Kirksey v. Turner
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 37 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM M’CRACKEN COURT OP COMMON PLEAS. 1. The rights of each party being derived from entries made by authority of Virginia, the laws of Virginia must control. (Compact with Virginia; Read v. Smith, 6 Mon., 455-499.) 2. When a patent bears two dates, the later must be taken as the true date.
Read the full summary
Case 37 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM M’CRACKEN COURT OP COMMON PLEAS. 1. The rights of each party being derived from entries made by authority of Virginia, the laws of Virginia must control. (Compact with Virginia; Read v. Smith, 6 Mon., 455-499.) 2. When a patent bears two dates, the later must be taken as the true date. (McGowan v. Crooks, 5 Dana, 67.) A. fortiori, where the entry bears two dates, the later must be taken as the true date. 3. Until 1785 all legislative acts took effect on the first day of the session at which they passed, both in Virginia and England. (Littell’s Laws,…
1Opinion of the Court
CHIEE JUSTICE BENNETT
delivered the opinion on the court.
On November 20 and December 3, 1781, Mayo made two entries under the Treasury AVarrant Law of Virginia,' embracing 17,000 acres of land lying on Clark’s River and west of the Tennessee River, in this State. I111784 tliese entries were surveyed, and in 1806 a patent was issued by this State for said land. The .appellee, many years ago, *228purchased a part of this land, and it is admitted that he is the owner thereof as far as the patent and deed to him confers title and right to possession.
The appellant was sued by the appellee for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rollins v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1839
3Cited by1 opinion
- Williams v. City of RacelandCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932