Shannon v. Buford
Opinion
OPINION of the Court, by
This is a suit for land upon conflicting titles. Buford was the complainant in the circuit court, and has the elder entry ; so that it is only necessary to decide upon the equity of his'daim.
His entry was made the 7th of January, 1783, “ on the north side of the main branch oí Benson, at the county hue, below a cane loop, near the trace going to the falls ; beginning on the bank of said line creek, at one large elm and two sugar trees, marked with a huge W, on each of the m ; thence west 600 poles, then worth, then east, end to the beginning tor quantity.1"
The tnaiked trees called lur in this entry cannot be dispensed with. These trees are proven to have been marked before the entry was made, and they are sufficiently identified by the evidence in the cause. But they are not proven to have been sufficiently notorious to support aa entry, unless aided by other calls.
it is therelore necessary to inquire, whether the other calls in the entry describe with such certainty the situation of those trees, that a subsequent locator could by reasonable diligence have found them at the time the entry was made ?
Benson was of general notoriety at that time. Besides, its description as the county line, which it is proven to have been, is farther evidence of the particular stream intended.
The trace going to the falls connected with the call for Benson, distinguishes ⅛ from other truces leading I© [115] the falls from other parts of the country. This trace is proven to have been generally notorious at the time the entry was made., and called the falls trace by the people at Harrodsburg, and in the upper part of the country. And by some it is proven to have been called Harrod’s trace by those residing in the lower part of the country.
The fact is, the evidence shows it was well known, when combined with the call for Benson, by either the falls or Harrod’s trace, or the trace going to one or the other of the places, Harrodsburg or the falls. At the falls no doubt it was called Harrod’s trace, in contradistinction to other paths leading from the falls ; and at Harrodsburg, it was for the same reason called the falls trace.
The usual trace leading from one to the other of Aos® two stations, could not have been mistaken, by the description of it as going to the falls or to Harrodsburg, from its crossing of Benson, unless some other trace also going to the falls rendered uncertain which was meant.
It is contended that there was such, To this it may be answered, that although there is some evidence in. the cause which proves that there was another main, leading trace from Benson, it also proves that it was, called Boone’s trace, and th.yt it lead to Boone’s station.
But the weight of evidence shows that the trace to Boone’s station was not made until after the date of the entry.
There is another call iti this'entry which would, when combined with the one for the trace, clearly designate the trace intended, if even others^had been as well proven as this one. The call is for “ a cane loop.” The proof in the cause, shows that it was the only place on the creek which filled the name ; that it united both a remarkable bend of the creek, and an unusual quantity of cane on said creek. And its distance from the trace
Footnotes
5 Ky. 114 (Shannon v. Buford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.