Clark v. Davis

• Decision Date: 22 January 1901
• Parties: CLARK et al. v. DAVIS et al. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

60 S.W. 396

CLARK et al. v. DAVIS et al. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 22, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Johnson county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action of ejectment by Samuel Clark and others against G. W. Davis and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Jas Goble and John P. Wells, for appellants.

Vaughan & Wheeler, for appellees.

PAYNTER C.J.

The appellants instituted this action in ejectment to recover possession of a certain tract of land on the waters of Daniel's creek, Johnson county; it being averred that the appellees had wrongfully taken possession of it some six years before the institution of the suit, and held it. Both claim title through the original patentee, John Wells, to whom a patent was issued on March 1, 1837. On November 4 1846, the patentee, by deed, conveyed it to Isaac Hicks. Hicks seems to have owned it but a short time, when, before 1850, he conveyed it by title bond to W. G. Wells. Both appellants and appellees admit this to be true. Some time in the 40's W. G. Wells sold it to Morgan Clark, and it is claimed by appellants that Wells never gave Clark any writing evidencing the contract of sale, and therefore he acquired no right or title to it. On January 3, 1876, W. G. Wells procured Isaac Hicks to make a deed to his daughter, Susana who is the wife of the appellant Clark, for it. The appellees, as we have stated, contend that Morgan Clark acquired no interest in the land by his transaction with Wells; therefore, the title being in Hicks, he could convey it to the appellant Mrs. Clark. It is strange how this contention is made, in the face of the record; for it appears that on March 26, 1857, W. G. Wells and his wife by deed conveyed the land in controversy to Morgan Clark. This deed was duly acknowledged and recorded. At that time Hicks held the legal, but Wells the equitable, title to it, and all the interest which Wells had was by his deed to Morgan Clark vested in him. So, at the time Hicks made the deed to Mrs Clark, he had nothing but the naked legal title, without right of possession, which he held for the benefit of the purchaser, Morgan Clark, and his vendees. After Hicks had sold the land and conveyed it by title bond, he had no beneficial interest in it. It results from this that the appellants failed to manifest any title to the land which would enable them to recover the possession of it. ...