Foreman v. Redman

Citation5 S.W. 556
PartiesFOREMAN v. REDMAN.
Decision Date08 November 1887
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

Appeal from circuit court, Clark county.

Rodney Haggard and L. H. Jones, for appellant.

W. M Beckner, for appellee.

PRYOR C.J.

This controversy is between neighbors who own adjoining land, as to the real boundary between them. The space of ground involved is so small that the recovery as to value is more ideal than real. The appellant had built a post and rail fence along what he supposed to be the real line, and the issue made, resulting in a verdict against him, necessitates its removal. The surveyors, some four or five in number, are not in accord as to the true line; but the jury, after hearing the testimony, including the paper title exhibited returned a verdict establishing the line as appears on the plat of Martin and De Coursey, as the true line, and a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The only issue was as to this line, and the instruction offered by the defendant, and refused, did not prejudice his side of the controversy. It attempted to single out the facts on behalf of the defendant's title, making them more prominent than any other branch of the testimony, and was therefore calculated to mislead the jury. Besides, the weight of the testimony favored the recovery. The jury must have fully understood the issue, and the court very properly left it with them to say where the real line was located.

It is objected that the judgment based on the verdict is void for uncertainty, and that the sheriff, or other officer executing the writ, is left to search among the papers of the action to find Martin and De Coursey's surveys, or will be required to go upon the land and deliver the possession at his peril. The ancient practice in actions of ejectment does not prevail with reference to the execution of the writ of possession. There, the verdict being general, the plaintiff through the officer, took possession under his writ, and was liable in trespass if he took more land than was embraced within the boundary recovered. Under the present practice the judgment should be more specific, and while not void, although following the former system, is erroneous because there is nothing in it to guide the sheriff; but he is left to his own judgment, or that of the plaintiff, in determining where the line has been located.

The judgment in this case, following the verdict, adjudges that the true line between plai...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Smith v. Bachus
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 11 Noviembre 1915
    ...... the true line was indefinite, and afforded no sufficient. guide to the sheriff in the premises. Foreman v. Redman. (Ky.) 5 S.W. 556. A suit in chancery would lie to. establish what this disputed boundary line between the. plaintiffs and defendant ......
  • Russell v. Webb
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 11 Julio 1910
  • Latham v. Lindsay
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 25 Noviembre 1908
    ...In the case before us the only error complained of is the failure of the judgment to sufficiently describe the land. In Foreman v. Redman, 5 S. W. 556, 9 Ky. Law Rep. 531, which was an action involving the title to land, the judgment was held sufficient because the land recovered was not de......
  • Wade v. Gilmer
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 12 Febrero 1914
    ...have and recover of the defendant the costs in this behalf expended, for which let execution issue." The Kentucky court, in Foreman v. Redman, 5 S.W. 556, had before it a very similar verdict and question to here presented. That court held that the verdict was too indefinite to afford a suf......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT