Ratcliff v. Kitchen

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Ratcliff v. Kitchen

7 Ky. Op. 112, 1873 Ky. LEXIS 454

DecidedSeptember 16, 1873

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Ky. Op. 112 (Ratcliff v. Kitchen) 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

Ratcliff v. Kitchen, 7 Ky. Op. 112, 1873 Ky. LEXIS 454 (Ky. Ct. App. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

The deed under which appellant claims calls to run from the foot of the hill on the north side of Bell’s tract, “N. 32 E. 200 poles to a stake on the top of the ridge between the waters of the Lost Fork, Bell’s tract, and the Wolf Pen branch.”

The ridge or point on which the court below adjudged the corner to be is the only point to be found where the waters run to the lost fork, Bell’s tract and the Wolf pen branch. This is proved by appellant himself, but to run the course and distance called for in the deed, that point will not be reached. [113]*113There is no evidence in the record that the line- between the points designated is marked, and it may be inferred that it never was actually run. This point on the ridge heretofore described was adopted by the grantor and grantee in the deed to Watson as a corner to his survey. It is a natural object, permanent and fixed, and its location identified by unchangeable and unerring facts. This, then, must control in the absence of a marked line, and courses and distances yield to it.

Dulin, for appellant. J. R. Botts, for appellee.

Wherefore, as the judgment conforms to the law of the case, the same must be affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

The deed under which appellant claims calls to run from the foot of the hill on the north side of Bell’s tract, “N. 32 E. 200 poles to a stake on the top of the ridge between the waters of the Lost Fork, Bell’s tract, and the Wolf Pen branch.”

The ridge or point on which the court below adjudged the corner to be is the only point to be found where the waters run to the lost fork, Bell’s tract and the Wolf pen branch. This is proved by appellant himself, but to run the course and distance called for in the deed, that point will not be reached. [113]*113There is no evidence in the record that the line- between the points designated is marked, and it may be inferred that it never was actually run. This point on the ridge heretofore described was adopted by the grantor and grantee in the deed to Watson as a corner to his survey. It is a natural object, permanent and fixed, and its location identified by unchangeable and unerring facts. This, then, must control in the absence of a marked line, and courses and distances yield to it.

Dulin, for appellant. J. R. Botts, for appellee.

Wherefore, as the judgment conforms to the law of the case, the same must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ky. Op. 112, 1873 Ky. LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ratcliff-v-kitchen-kyctapp-1873.