Carroll v. Kentucky & West Virginia Gas Co.
| Decision Date | 27 May 1966 |
| Citation | 403 S.W.2d 273 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
| Parties | John CARROLL et al., Appellants, v. KENTUCKY & WEST VIRGINIA GAS COMPANY, Appellee. |
Jean L. Auxier, Pikeville, for appellants.
C. Kilmer Combs, Tucson, Ariz., Francis L. Rice, Pikeville, for appellee.
CULLEN, Commissioner.
The dispute in this case concerns the location of the boundaries of a 300-acre tract of mountain land conveyed by a deed of 1890. The plaintiff (appellee) claimed that the boundaries were so located as to embrace a gas well which the plaintiff has been operating for some 20 years. The defendants (appellants) maintained that the tract lay south of the well and did not embrace it. The trial court, accepting the testimony of the plaintiff's surveyor, entered judgment locating the boundaries as claimed by the plaintiff. The defendants, appealing, argue the case solely on the proposition that the testimony of the plaintiff's surveyor is incredible and without probative value.
The surveyor testified that a portion of the northeastern line of the tract in question was a common boundary with a John Harris tract. The appellants maintain that the evidence shows this testimony to be false; therefore, they argue, all of the surveyor's testimony becomes unbelievable. The argument is not sound because, accepting the premise, the conclusion does not follow. The record shows that the surveyor merely cited the claimed coincidence of the boundary lines as supporting the accuracy of his survey of the tract in issue, in the course of which survey he claimed to have physically located the boundaries. Assuming that there was no coincidence of lines, and thus no support, that alone would not render incredible or without probative value his direct testimony as to the location by his survey of the lines of the tract in issue.
The 1890 deed contained 32 calls. The seventh call is for a 'chestnut oak on top of the ridge at the head of Jack Fords Branch'. The seventh call as located by the appellee's surveyor is on a ridge at a chestnut oak stump but the ridge is not at the head of Jack Fords Branch; in fact, it is some 2,400 feet from the head of the branch. The appellants argue that this fact destroys the credibility of the surveyor's testimony. From a topographical map in the record it appears that the call as located by the surveyor is at or near the mouth of Jack Fords Branch. This indicates that the call in the deed inadvertently may have used 'head' instead of 'mouth.' If the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver v. Com.
...The credibility of witnesses is for the jury. Robinson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 474 S.W.2d 107 (1971); Carroll v. Kentucky & West Virginia Gas Company, Ky., 403 S.W.2d 273, 274 (1966). Since Payne's false statement went only to an issue affecting his own credibility and not the facts of the ca......