Aluminum Co. of America v. Frazer
| Decision Date | 21 November 1958 |
| Citation | 328 S.W.2d 142 |
| Parties | ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. J. S. FRAZER, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Raymond B. Dycus, Smithland, and B. M. Westberry, Marion, for appellant.
Edward H. Johnstone, Princeton, Wm. C. Allen, Marion, for appellee.
STANLEY, Commissioner.
The appellant, Aluminum Company of America, hereinafter Alcoa, set up in its complaint its title and possession, both surface and minerals, of a tract of 293.25 acres as described by metes and bounds, charged that the defendant, now appellee, J. S. Frazer, was making a hostile claim to part of the land and had trespassed upon it. The plaintiff prayed that the defendant be required to state by what right or title he was claiming an interest in the land, that he be enjoined from entering and prospecting upon it, and that the plaintiff's title be quieted.
In his answer Frazer admitted Alcoa's title to the land except to the minerals in a part which lay east of a described line, and he denied the plaintiff had title to the minerals in such part. The defendant entered a counter-claim in which he prayed that his title to the minerals in that portion of the tract be quieted. Thereafter he filed an amended answer and counter-claim in which he more particularly described by metes and bounds the parcel to which he claimed title, and charged the plaintiff with making a hostile claim to it. He prayed that his title be quieted. A reply traversed material allegations and thus raised an issue as to the defendant's title.
Under order of court the defendant answered interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff and set forth, among other things, that he had obtained title to the minerals in the land in dispute by a deed to a body of 1,037 acres from the Master Commissioner of the Crittenden Circuit Court which had been executed pursuant to a judicial sale of the property of J. Handy Moore, deceased, for a division of the proceeds among his widow and heirs. This deed is dated November 26, 1947. The defendant further stated that the description in this deed, as was the description in previous deed to the surface of the land to Corley and Butler by Moore's heirs in 1917, was erroneous because the calls and distances do not coincide with the monuments referred to and do not accurately state the lines or the land which Moore had owned. Defendant submitted four deeds to separate parcels, dated in 1903 and 1904, to Moore, which Frazer has contended throughout the case accurately define the boundary line between his property and the property of Alcoa and its predecessors. The defendant set forth his chain of title, as he contends, back to the Commonwealth. But he starts it with the 1903 and 1904 conveyances to his predecessor, J. Handy Moore, and goes back from them. It does not appear any proceeding was ever had to correct the alleged mistake.
The plaintiff gave its chain of title back to the Commonwealth in answers to interrogatories propounded by the defendant.
Upon the defendant's motion for a jury trial of all issues in the case and over the objection of the plaintiff, who insisted that there were no issues triable by a jury since the action was one to quiet title, the court empaneled a jury which heard much evidence concerning the title of the respective parties as it particularly related to the boundary line. The court submitted to the jury in a number of instructions the question of the correct location of the boundary line--as to whether it was as claimed by Alcoa or as claimed by Frazer. The jury found for the defendant and upon the verdict the court entered judgment quieting Frazer's title as described in his amended answer and counter-claim.
We think the position of the plaintiff that the issue was not triable by jury is correct, for the adjudication of title to land is peculiarly one for a court of equity. See Chenault v. Eastern Kentucky Timber & Lumber Co., 119 Ky. 170, 83 S.W. 552; Boone v. Robinson, 151 Ky. 715, 152 S.W. 753, Ann.Cas.1915A, 352, and cases cited therein; Consolidation Coal Co. v. Vanover, 166 Ky. 172, 179 S.W. 43; Gibson v. Central Ky. Natural Gas Co., Ky., 321 S.W.2d 256, also, 8 Am.Jur., Boundaries, § 86; 44 Am.Jur., Quieting Title, § 85; 11 C.J.S. Boundaries §§ 98, 99. Under the conclusion we have reached, for reasons following, further comment on this point is unnecessary.
It seems not to be disputed that the boundary line described in the Commissioner's deed conveying the minerals from Moore's heirs to Frazer is the same as that which Alcoa contends is the true line. Thus, his record title does not embrace the land in controversy....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tarter v. Medley
...to land, such as quieting title, is peculiarly one for a court of equity, and the issues are not triable by a jury. Aluminum Co. of America v. Frazer, Ky., 328 S.W.2d 142. We have other cases of this class where the questions of legitimacy through marriage and recognition were tried by chan......
-
Stevens v. Peyton
...not succeed on the weakness of the title of his adversary." Kephart v. Rucker, 379 S.W.2d 244, 246 (Ky. 1964); Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Frazer, 328 S.W.2d 142, 144 (Ky. 1958) (stating "the right of a party to relief, if he has any, depends on the strength of his own title, not on the weakness......
-
Vogler v. Salem Primitive Baptist Church
...on the strength of his title. KRS 411.120. Letcher County Coal & Implement Company v. Marlowe, Ky., 398 S.W.2d 870; Aluminum Company of America v. Frazer, Ky., 328 S.W.2d 142. The Chancellor decided that by reason of the merger and by reason of the schism rule, as previously discussed, the ......
-
Kephart v. Rucker
...v. Cassity, 297 Ky. 716, 181 S.W.2d 248; Noland v. Wise, Ky., 259 S.W.2d 46; Ellis v. Chestnut, Ky., 289 S.W.2d 740; Aluminum Co. of America v. Frazer, Ky., 328 S.W.2d 142. The same authorities just cited support the proposition that the requisite proof of possession is waived, generally, w......