Home/Court of Appeals of Kentucky/Albertson v. Chicago Veneer Co.

Albertson v. Chicago Veneer Co.

197 S.W. 831, 177 Ky. 285, 1917 Ky. LEXIS 596
Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided October 19, 1917·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Hurt

— Affirming.

The appellant, W. H. Albertson, instituted tliis action against tlie appellee, 'Chicago Veneer Company, claiming to be the owner of certain lands from wHeh. the appellee, as alleged, had cut and appropriated, to its own use, timber trees of the value of more than forty thousand dollars. The ownership of the land by appellant, from which the trees were cut, was denied by the appellee. Thereafter, the appellants, Davidson, Hicks & Green Company, claiming that they were joint owners of the land with the appellant, Albertson, intervened by a petition to he made parties, and they were ordered to he made parties 'plaintiff, and the action prosecuted by all 'the appellants as having a joint interest in the lands. The appellant, Albertson, claimed title under a survey made in the name of John T. Redman and Nathaniel Merideth for two hundred acres of land, survey having been made on January 17, 1857, and a grant thereafter made to John T. Redman for the land. The appellants, Davidson, Hicks & Green Company, claimed an interest in the land as vendees of Albertson. The appellee claimed title to the land under grants to P. W. Hardin between 187’0 and 1873, and bence, the only question to he [286]*286determined in the ease, is, whether the grant, under which Albertson claims, embraced the land from- which the timber trees were cut and removed. The appellant, Albertson, showed a chain of title from the Commonwealth to himself, through a patent to John T. Redman, granted in 1858, and a conveyance to himself from Red-man. In the year, 1903, it seems, that Albertson undertook to sell this tract of land, together with a great deal of other lands owned by him, in that vicinity, to the vendors of his co-appellants, Davidson, Hicks & Creen Company, and evidently thought that he had disposed of all the lands that he had in that community, at that time. Reference will be made to the accompanying rough diagram to illustrate the questions and facts in the case. The grant under which Albertson claims, so far as it is necessary for the purposes of this opinion, describes the land as “beginning at a white oak and two Spanish oaks, about 120 poles S. E. from where the said Redman now lives, near his comer about the head of a spring; thence S. 25 W. 36 poles to a black oak and dogwood; S. 10 W. 25 poles to a hickory and white oak; S. 75 E. 80 poles to a stake on Thomas Upchurch’s line, and with the same S. 8% "W. 400 poles to a stake on Emsley Bertram’s line, and with the same N. 56 W. 480 poles to a stake on said Redman’s line of a' 120 acre survey, and with the lines thereof N. 56 poles to two beeches; N. 35 E. 62 poles to a beech and maple, etc.” The description then calls to follow the lines of Red-man’s 120 acre survey to the beginning corner, a white oak and two Spanish oaks, in each instance giving course and distance. There is no controversy as to the location of the Thomas Upchurch tract of land, and its location is shown on the accompanying diagram by the tract designated as lying east of the line described by the figures and letter, 5, 4, 6, 7 and y. Neither is there any controversy as to the correctness of the location of the line from 5, by way of 4, 6, 7 and y, as the western boundary line of the Upchurch tract. The location of the John T. Redman 120-acre tract survey is, also, conceded, and that the line described by .the letters aa, c, b, k, 1, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, and x, is the boundary line of that survey, which adjoins the land embraced by the patent under which the appellants claim title. It is, likewise, agreed, that the corner designated by the figure 1, a white oak and two Spanish oaks, is the correct location of the beginning corner of the Redman 200 acre tract of land,

[287]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Albertson v. Chicago Veneer Co., 197 S.W. 831, 177 Ky. 285, 1917 Ky. LEXIS 596 (Ky. Ct. App. 1917).

197 S.W. 831 (Albertson v. Chicago Veneer Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Republic Steel Corporation v. Wheeler
215 S.W.2d 994 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1948)
Wood v. Harmon
157 S.W.2d 292 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1941)
Hays v. Greasy Brush Coal Co.
157 S.W.2d 75 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1941)
Givens v. United States Trust Co.
86 S.W.2d 986 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1935)
Asher v. Fordson Coal Company
61 S.W.2d 20 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
Fordson Coal Company v. Potter's Executors
35 S.W.2d 298 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1931)
Fordson Coal Co. v. Spurlock
19 F.2d 820 (Sixth Circuit, 1927)
Strunk v. Geary
288 S.W. 1053 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1926)
Kentucky River Timber & Coal Co. v. Morgan
275 S.W. 12 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1925)
Hollars v. Rains
267 S.W. 1097 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1925)
Graves v. Commonwealth
217 S.W. 356 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1920)
Rowe v. Kidd
259 F. 127 (Sixth Circuit, 1919)