Smith v. Bell & Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
* Case 118 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL PROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Plaintiffs have not shown such title or possession in themselves as entitles them to recover. (McLaurin v. Salmons, &c., 11 B. M., 96; Campbell v. Roberts, &c., 3 A. K. Mar.; Riley, &c., v. Million, 4 J. J. Mar.; Steele’s Heirs v. Logan, 3 A. K, Mar.; Miller v. Humphries, &c., 2 A. K. Mar.; Walton v. Clark, 4 Bibb, 218, 219; Wilson v. Bibb, 1 Dana, 9; Neely, &c., v. Butler, 1 OB.
Read the full summary
* Case 118 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL PROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Plaintiffs have not shown such title or possession in themselves as entitles them to recover. (McLaurin v. Salmons, &c., 11 B. M., 96; Campbell v. Roberts, &c., 3 A. K. Mar.; Riley, &c., v. Million, 4 J. J. Mar.; Steele’s Heirs v. Logan, 3 A. K, Mar.; Miller v. Humphries, &c., 2 A. K. Mar.; Walton v. Clark, 4 Bibb, 218, 219; Wilson v. Bibb, 1 Dana, 9; Neely, &c., v. Butler, 1 OB. M., 50.) 2. Where one enters upon land, knowing it to belong to another, he should not he allowed for improvements. (Childs v. Patterson, 1 Mar.,…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HARGIS
delivered the opinion of the court.
Pending an action for division of the land, appellant, John W. Smith, entered on it, was made a party *657to the action, and adjudged to be without title and a trespasser. While the action named was undetermined, the appellees sued Smith for rents and damages to the land, and subsequently filed an amended petition disclosing a final determination of the first action and seeking to recover attorneys’ fees alleged to have been expended in its prosecution to final recovery, and also rents up to the time of filing the amendment.
It appears that Smith had…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bennett Jellico Coal Co. v. East Jellico Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Worthington v. Morris'Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1895
- Cahill v. BensonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1898
- Wagner v. HatcherCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910