Givens v. Lord Crawshaw

• Decision Date: 17 March 1900
• Citation: 55 S.W. 905
• Parties: GIVENS v. LORD CRAWSHAW et al. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

55 S.W. 905

GIVENS v. LORD CRAWSHAW et al. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 17, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Bell county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by William Givens against Lord Crawshaw and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Weller & Hays and G. M. Saulsberry, for appellant.

Wm Low, for appellees.

GUFFY J.

On the 27th of November, 1897, the appellant instituted this action in the Bell circuit court against the defendants. It is alleged as follows in the petition: "The plaintiff William Givens, says that he is a citizen and resident of Bell county, Kentucky, and that the defendant the Right Honorable Thomas, Lord Crawshaw, Baron Crawshaw (a name or title given to Sir Thomas Brooks), and Catherine, Lady Crawshaw, his wife, are citizens and residents of London England, and that the defendant John D. Hood is a citizen and resident of the city of Chicago and state of Illinois. For cause of action herein, the plaintiff states: That in the year of 1893, prior thereto, and since that date, Sir Thomas Brooks, as he was then called, now the defendant Thomas, Lord Crawshaw, etc., was the owner of, and claimed the legal and equitable title to, a great many acres of land, consisting of twenty-two different tracts and twelve lots, together with the appurtenances thereto belonging, all situated in the county of Bell and state of Kentucky; the titles to said property having been obtained by said defendant from various and divers persons. On or about the -- day of --, 1893, the plaintiff bought from the defendant Crawshaw (then Brooks) all the standing and merchantable timber on said land, for which the plaintiff agreed to pay to the said defendant (then Brooks) the sum of two and 50/100 dollars per thousand feet. That the said defendant Crawshaw (then Brooks) claimed a tract of land hereinafter described as 'Tract 14,' and known as the 'Tinsley Tract,' containing two hundred and eighteen and one-fourth acres. That, amongst other lands, the defendant Crawshaw sold the timber of said Tinsley tract to this plaintiff, and that pursuant to said contract this plaintiff went to some of the lands then belonging to this defendant (among others, the Tinsley tract), which the defendant then claimed to be the owner of, and cut the timber therefrom, and paid to said defendant Crawshaw (then Brooks) according to the contract for the timber so removed from said Tinsley tract, amounting to the sum of about three hundred dollars. From other land this plaintiff cut and removed timber under said contract to the amount of about three hundred dollars, for which this plaintiff has paid the defendant Crawshaw. At or about the time plaintiff made the payments above referred to, and had gone to considerable expense and trouble in making preparations to manufacture said timber into lumber, the defendant Crawshaw notified and compelled this plaintiff to stop cutting said timber, to the plaintiff's damage in the sum of five thousand dollars. Plaintiff further states that among other tracts of land that were claimed by defendant Crawshaw, from which this plaintiff had been instructed to, and did, cut timber under said contract, was the Tinsley tract, hereinbefore referred to and that plaintiff did cut a certain amount of timber from said tract, for which this plaintiff was induced to take said timber from said Tinsley tract, and pay to the said defendant therefor, because said Crawshaw had sold same to this plaintiff, representing that he was the owner thereof, when in fact the said defendant Crawshaw did not own the said Tinsley tract of land, and his claim to same was fraudulent and void, and not well founded in law. That one Thos. Evans was at that time, and is now, the owner, both legal and equitable, of said tract of land, but this fact was not known to this plaintiff at that time, and he was induced by the said defendant Crawshaw to believe that he (Crawshaw) was the legal and the equitable owner of said land. That in 1895 the said Thomas Evans brought suit in the Bell circuit court, claiming the title to the said Tinsley tract, and made this plaintiff a defendant to said action, and asking damage against this plaintiff for the timber removed from said tract of land by plaintiff; and at the October term of said Bell circuit court, 1897, a judgment was rendered in the said action of Thomas Evans against this plaintiff and others, adjudging him (Evans) to be the owner of the said Tinsley tract of land, and adjudging that this plaintiff pay to said Thomas Evans the sum of three hundred dollars, with interest and costs of said action, for the timber removed from said tract of land by plaintiff under contract with defendant Crawshaw. Plaintiff says that he has been compelled to pay said judgment and the costs of said action of Evans against himself and others, which judgment and interest cost $-- lawyer's fees, and his time, trouble, and other expenses, amounting to the sum of seven hundred dollars. Plaintiff further says that at the time of the filing of the suit against this defendant by the said Thomas Evans, setting up his title to said Tinsley tract of land, and claiming damages for the removing of said timber, this plaintiff gave to the defendant Crawshaw (then Brooks) notice of the filing of said suit by said Evans, when this defendant, Crawshaw (then Brooks), assured this plaintiff that he (defendant Crawshaw) was the real owner of said land, and that Evans had no title to same, and then entered into a contract with this plaintiff by which he (defendant Crawshaw) agreed with plaintiff that, if this plaintiff would defend said action and set up the title of this defendant Crawshaw, he (Crawshaw) would pay all expenses of said action and costs incident thereto, and in pursuance of said contract the defendant Crawshaw did employ some counsel, and this plaintiff employed other counsel, to defend said action of Thomas Evans, and that said counsel, in the name of this plaintiff, did set up the claim of said defen...