Hudson v. Harvey

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Hudson v. Harvey

282 S.W.2d 844

DecidedOctober 7, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 282 S.W.2d 844 (Hudson v. Harvey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hudson v. Harvey, 282 S.W.2d 844 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment holding that appellees are the owners of the coal; oil, gas, and other, mineral. .rights under a certain tract of land on the waters of Fu-gate’s Fork at or near the mouth of Rich Hollow in Breathitt County. The judgment also directed a reconveyance of the rights.

The case was tried on depositions taken, but on the appeal, appellant designated only the pleadings, demurrer, orders, and judgment to be included in the record. He relied for reversal on the ground that the petition as amended was not sufficient to sustain a cáuse of action.

We have examined the record and have concluded that the petition as amended stated a cause, of action to quiet-the title to land which was not barred by the statute of limitations. This was not an action for relief from fraud.

The motion for appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment holding that appellees are the owners of the coal; oil, gas, and other, mineral. .rights under a certain tract of land on the waters of Fu-gate’s Fork at or near the mouth of Rich Hollow in Breathitt County. The judgment also directed a reconveyance of the rights.

The case was tried on depositions taken, but on the appeal, appellant designated only the pleadings, demurrer, orders, and judgment to be included in the record. He relied for reversal on the ground that the petition as amended was not sufficient to sustain a cáuse of action.

We have examined the record and have concluded that the petition as amended stated a cause, of action to quiet-the title to land which was not barred by the statute of limitations. This was not an action for relief from fraud.

The motion for appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 S.W.2d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-harvey-kyctapp-1955.