Hillman v. Hurley
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 100 — INJUNCTION, PATENT APPEAL FROM LIVINGSTON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The Hillman survey of land we believe to be well identified. The Tennessee line fixes the boundary on one side, and it is as certainly fixed upon the other. 2. The agreement in this record settles the right of appellant.
Read the full summary
Case 100 — INJUNCTION, PATENT APPEAL FROM LIVINGSTON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The Hillman survey of land we believe to be well identified. The Tennessee line fixes the boundary on one side, and it is as certainly fixed upon the other. 2. The agreement in this record settles the right of appellant. It is agreed that the land in controversy is within appellant’s boundary, and that he is the owner of the land. 3. "We submit that it makes no difference in law whether appellant had the actual possession of the land or not. (Berts v. Hutchinson, 17 B. M., 498; Story’s Eq. Ju., section 861; 3 Bush, 125; 5…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HOLT
delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was brought to enjoin the appellees from cutting and removing timber from a- certain tract of land.
The substantial averments of the petition are, that the appellant is the owner, and in the actual possession of the land; that the appellees have cut a large quantity of valuable growing timber thereon, worth $250, and have hauled away a portion of it; that they were then cutting and hauling it, and would continue to do so, whereby the appellant would suffer irreparable injury. It does not charge that the ap*628pellées are insolvent. The title…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Wiggins & Johnson v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Florida · 1895
- Vaughan v. LangfordSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
- Carney v. HadleySupreme Court of Florida · 1893
- Hall v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1889
- Wunderlich v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.