Ludwick v. Kassenbrock

Decision Date19 December 1952
PartiesLUDWICK v. KASSENBROCK et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

J. Ballard Clark and Clark & Manby, La Grange, for appellant.

D. E. Wooldridge, La Grange, for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This appeal is from a judgment denying appellant's claim to a passway across the land of the appellees.

Prior to 1887 the land now owned by the parties to this suit belonged to B. B. Button. After Button's death the land now owned by appellant was conveyed to T. A. Button and this deed provided for a fifteen-foot passway over the land now owned by appellees to a place where it intersects a public road known as the 'La Grange Road.'

Appellant's evidence is to the effect that the passway in question has been used by appellant's predecessors in title and by the public since 1887 and by appellant since 1945 when she purchased the property. However, appellees' proof tends to show that the passway in controversy was closed during the year 1910 by the predecessors in title of the parties to this action and that it has not been reopened for use over appellees' land except on occasions when permission had been specifically granted.

The Chancellor found that the passway was closed during the year 1910 and remained closed to the public and that the proof does not sufficiently establish that appellant and her grantors had the unobstructed, hostile and continuous use of the passway as a matter of right for a period of fifteen years or more.

We have no doubt as to the correctness of the Chancellor's determination.

Judgment affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Allen v. Thomas, No. 2005-CA-000305-MR.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 2006
    ...use of a purported easement and its obvious effect on the "continuous" prong of the prescriptive easement test, see Ludwick v. Kassenbrock, 253 S.W.2d 628, 629 (Ky.1952), our research finds that we have never directly addressed, in-depth, the question of what constitutes sufficient interrup......
  • Pittman v. Lowther, Opinion No. 25946 (SC 2/22/2004)
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 22, 2004
    ...(Ca. 1963) (use interrupted by servient owners plowing up wheeltrack road and farming land the road formerly crossed); Ludwick v. Kassenbrock, 253 S.W.2d 628 (Ky. 1962) (running of prescriptive period stopped by closing of passway); Pugh v. Conway, 299 N.E.2d 214 (Ind. App. 1973) (use inter......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT