Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Louisville Southern Ry. Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 95 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. In order to effectuate the manifest intention of the parties, courts in considering written instruments, will transpose, not only words, hut sentences, and will supply whatever mere letters or words may be technically necessary to express in grammatical form an intention otherwise fairly apparent. 1. While it is true that when the terms of a written contract are ambiguous, the subject matter of the contract and…
Read the full summary
Case 95 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. In order to effectuate the manifest intention of the parties, courts in considering written instruments, will transpose, not only words, hut sentences, and will supply whatever mere letters or words may be technically necessary to express in grammatical form an intention otherwise fairly apparent. 1. While it is true that when the terms of a written contract are ambiguous, the subject matter of the contract and the presumed object of the parties are admissible and pertinent considerations, and the words employed should be…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE DuRELLE
delivered the opinion oe the court.
The Kentucky Central Railroad Company, the control of which subsequently passed to the appellant, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, entered into an agreement with the appellee, the Louisville Southern Railway Company, whereby certain trackage rights in the city of Lexington, were accorded to the Louisville Southern Railway Company. The contract, after reciting the ownership and possession by the Kentucky Central Company of certain rights of way, tracks and terminal facilities in Lexington, and that it was desired to facilitate the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lexington & Big Sandy Ry. Co. v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
- Pettit v. NormanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
- Cleveland Wrecking Co. v. Struck Const. Co.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1941