Reed v. Flynn
Decision Date | 02 December 1924 |
Citation | 205 Ky. 783,266 S.W. 644 |
Parties | REED v. FLYNN. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Grant County.
Suit by A. G. Reed against Carl K. Flynn.Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.Reversed and remanded.
L. M Ackman, of Williamstown, for appellant.
C. C Adams, of Williamstown, for appellee.
In the year 1868 there was pending in the Grant countycourt a proceeding instituted by Michael Flynn v. J. H. Brown, in which Flynn sought to establish a passway from his land to the pike over Brown's land.In settlement of this suit a written contract was made on September 25, 1868, signed by them both, in which, after setting out the route of the passway as laid out by the viewers, these words were added:
A. G. Reed now owns the Brown farm, Carl K. Flynn the Flynn farm; Reed holding under Brown, and Flynn under his grandfather Michael Flynn.On May 20, 1921, Reed brought this action against Flynn, alleging these facts.He became owner of the Brown farm in 1900, and then removed a gate that was at that time standing across the pathway and had so stood from the time that the contract was entered into.This gate stood between gates standing at either end of the passway, making three gates on it.This gate was necessary for the protection of his land, and in May, 1920, he erected the middle gate again.The defendant refused to close it or allow it to remain closed.He prayed an injunction requiring the defendant to close the middle gate and allow it to remain closed.An answer was filed controverting the allegations of the petition.A temporary injunction was refused, and on final hearing the plaintiff's petition was dismissed.He appeals.
While the evidence is conflicting, the great weight of the evidence shows that for many years after the contract was made the middle gate in question existed; that it was built by Michael Flynn at Brown's request, and a cross-fence was run across the field so as to cut it into two fields.The passway is about 1,250 feet long; there is no dispute about the gates at either end.The field contains 17 1/2 acres.When Reed bought the place, the cross-fence was in a bad condition, and he did not then need the cross-fence for his farming operations, so he took the fence away, and the gate was...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Columbus & Greenville R. Co. v. Lee
...that the signals were given, and especially so where the witness was paying no attention to ascertain if any were given. 100 P. 1016; 266 S.W. 644. failure on the part of the plaintiff to call the witness Mike Buford, who was evidently friendly to plaintiff, is a circumstance from which the......
-
Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Robinson
... ... 1116; ... Banister v. R. Co. (Iowa), 202 N.W. 766; Longley ... v. McGroch (Md.), 80 A. 844; Long v. McCabe ... (Wash.), 100 P. 1016; Reed v. Flynn (Ky.), 266 ... S.W. 644; Hank v. Peoria Ry. Co., 154 Ill.App. 473; ... C. & R. I. R. Co. v. Still, 19 Ill. 499 ... Mr ... ...
-
Hoffman v. Smith
...through them. Phillips v. Dressler, 122 Ind. 414, 24 N.E. 226 (1890); Bina v. Bina, 213 Iowa 432, 239 N.W. 68 (1931); Reed v. Flynn, 205 Ky. 783, 266 S.W. 644 (1924); Jones v. Edwards, 219 Or. 429, 347 P.2d 846 In Bina v. Bina, supra, the defendants, not unlike the Smiths, decided that it w......
-
Rupp v. Hickman
...Yates, 200 Ky. 530, 255 S.W. 102; Raisor v. Lyons, 172 Ky. 314, 189 S.W. 234; Hunt v. Sutton, 188 Ky. 361, 222 S.W. 84, and Reed v. Flynn, 205 Ky. 783, 266 S.W. 644. Numerous other cases since the rendition of the ones cited have approved and followed the same principles, but they are too w......