Kirk v. Williamson
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 27 — PATENT APPEAL PROM MARTIN CIRCUIT COURT. No brief in the record. 1. The territory included within the patent boundaries is reasonable in size and well fixed in shape. Nothing of the sweeping and indiscriminating lines appears here.
Read the full summary
Case 27 — PATENT APPEAL PROM MARTIN CIRCUIT COURT. No brief in the record. 1. The territory included within the patent boundaries is reasonable in size and well fixed in shape. Nothing of the sweeping and indiscriminating lines appears here. All of the land excluded or excepted from the grant are definitely identified and capable of exact location by following the lead of the words used in the patent; both the names of the •owners and the area of each tract excepted being given. Drath v. Bamsey, Hardin, 34; Craig v. Cooper, lb., 386; Madison v. Owens, Litt. Sol. Oases, 281; 10 Coke; 67 B.,…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Hargis
The appellee, Williamson, holds a patent for 2,200 .acres of land issued by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on the 29th day of July, 1856, After the usual form of grant, the patent describes the 2,200 acres by metes and bounds, courses, and distances, and at the ■close of the description contains an exclusion in the following words : “ Prior claims, 300 acres for William H. McNew; 500 acres for John Reskins; 100 acres for Johnant Cecil; 50 acres for Benjamin Maynard; 150 acres for Lewis Reskins.”
On the 3d day of September, 1881, the appellant, Kirk, entered and surveyed a considerable parcel of…
2Cited by10 opinions
- American Ass'n v. InnisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1901
- Gibson v. BoardCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1897
- Stoffler v. Edgewater Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
- Mason v. FusonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- War Fork Land Co. v. LlewellynCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.