Durrett v. Stewart
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 103 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. To authorize an action quia timet the plaintiff must have legal title and! possession, and to recover must allege and prove both. (Barker v„ Warren, 6 Ky. L. R., 86; Kincaid v. Magowan, 6 Ky.
Read the full summary
Case 103 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. To authorize an action quia timet the plaintiff must have legal title and! possession, and to recover must allege and prove both. (Barker v„ Warren, 6 Ky. L. R., 86; Kincaid v. Magowan, 6 Ky. L. R., 102; Wasliburn on Real Property, vol. 3, secs. 149, 150.) '2. An allegation of holding under color of title is equivalent to an allegation of adverse holding, and any sale by another of property so held is champertous. (Washburn on Real Property.) 3. Where acts of possession are so unequivocal and notorious as to be necessarily…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion of tiie court.
In June, 1887, the appellees instituted this action in equity, in the Louisville Chancery Court, against the appellant, for the purpose of quieting their title to the lot of ground, lying in the city of Louisville, in controversy. The proper allegations of ownership and possession were made. The appellant denied these allegations, and alleged that he was the owner, and in possession of .the lot .of ground at the time the action was brought. *668Appellees’ reply set up grounds of estoppel against the appellant’s claim of title and possession. The…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Kypadel Coal & Lumber Co. v. MillardCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- Miller v. PowersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1919
- Moseley v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
- Audas v. Highland Land & Building Co. of DaytonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1913
- Bean v. FairbanksUtah Supreme Court · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.