Kentucky River Timber & Coal Co. v. Morgan

275 S.W. 12, 210 Ky. 113, 1925 Ky. LEXIS 636
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
DecidedJune 19, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 275 S.W. 12 (Kentucky River Timber & Coal Co. v. Morgan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kentucky River Timber & Coal Co. v. Morgan, 275 S.W. 12, 210 Ky. 113, 1925 Ky. LEXIS 636 (Ky. 1925).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Thomas

Affirming.

The appellee and plaintiff below, A. B. Morgan, filed this ordinary action in the Leslie circuit, court against the appellant and defendant below, Kentucky River Timber & Coal Company, to recover judgment against it for the damage he sustained by unlawfully trespassing upon and cutting and appropriating timber by it from a described tract of land in Leslie county which plaintiff alleged that he owned. The amount of timber so taken was stated to be 250 white oak, poplar and other timber trees, valued by plaintiff at $3.00 per tree, ór a total sum of $750.00, for which he prayed judgment. The answer as amended denied the material averments of the petition and alleged that defendant owned the land from which the timber was cut, which was a part of a tract described in the answer and claimed to be owned by defendant. Appropriate pleadings made the issues and after two mistrials before a jury the parties agreed for the court to try the case as a chancellor and without the intervention of a jury, which was done, resulting in a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $286.50, the court finding that plaintiff was the owner of the land from which defendant cut 191 trees of the value of $1.50 per tree. From that judgment defendant prosecutes this.appeal. ■

It is conceded by counsel for both litigants that the determination of the question depends upon the true location of a patent for 100 acres of land which was surveyed and platted in the name of Elizabeth Jackson on July 24, 1850, followed by the subsequent issue to her of a patent. Defendant shows itself to be the owner of that tract while plaintiff claims title to a tract of land patented to Jeff (or Jesse) Morgan, Sr., on April 17, *115 1858, and containing 50 acres. The true location of the latter patent is not in dispute but conceded, and if it laps •over on the Elizabeth Jackson patent and from which lap the timber was cut, then the judgment was erroneous and •should be reversed. If, however, the true location of the Elizabeth Jackson patent does not include any land covered by the Morgan patent then the judgment is correct and should be affirmed.

The handwriting, spelling and punctuation of the surveyor of the Elizabeth Jackson patent, as appearing upon the records of the land office at Frankfort, are all ■crude and very indistinct so as to make it quite difficult to decipher. However, when done it is agreed that, according to the surveyor’s notes, the land lies on the right-hand fork of Hurt’s creek on the waters of the middle fork of the Kentucky river and described as “Beginning at a beech and white oak and gum on the north side of said fork; thence N. 69 E. 40 poles to a stake; — 59 east 150 poles to a stake; S. 14 W. 150 poles to a stake; N. 88 W. 220 poles to a stake; N. 71 east 100 poles to the beginning.” The only controversy or dispute concerning the correctness of the foregoing description is as to. whether the letter “S” or the letter “N” was intended by the surveyor to occupy the blank space in the description designating the course of the second call, plaintiff contending that the character used by him was intended to be an “N,” while defendant says it was meant to be an “S.” It is difficult to determine the fact from an inspection of the record itself, since the character appearing thereon has the shape somewhat of an inverted V turned slightly to the right, and whether it was intended to be the one letter or the other cannot be certainly ascertained from inspection alone.

It will be observed that every call in the description ■except the beginning is a stake one, there being no monuments called for by any of them, but it is agreed that the beginning corner is marked and correctly located. It is, therefore, quite evident that the lines were not actually run out on the ground by the surveyor, but his plat recorded with his notes was made by protraction alone. The calls will make a plat of the same general outline and shape as the one made by the surveyor if a change of 90 ■degrees to the right is made in his meridian line and the letter “N” is inserted in the above blank in the second •call of the description. But the plat so made will be turned 90 degrees to the right. To make a plat, as con-

*117 tended for by defendant, by running tbe calls as contained in the description and inserting an ££S” in tbe blank space of tbe above description and thus running around to tbe beginning of tbe last call and from thence to tbe beginning corner, makes a figure entirely different in shape from that of tbe surveyor’s plat and takes in land not lying on any of the streams mentioned in tbe surveyor’s notes and includes the greater part of tbe Jesse Morgan patent above mentioned and now owned by plaintiff, besides increasing tbe amount of land 150 acres. Tbe situation is illustrated by tbe inserted map, tbe top of which is north.

*116

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

Related

Givens v. United States Trust Co.
86 S.W.2d 986 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1935)
Strunk v. Geary
288 S.W. 1053 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1926)
General Refractories Company v. Morrison
279 S.W. 651 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
275 S.W. 12, 210 Ky. 113, 1925 Ky. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kentucky-river-timber-coal-co-v-morgan-kyctapphigh-1925.