Davis' Heirs v. Hinckley

• Decision Date: 11 July 1900
• Citation: Davis' Heirs v. Hinckley, 141 F. 708 (U.S. Cir. Ct., D. Ky. 1900)
• Parties: DAVIS' HEIRS v. HINCKLEY et al.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Kentucky

141 F. 708

DAVIS' HEIRS v. HINCKLEY et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Kentucky.

July 11, 1900

EVANS District Judge.

The complainants' bill seeks a decree quieting their title to a large tract of land, mainly in Harlan county, Ky., upon the allegations that they have the legal title to the land and the possession thereof, and that the defendants are, without foundation therefor, making some claim to the ownership of said land. The defendants H. V. Harris and Frank G. Brown though properly brought before the court by statutory service sufficient for the purposes of the relief sought as to the land, have not appeared nor pleaded; but the defendants F. E Hinckley and the Horn Silver Mining Company have pleaded that they are innocent purchasers for value of said land and have possession thereof, and they have also contested alike the title and the possession of the complainants. These defendants, however, have taken little or no proof in support of their plea or in opposition to complainants' claim and practically the case must be decided alone upon the testimony offered by the complainants.

Without treating the case at all elaborately (as it presents no serious difficulties), it will suffice to say, first, that there seems to be no doubt that the patent of September 1845, issued upon the survey of March 3, 1845, to Ledford, Skidmore, and Smith, is not only prior to that under which the defendants claim, but is valid as to all lands included within the boundaries of that patent, except such parts thereof as had been previously patented by the state of Kentucky to other persons; second, that, as between complainants and defendants at least, the proof is sufficient to show possession in the former of all the land in dispute. The continued and prompt payment of the taxes upon the land for a long period of time and its occupation by tenants, considered with reference to the character of the otherwise unoccupied portions of the land, is, all things considered, about the only character of possession of which it is susceptible under the circumstances almost judicially known to exist in that section of the state and in that mountainous region. The chain of the complainants' title from the commonwealth to the year 1870, when Edward M. Davis, the complainant's ancestor, purchased it, seems to be well established, if, fourth, the identity of the land is sufficiently shown by the testimony.

(Image Omitted...