Gary v. Woosley
| Decision Date | 12 June 1923 |
| Citation | 199 Ky. 748,251 S.W. 1015 |
| Parties | GARY ET AL. v. WOOSLEY. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County.
Ejectment by T. J. Woosley against Palverna Gary and others transferred to equity for trial. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
E. N Mayhugh, of Morgantown, for appellants.
G. V Willis and A. Thatcher, both of Morgantown, for appellee.
This action in ejectment was brought by appellee, Woosley, against appellant Gary and her children, to recover possession of a small, triangular tract of land in Butler county, lying along the property lines of the parties to this cause. The appellants answered, and asserted ownership of the land in controversy, setting up their entire boundary. After pleading to an issue, the parties transferred the case to equity, and took proof by depositions. The chancellor, when the cause was submitted to him, granted the prayer of the petition, and the Garys appeal.
We are asked to reverse the judgment on several grounds: (1) That the plaintiff below, appellee here, failed to prove his ownership of the property in controversy; (2) that the lands now owned by appellants Garys, appellee, Wood, and one Embry were once owned and held by the same persons; and (3) that the evidence does not support the verdict.
We will consider all these questions together. It is true that all the lands now in controversy, as well as the entire farm owned by appellant Gary and appellee, Woosley, were once owned by Green Embry, and that he subdivided the land and conveyed it in separate tracts. It was therefore only necessary for appellee, Woosley, to trace his title back to common grantor Embry. This he did.
There are several maps filed in the record, some made by one party and some by the other, and we perceive that there is great confusion in the evidence, owing to the fact that one of the maps was used part of the time and another map used at another time, with the letters designating the corners of the tracts different upon the several maps. It is very difficult to read the evidence understandingly because of this confusion.
It seems to be conceded that the appellants' beginning corner was at two beeches. Appellee contends that his line from the two beeches to the next call, two white oaks, runs in a certain direction, while appellant insists that the line from the beeches runs at quite another angle to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kentucky River Coal Corp. v. Bayless
...from denying the title of the common grantor and the party having the senior claim under that grantor will prevail. Gary v. Woosley, 199 Ky. 748, 251 S.W. 1015; Crawford v. Crawford, 231 Ky. 675, 22 S.W.2d 93. As heretofore stated, the predecessors in title of both appellant and appellees h......
- Steele v. Commonwealth
-
Crawford v. Crawford
...it was unnecessary to trace their title back further than the vendor under which both they and the appellee claimed. Gary et al. v. Woosley, 199 Ky. 748, 251 S.W. 1015; Middleton et al. v. Comlth., 200 Ky. 237, 254 S.W. 754; May et al. v. C. & O. Ry. Co., 184 Ky. 493, 212 S.W. 131. The appe......
-
Crawford v. Crawford
... ... knew that it was unnecessary to trace their title back ... further than the vendor under which both they and the ... appellee claimed. Gary et al. v. Woosley, 199 Ky ... 748, 251 S.W. 1015; Middleton et al. v. Comlth., 200 ... Ky. 237, 254 S.W. 754; May et al. v. C. & O. Ry ... Co., ... ...