Sevier v. Bowling

• Decision Date: 05 December 1906
• Citation: 97 S.W. 806
• Parties: SEVIER v. BOWLING ET AL.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

97 S.W. 806

SEVIER v. BOWLING ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 5, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Sudie Sevier against Hiram Bowling and another. From a judgment granting insufficient relief, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

D. K Rawlings, for appellant.

B. B Golden, W. W. Rawlings, and Stivers & Wright, for appellees.

SETTLE J.

The appellant, Sudie Sevier, sued the appellees, Hiram Bowling and Clabe McCreary, to recover damages for an alleged trespass committed by cutting timber upon land particularly described in the petition, of which she claimed to be the owner and in the actual adverse possession for more than 30 years. Appellee's answer denied her title to the land upon which the cutting of timber was done by them, or that she was in the possession thereof, and averred title in themselves, and also that they and those under whom they claim the land have been in the actual, adverse possession thereof, claiming to a well-defined and marked boundary, for more than 15 years continuously before the institution of the action. Appellant, by reply, denied the title and possession claimed by appellees, and in addition averred that some years before the institution of her action suit was brought against her by appellee's vendor, George McCreary, seeking to establish in himself title to, and to recover of her, the land now in controversy; that she filed an answer in that action in which she denied the title of George McCreary, and set up her own title thereto; that the action terminated in a judgment dismissing the petition, which left her in possession of the land and in effect declared her to be the owner thereof. It was further averred in the reply that the judgment in question was conclusive of her title to the land and a bar to appellee's claim of title. A trial by jury was waived by the parties, and the law and facts submitted by the court. By the judgment rendered the court established the boundary of appellant's land, and found as a matter of fact that appellees had cut but four trees thereon of the value of $2.50, and for this sum she was given judgment against them. She applied for and was refused a new trial, and by this appeal seeks a reversal of the judgment complained of.

We think it clearly shown by the evidence that appellant's title to so much of the land in controversy as is embraced in the boundary of the...