Logan v. Bull
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 125 — EQUITY— APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. The appellants are not required to show a title beyond the reach of all possible question. Moral certainty is all that can be required. 2. Appellants and those under whom they claim have held the adverse possession of the lot of ground for fifty years. 3. The court below should have quieted the title of appellant as against the heirs of Ward.
Read the full summary
Case 125 — EQUITY— APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. The appellants are not required to show a title beyond the reach of all possible question. Moral certainty is all that can be required. 2. Appellants and those under whom they claim have held the adverse possession of the lot of ground for fifty years. 3. The court below should have quieted the title of appellant as against the heirs of Ward. (2 Story’s Eq., sec. «736; 2 Parsons on Cont., 567; Fry’s Specific Performance, secs. 297, 298; White & Tudor’s Leading Eq., 92; 14 Johnson, 485; 16 Maine, 92; 31 How., 411; 4 Greenleaf, 350; x…
1Opinion of the Court
.JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was instituted in the Louisville chancery court ■on the 1st of December, 1873, by the appellants, Logan and wife, against John Bull, for the specific execution of a contract • evidencing the sale of a lot of ground and the improvements • on the northeast corner of Fifth and Market streets, in the -city of Louisville.
The contract is dated on the rith of April, 1873, and by its terms the appellants, Logan and wife, by their agents, Buckhanon & Rogers, sold the lot..and its improvements to John Bull in consideration of $48,000, one third…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jarboe v. McAtee's HeirsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1847
- Brassfield v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1846
3Cited by20 opinions
- Andrew v. BabcockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- Conley v. FinnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Posey v. KimseyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Backman v. ParkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Arnett v. SmithNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.