Smith v. Mattingly
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 37 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM HANCOCK CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Chapter 66, article 3, of the General Statutes, does not change the common law doctrine of waste, and an ordinary action may be brought for waste whether it he voluntary or permissive.
Read the full summary
Case 37 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM HANCOCK CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Chapter 66, article 3, of the General Statutes, does not change the common law doctrine of waste, and an ordinary action may be brought for waste whether it he voluntary or permissive. (Gen. Stat., c. 66, art. 3, secs. 1, 2, 7, 8; Bouvier’s Law Diet., I2th ed., 654; Cooley’s Blaekstone, Book 2, p. 181; 4 Kent’s Oomm., 76; Washburn on Beal Property. 5th ed., 146; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y., 114-7; Proffit v. Henderson, 29 Mo., 325.) 2. The averment that appellee had removed and destroyed a portion of the fencing around the…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Walter Smith, and others, owning in right of their mother the remainder in fee of a tract of land, brought this action against George D. Mattingly, purchaser under execution and owner of the life estate of their father, to recover damages, and also the land, for alleged waste.
Plaintiffs state substantially in their petition as cause of action that in 1887, when defendant acquired title to the life estate and possession of said land, it was enclosed by a substantial fence, dwelling-house and other buildings thereon were in good repair, and the soil…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Fisher's v. HaneyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
- Louisville Cooperage Co. v. RuddCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1938
- Continental Fuel Co. v. HadenCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
- Schuman v. SchumanMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
- Addison v. BrandenburgCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1924
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.