West v. McKinney
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 1X5 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM ESTILL COURT OP COMMON PLEAS. 1. There is no foundation to authorize a recovery for trespass to land without title or possession in complainant.
Read the full summary
Case 1X5 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM ESTILL COURT OP COMMON PLEAS. 1. There is no foundation to authorize a recovery for trespass to land without title or possession in complainant. (Bebee v. Hutchinson, 17 B. M'., 498; Holderman v. Middleton, 6 Bush, 45.) 2. It was error to instruct the jury that appellant’s boundary must he “ marked and defined.” 3. In an action for cutting timber on land if plaintiff fail to show title or possession, defendant is entitled to a peremptory instruction. 1. The court properly refused to, instruct the jury to find for defendant, because, although the…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR,
delivered the opinion op the court.
The childrén of Joseph McKinney instituted this action to enjoin the-appellant,West, from cutting and removing timber from land belonging to them -and -derived by-descent from their ancestor. The land in controversy is embraced within a large survey known as the Cottage Eurnace lands, and containing in all eighteen thousand acres. Much of this land has been sold off, and farms-now lie within the original boundary, composed of smalt tracts.
Both "the plaintiffs and the defendant rely on a possessory title, and the appellees’ attempt to recover on…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sharp v. Shenandoah Furnace Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1901
- Scott v. Mineral Development Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1904
- Taylor & Crate v. Breathitt Coal, Iron & Lumber Co.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1911