York v. Perkins
| Decision Date | 11 June 1954 |
| Parties | YORK v. PERKINS et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
S. M. Ward, Hazard, for appellant.
Fred K. Cope, Hazard, for appellees.
This is a suit to quiet title to approximately two acres of a wedge shaped strip of land in Perry County. The petition averred that plaintiff, Felix York, was the owner of the tract in dispute and defendants, America Perkins and Will Shepard, were trespassing thereon and had wrongfully removed a fence separating plaintiff's land from defendants'. The answer was a general denial. The chancellor dismissed the petition and this appeal followed.
Plaintiff contends the chancellor erred in failing to correctly establish the property line between the parties.
The title of the parties originated in the division of the old Cornett estate. Henry Cornett, under whom defendants claim, was a brother to Polly Cornett, under whom plaintiff claims. In the division of the Cornett estate in 1900, there was conveyed by the master commissioner to Henry Cornett a certain tract, which was east, or up the river, from the Polly Cornett tract. There was conveyed to Polly Cornett by the master commissioner in the same division a tract which was west of the Henry Cornett tract, but adjoining it and there was a common boundary line between these two tracts.
In the commissioner's deed to Polly the third call is N 24 1/2 W 60, and in the commissioner's deed to Henry, the closing call, which was a reverse call, is S 24 1/2 E 60 poles. In a mineral deed Henry Cornett, defendants' remote grantor, executed to C. G. Bowman in 1905, this call is N 24 1/2 W 60 poles, which corresponds with the division line in the commissioner's deed in 1900.
The deed upon which defendants base their claim is dated 1916. In this deed from Henry Cornett to John Begley, there was no attempt to follow the original courses and distances given in the 1900 deeds of the master commissioner, but this pertinent call is:
'Beginning on two sycamores and rock marked X; thence a straight line to two small hickories above the county road; thence with same degree to top of ridge.'
When this line is run with a compass it goes from the rock N 45 W to the top of the spur.
This marked rock and the two sycamores are agreed upon by both parties as the starting point. The question is whether the boundary line runs from this rock N 24 1/2 W 60 poles to the top of the spur as contended by plaintiff, or N 45 W to the top of the spur as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Harding
...Buchanan and with an expectation of the right to strip mine, they acquired no greater right than their vendors possessed. York v. Perkins, Ky., 269 S.W.2d 242 (1954); Vanhoose v. Fairchild, 145 Ky. 700, 141 S.W. 75 (1911). Akers went astray when it elevated the rights of those who acquired ......
-
Gardner v. Fliegel
...nothing more than the grantor (the Woods) owns and can convey. 1 Parker v. Bowlan, 242 Ark. 192, 412 S.W.2d 597 (1967); York v. Perkins, 269 S.W.2d 242 (Ky.1954); Kelly v. Nagle, 150 Md. 125, 132 A. 587 (1926); Williamson v. De Bruce, 213 Miss. 530, 57 So.2d 167 (1952); Findley Lake Propert......
-
Potter v. Citation Coal Corp.
...discussion. The grantor in that deed had no title to the street and of course it could not create any title in appellants. York v. Perkins, Ky., 269 S.W.2d 242. Appellants also contend that Citation was unjustly enriched by the use of their property, but since their claim of title to Clinch......
-
Gibson v. Jones
...title to land actually owned by grantor and the grantee takes no greater title under a deed than the grantor had." York v. Perkins, 269 S.W.2d 242, 243 (Ky. 1954) (citing 26 C.J.S., Deeds, § 104b, p. 382; Buchanan v. Crucible Steel Casting & Metal Co., 5 Ky. Law Rep. 178; KRS 381.150). Thus......