioned and deeds made accordingly to- the parceners. Upon the trial the evidence was conflicting as to the true location of the disputed line. The jury found it to be as contended by appellee. Their finding was in accordance with a processioner’s report, which had located and marked the line some time before. The admission of this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McLawrin v. SalmonsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1850
- Johnson v. NortonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1843
- Miller v. . HeartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1843
- Warmoth v. TobinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1885
3Cited by5 opinions
- Harrod v. ArmstrongCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Foster v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
- Howard v. Clover Fork Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1925
- Warmoth v. TobinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1885
- Shireman v. NullCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1948