McCoy v. Hoffman
| Decision Date | 09 November 1956 |
| Citation | 295 S.W.2d 560 |
| Parties | Guy McGOY et al., Appellants, v. Carl E. HOFFMAN et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
W. A. Daugherty, Pikeville, for appellant.
Francis M. Burke, Pikeville, for appellee.
STANLEY, Commissioner.
The appeal by Guy McCoy et al., is from a judgment that the appellees, Carl E. Hoffman and wife, have a passway over the land of the appellants and enjoining them from interfering with its use.
In 1938 Hoffman bought from Vaught Scites a small parcel of land situated on a state highway up Blackberry Fork of Pond Creek in Pike County. Scites covenanted to give his grantee 'a necessary road off the hill to the state highway.' When the highway was reconstructed about the time of Hoffman's purchase, the right of way was cut down so that the parcel was left on a high bluff and direct access to the road was cut off.
The Pond Creek Coal and Land Company, which owned adjoining land, granted Hoffman permission to build a roadway about 800 feet long over its land to the state highway, and such a road was built. Immediately afterward Hoffman erected a residence on his parcel at a cost of $12,000 or $13,000 and had been using this passway for about sixteen years as his only access. When the roadway was built, the appellant, McCoy, was a tenant on the land over which the road was constructed. Afterward, he bought the parcel from the Coal and Land Company knowing, of course, of the presence and use of this roadway. Early in 1954 McCoy gave his daughter and son-in-law the right to build a house along this roadway. In building it the roadway was partially obstructed and, upon objection, McCoy challenged Hoffman's right to it. Thereupon, Hoffman instituted this suit for an injunction.
The court found that the road had been used by Hoffman adversely to the Coal and Land Company and the defendants for a period of more than fifteen years prior to the obstruction and acts complained of. The court ordered the road restored to substantially the same condition it was in at the time and permanently enjoined McCoy and those claiming or having a right from him from obstructing the road and interfering with its use by Hoffman, his family, tenants, or other persons in the peaceable use thereof. The court stated in the judgment that the 'value of the thing in controversy' exceeds $2,500.
It is clear Hoffman acquired a permissive right from the Coal and Land Company to build and use this road. Although he regarded this as a right for more than fifteen years, that claim does not or cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cole v. Gilvin
...Stewart, Ky., 435 S.W.2d 73, 75 (1968); Finney v. Deweese, Ky., 252 S.W.2d 6 (1952); Lyle, 238 S.W.2d at 160. 24. See McCoy v. Hoffman, Ky., 295 S.W.2d 560, 561 (1956); Lambert v. Huntsman, 306 Ky. 862, 209 S.W.2d 709, 711 (1948); Clark v. Cunning, 302 Ky. 779, 196 S.W.2d 609, 611 (1946); W......
-
Lyles v. RDP Co.
...is true that a right to use property, if permissive at its inception, will not ripen into a prescriptive easement. See McCoy v. Hoffman, 295 S.W.2d 560, 561 (Ky. 1956); Cole, 59 S.W.3d at 475-76. To that statement, though, there is an important caveat: A prescriptive easement may ripen so l......
-
Poe v. Gaunce, No. 2010–CA–001774–MR.
...cannot ripen into an easement by prescription....” Grinestaff v. Grinestaff, 318 S.W.2d 881, 884 (Ky.1958) (citing McCoy v. Hoffman, 295 S.W.2d 560, 561 (Ky.1956)). And here, the Gates heirs' claim of adverse possession must fail because the record only demonstrates that Margaret and Ronald......
-
Melton v. Cross
...to use the road, then their prescriptive easement claim fails for lack of use that is hostile to the landowner. See McCoy v. Hoffman, 295 S.W.2d 560, 561 (Ky. 1956) ("It is a well settled rule that use of property by express or implied permission or license, no matter how long continued, ca......