Hays v. Greasy Brush Coal Co.

• Citation: 288 Ky. 774
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
• Decision Date: 26 September 1941
• Parties: Hays v. Greasy Brush Coal Co. Fuson et al. v. Same.

288 Ky. 774

Hays v. Greasy Brush Coal Co.

Fuson et al. v. Same.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 26, 1941.

1. Boundaries. — Generally, in determining boundaries, courses and distances must give way to natural objects and in running a line along a given course to a designated point, the point should be reached regardless of given distance.

2. Boundaries. — Where courses and distances run according to calls of patent would not touch boundary lines of adjacent properties called for in the patent, courses and distances gave way to established boundaries of other tracts and excluded parties other than patentee from claiming land between a line which might be fixed by following courses and distances and the boundaries of adjacent properties called for by patent.

3. Judgment. — A judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming a judgment fixing a boundary line would not conflict with a judgment of the United States District Court which did not involve the land in controversy.

Appeal from Bell Circuit Court.

J. Smith Hays and William Hays for Greasy Brush Coal Co., and another.

Golden & Lay for Greasy Brush Coal Co.

H.H. Owens for K.C. Land Co. and others.

J.J. Tye and H.L. Bryant for appellee George W. Tye and another.

James M. Hays for J.M. and Minerva F. Hays.

Stephens & Steely for Phillip C. Fuson et al.

Before J.S. Forester, Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY SIMS, COMMISSIONER.

Affirming.

While not consolidated by a formal order these two cases were heard together in the circuit court and disposed of in one judgment and both will be decided in this opinion. The pleadings are numerous and some of them are lengthy, therefore we will not attempt to give a synopsis of the pleadings but will content ourselves with the mere statement that they raise the issue as to who is the owner of a small tract of something over 13 acres of unfenced mountain land which is valuable for a coal deposit known as the Dean seam. The coal is being mined by a lessee of all the claimants with the royalty held by a trustee to be paid to the one the court decides has title to the land in controversy.

In reality both suits are to quiet title to which there are four claimants; George W. Tye, Minerva Frances Hays, the heirs of James Fuson and the Greasy Brush Coal Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The chancellor decided in favor of the Company and Miss Hays and the Fuson heirs appeal. Tye is president of the Company and while he asserted title individually to an undivided one-half interest in the land, he appears to have done so as a formality and prosecutes no appeal.

The real controversy is whether or not patent No. 69005 issued by the Commonwealth to James M. Hays in 1913 covers vacant and unappropriated lands or whether it covers land embraced in patent No. 63267 issued to James Fuson in 1890 for 25 acres, and whether or not James Fuson included this tract in a deed he executed to S.S. Fuson in 1896. Each claimant pleaded a paper title, also title by adverse possession; and the Company in addition pleaded James M. Hays acquired this 13.75-acre tract under a partnership agreement, therefore he held it as trustee for his associates.

To get a clear picture of this controversy it is necessary to state briefly the history of some of James M. Hays' land transactions. In 1905 he and George W. Tye agreed to purchase coal lands on Brush and Greasy creeks in Knox and Bell counties, Kentucky, each to bear one-half of the expense and to own one-half of the lands. Soon thereafter they took S.B. Dishman and J. Smith Hays, a brother of James M. Hays, into the venture each having a one-fourth interest therein. James Fuson conveyed his lands to S.S. Fuson, and James M. Hays purchased same from S.S. Fuson and Hays' father-in-law, D.T. Chestnut, the latter having asserted a claim to a lien against the lands. On April 19, 1909, the Hays brothers, Dishman and Tye formed a corporation known as the Greasy Brush Coal Company, to which they conveyed the lands they had purchased. On May 19, 1909, James M. Hays made entries in the surveyor's books in Bell County and four surveys were made on April 19, 1913, and on May 16, 1914, patents numbered 69004, 5 6 and 7 were issued to him by the Commonwealth. James M. Hays moved from Kentucky to Oklahoma before these patents were issued and Tye testified he attended to the patents, bore the expense of securing them and was reimbursed by the Company since the patents were obtained to perfect the Company's title to these Fuson lands. Hays conveyed all the lands covered by the four patents to the Company with the exception of No. 69005 which was retained by him under a claim that it was his individual property.

It is admitted by all parties that the James Fuson patent of 1890 is incorrect as to some courses and distances and there is but little dispute that natural monuments, corners and the lines of adjoining patents are correctly given therein. It is contended by Tye that when James M. Hays discovered this error in the James Fuson 1890 patent he refused to convey the 13.75 acres covered by his patent No. 69005 to the Company, but conveyed same to his daughter, Minerva Frances Hays, by a deed bearing date of June 14, 1935, who claims to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and is asserting title to this small tract of land. James M. Hays further acquainted James Fuson's heirs with the error in the 1890 patent and agreed to pay them $25 per acre for all of it to which they could clear the title, and presented them with a deed to sign which conveyed to his daughter certain lands Hays thought the Fuson heirs owned. Tye filed suit against James M. and Minerva Frances Hays and the Company asking that it be adjudged that he and Miss Hays are joint owners of the 13.75 acres; or if that be not decreed, he asks that the land be adjudged to the Company. Miss Hays and the Company each asserted title through their respective counterclaims.

After the visit from James M. Hays the Fuson heirs instituted suit against him, the Company, its stockholders, the operating lessee and Minerva Frances Hays, contending the land in controversy did not pass under the deed from James Fuson to S.S. Fuson, and that it was included within the boundary of the James Fuson 50-acre patent of 1882 and the James and Franklin Fuson 50-acre patent of 1879, making the title of the heirs superior to the Company's title which claimed under the James Fuson 25-acre patent of 1890 and superior to the title of James M. Hays, or his daughter, Minerva, who claimed under patent No. 69005 issued in 1913. The chancellor found that the land in controversy was included in the James Fuson patent of 25 acres of 1890 and that it was conveyed by him to S.S. Fuson, the Company's remote grantor, and the Company's title thereto should be quieted. From this judgment Minerva Frances Hays appeals, as do the heirs of James Fuson. During the litigation it developed that James M. Hays had conveyed the land in dispute to his daughter by a deed dated in 1935 and both action were dismissed as to him.

All parties concede that the James Fuson patent for 25 acres of 1890 which is No. 63267 contains several errors in its calls and it is further conceded that when this patent is properly located this controversy will be solved. This is largely a fact case with little, if any, dissension among the attorneys as to the law applicable. The record is quite voluminous and much of the testimony is that of surveyors and engineers as to how they ran certain lines and located other lines, monuments and corners in some dozen or more patents and deeds. There are innumerable exhibits and a great number of maps filed, hence it is impracticable for us to attempt to go into a minute discussion of the record and we must content ourselves with a statement of the conclusions reached with but a brief recitation of the evidence supporting those conclusions.

The James Fuson 25-acre patent of 1890 contains 10 calls. There is no dispute as to the location of the beginning corner or as to the first three lines which were run out on the ground. From the fourth corner the patent was not actually surveyed but was...