Tabor v. Hatcher

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Tabor v. Hatcher

249 S.W.2d 724, 1952 Ky. LEXIS 843

DecidedJune 13, 1952

StatusPublished

This text of 249 S.W.2d 724 (Tabor v. Hatcher) 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

Tabor v. Hatcher, 249 S.W.2d 724, 1952 Ky. LEXIS 843 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

D. W. Tabor and wife appeal from a judgment denying their claim to a passway to connect two tracts of land owned by them, over a tract of land owned by the appellees, M. Vernon Hatcher and wife.

At the time the Hatchers purchased their tract, there was in existence a deed by which their predecessor in title had conveyed the passway to the Tabors’ predecessor in title. However this deed was not recorded until long after the Hatchers purchased their tract. Therefore, the question was whether the Hatchers had actual knowledge of the existence of the deed, or of the existence of the passway, when they purchased the tract. Upon conflicting evidence, the chancellor found that they did not have such knowledge.

There was some claim of prescriptive use of the passway, by the Tabors and their predecessor in title, for 15 years after the Hatchers acquired title to the land, but the chancellor found that the evidence did not show such use as to establish a passway by prescription.

We have no doubt as to the correctness of the chancellor’s determination.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

D. W. Tabor and wife appeal from a judgment denying their claim to a passway to connect two tracts of land owned by them, over a tract of land owned by the appellees, M. Vernon Hatcher and wife.

At the time the Hatchers purchased their tract, there was in existence a deed by which their predecessor in title had conveyed the passway to the Tabors’ predecessor in title. However this deed was not recorded until long after the Hatchers purchased their tract. Therefore, the question was whether the Hatchers had actual knowledge of the existence of the deed, or of the existence of the passway, when they purchased the tract. Upon conflicting evidence, the chancellor found that they did not have such knowledge.

There was some claim of prescriptive use of the passway, by the Tabors and their predecessor in title, for 15 years after the Hatchers acquired title to the land, but the chancellor found that the evidence did not show such use as to establish a passway by prescription.

We have no doubt as to the correctness of the chancellor’s determination.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 S.W.2d 724, 1952 Ky. LEXIS 843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tabor-v-hatcher-kyctapp-1952.