Henry v. Board Trustees Diocese of Ky.
| Decision Date | 17 March 1925 |
| Citation | 207 Ky. 846 |
| Parties | Henry v. Board of Trustees of the Diocese of Kentucky. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Boundaries — Highways — Grantee of Land Bounded by Highway Takes to its Center, and Abandonment of Highway Effects Reversion to Grantee Discharged of Easement. — Where land bounding highway is conveyed without reservation, grantee takes title to center of highway, and the abandonment of the highway effects a reversion to grantee of land discharged of highway as easement.
2. Highways — What Description in Deed of Land Bounding Highway is Sufficient to Work Reversion to Grantee of Land Discharged of such Highway as Easement Stated. — A deed conveying land adjoining a highway and describing it by lot, block, or tract number, with reference to a map or plat which shows that the property abuts on the highway, is sufficient in description on which to predicate a reversion to the grantee of the highway as an easement when the latter is abandoned.
3. Highways — Abandoned Highway, Adjoining Land Conveyed, Held to Revert to Grantee Discharged of Easement. — Abandoned highway 15 feet wide, adjoining and constituting boundary of land conveyed, held to have reverted to grantee discharged of highway as easement, where the strip was of little value or of practical use to grantor, and its ownership by another would entail great hardship on grantee.
4. Pleading — Chancellor's Refusal to Permit Filing of Amended Answer and Counterclaim Held Not Abuse of Discretion. — Chancellor's refusal to permit filing of amended answer and counterclaim held not abuse of discretion, where the pleading was not tendered until a year after the case had been submitted, and no good reason for the delay was shown.
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
HUMPHREY, CRAWFORD & MIDDLETON for appellant.
HENRY J. TILFORD for appellee.
Affirming.
In the year 1906, W.H. Henry and Edward B. Henry conveyed lot 1, block A, Henry's Addition, in Louisville, to the rector and wardens of the Church of the Advent of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the diocese of Kentucky. The lot, which is located on Richmond avenue, is bounded on the west by lot 2, block A, and on the east by a 15-foot strip of land, which for many years had been used as a right of way by the Louisville & Interurban Railroad Company and its predecessor in title, and which was still being used for that purpose at the time of the conveyance. On the other side of the strip of land is the Bardstown road. Upon a reconstruction of the Bardstown road in 1912, the railroad tracks were moved to the center of the highway and the right of way over the 15-foot strip was abandoned by the railroad company. In the year 1922, the Church of the Advent conveyed to the board of trustees of the diocese of Kentucky the same lot, together with so much of the 15-foot strip as lay between it and the Bardstown road.
The board of trustees of the diocese of Kentucky brought this suit against W.H. Henry to quiet its title to the 15-foot strip. Henry, who had acquired the interest of his brother, filed an answer and counterclaim denying the title of plaintiff, asserting title in himself, and asking that his title be quieted. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, Henry has appealed.
The rule is, that where land bounded on a highway is conveyed without reservation, or language showing a contrary intention, the grantee takes title to the center of the highway, and when the highway is abandoned, or vacated, the land reverts to the grantee discharged of the easement. Hawesville v. Lander, 8 Bush 679; Schneider v. Jacob, etc., 86 Ky. 101, 5 S.W. 350; Banks v. Ogden, 2 Wall. 57, 17 L. ed. 818. In applying this rule it was held in Williams, et al. v. Johnson, 149 Ky. 409, 149 S.W. 821, that where an existing public highway was designated as one of the boundaries of land conveyed, the grantees obtained the right to use the entire highway as an appurtenant easement, and on a partial abandonment of the road, and the building of a new highway, such grantees from necessity and by estoppel of the grantor to deprive them of their easement, were entitled to all the abandoned highway between their lots and the substituted road, even though the boundary was thereby extended...
To continue reading
Request your trial