Matthews v. Hale

Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

Matthews v. Hale

189 S.W.2d 524, 300 Ky. 422

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

DecidedJune 19, 1945

StatusPublished

This text of 189 S.W.2d 524 (Matthews v. Hale) 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

Matthews v. Hale, 189 S.W.2d 524, 300 Ky. 422 (Ky. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Van Sant, Commissioner

Affirming.

Appellants filed the action against appellee, in an endeavor to enjoin him from continuing to use a roadway through their farm in Laurel County. The regular Judge of the Laurel Circuit'Court granted a temporary injunction, which was dissolved by Judge Cammack, in concurrence with three other Judges of this Court. On return of the case, additional evidence was introduced by both parties and the cause submitted, by agreement, to_ a special Judge, who denied the injunction and dismissed the petition.

•There is but one issue, and that is one of fact, viz., whether the passway in question is public or private in its character. We have read carefully all of the evidence contained in the record. Appellants introduced twelve witnesses who testified that the road is a private passway, or to facts from which- an inference to that effect reasonably may be drawn. Appellee introducéd fifteen witnesses who testified that the road is a public passway, or to facts from which an inference to that effect reasonably may be drawn. The evidence obviously is conflicting. This Court will not disturb the finding of fact of a chancellor on conflicting testimony, unless it is clearly against the weight of the evidence, which it is not in this case. Lipps et al. v. Marcum, 297 Ky. 225, 179 S. W. 2d 884.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion op the Court by

Van Sant, Commissioner

Affirming.

Appellants filed the action against appellee, in an endeavor to enjoin him from continuing to use a roadway through their farm in Laurel County. The regular Judge of the Laurel Circuit'Court granted a temporary injunction, which was dissolved by Judge Cammack, in concurrence with three other Judges of this Court. On return of the case, additional evidence was introduced by both parties and the cause submitted, by agreement, to_ a special Judge, who denied the injunction and dismissed the petition.

•There is but one issue, and that is one of fact, viz., whether the passway in question is public or private in its character. We have read carefully all of the evidence contained in the record. Appellants introduced twelve witnesses who testified that the road is a private passway, or to facts from which- an inference to that effect reasonably may be drawn. Appellee introducéd fifteen witnesses who testified that the road is a public passway, or to facts from which an inference to that effect reasonably may be drawn. The evidence obviously is conflicting. This Court will not disturb the finding of fact of a chancellor on conflicting testimony, unless it is clearly against the weight of the evidence, which it is not in this case. Lipps et al. v. Marcum, 297 Ky. 225, 179 S. W. 2d 884.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.W.2d 524, 300 Ky. 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-hale-kyctapphigh-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack