Belknap v. City of Louisville
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 80 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. The line as claimed by appellants agrees with the calls of the boundary act in every respect. In construing- an act effect must be given to every part of it. (Dazey v. Killam, 1 Duv., 407.) “Southward,” in the absence of anything to the contrary, means due south.
Read the full summary
Case 80 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. The line as claimed by appellants agrees with the calls of the boundary act in every respect. In construing- an act effect must be given to every part of it. (Dazey v. Killam, 1 Duv., 407.) “Southward,” in the absence of anything to the contrary, means due south. (Brandt v. Hoffman, 1 Johns., 158; Young v. Leiper, 4 Bibb, 503.) The words used in surveys and descriptions have always been treated as technical words belonging to the surveyor’s art, and must be. construed according to their technical meaning. (Gen. Stats., chap.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVEBED THE OPINION OF THE COUBT.
Appellants, about sixteen in number, owners respectively of lots or parcels of land in Jefferson county, brought this action October 27, 1890, against the city of Louisville, and D. E. Murphy, city assessor, for a judg*446ment defining and fixing one of the boundary lines of the city so as to exclude and free from municipal taxation their several lots, which they allege are included by a line incorrectly run and claimed by the city, and thus illegally made subject to such taxation, and enjoining Murphy assessing them for taxation.
March 9, 1868, “An…
2Cited by4 opinions
- City of Covington v. State Tax CommissionCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929
- State ex rel. Burnett v. City of HutchinsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1921
- City of Alameda v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- People Ex Rel. Beede v. Town of AntiochCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911