Hendrickson v. Boreing
| Decision Date | 12 October 1895 |
| Citation | 32 S.W. 278 |
| Parties | HENDRICKSON et al. v. BOREING. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from court of common pleas, Bell county.
"Not to be officially reported."
Action by Elizabeth Hendrickson and others against Vincent Boreing and others for possession of land. From a judgment for defendant Boreing, plaintiffs and the rest of the defendants appeal. Reversed.
Weller & Hays, for appellants.
Wm. H Holt, M. J. Moss, and J. H. Tinsley, for appellee.
In 1855 there was patented to Noah Hendrickson a tract of land, of 100 acres,-though it now appears there was a greater quantity,-which he held, and claimed to a well-defined boundary, until his death, in 1863, and was so held thereafter by his widow and heirs at law, until 1878. At that time the county surveyor, employed to lay off and divide the lands of decedent between his widow and children undertook to resurvey the tract according to actual calls of the patent but, failing, by reason of his own lack of knowledge on the subject, to so run the lines as to close the survey, informed them the patent was worthless, and passed no title to the land. Believing that representation, the heirs at law abandoned their claim for several years; and three sons of the patentee immediately proceeded to appropriate, as vacant land, and obtain patents for, the entire tract, each of the three patents being for 200 acres. This action was brought July 15, 1891, by Gillus Hendrickson, Elizabeth Hendrickson and Sarah J. Orr (her husband uniting), three of seven children and heirs at law of Noah Hendrickson, to quiet their title to, and have set apart to each of them, one-seventh of said tract of land. To the action, besides the three brothers mentioned, appellee (Vincent Boreing) and heirs at law of Woodson Begley were made defendants. Boreing, it appears claims to be purchaser and owner, under the three junior patents mentioned, of the entire tract, except the interest of Sarah J. Orr, which the heirs of Woodson Begley claim in virtue of an alleged purchase made by him. But it may as well be mentioned now that, by the judgment rendered in the action, they recovered, instead of an undivided interest in the land a personal judgment for money and enforcement of a lien on the land against Sarah J. Orr and her husband. Consequently the heirs at law of Woodson Begley are not necessary parties to this appeal, in which is involved simply the question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Batty s v. City of Hastings
...to have it removed. Quinn v. Kellogg, 4 Colo.App. 157, 35 P. 49; American Emigrant Co. v. Fuller, 83 Iowa 599, 50 N.W. 48; Hendrickson v. Boreing, 32 S.W. 278; Wagner Law, 3 Wash. 500, 28 P. 1109. The contrary view has been taken in Indiana (Eve v. Louis, 91 Ind. 457), and perhaps by other ......
-
Fordson Coal Co. v. Bowling
... ... patent and deeds, and it is now too late for that to be done ... In discussing this question in the case of Hendrickson v ... Boreing, 32 S.W. 278, 279, 17 Ky. Law Rep. 737, the ... court said: "Although plaintiffs ask for correction of a ... mistake in one call of ... ...
-
Haggart v. Chapman & Dewey Land Co.
...action as to the owner in possession. He may sue at any time to remove it. 88 N.W. 139; 50 N.Y. 337; 107 N.Y. 111; 35 P. 49; 50 N.W. 48; 32 S.W. 278; 28 P. Rose & Coleman, for appellees, Grider heirs. The neglect and long delay of plaintiffs and their grantors is such laches as bars them of......