Trustees of the Jefferson Seminary v. Wagnon

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Trustees of the Jefferson Seminary v. Wagnon

8 Ky. 243

DecidedJune 12, 1818

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Ky. 243 (Trustees of the Jefferson Seminary v. Wagnon) 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

Trustees of the Jefferson Seminary v. Wagnon, 8 Ky. 243 (Ky. Ct. App. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chief Justice

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion that the plaintiffs in error have shevvn themselves entitled to the land where the ferry in question is established. The marked line, extending from the beginning corner of the plaintiffs’ survey, down the river, which is contended by the defendant, to be their boundary, does not annear to be of as ancient date as their survey. On the contrary, it is highly probable, from the evidence jn the cause, that it was marked at a more recent period. Assume the fact to be, that there was no artificial marked boundary, we cannot hesitate to say, that it was intended that the survey should be abutted by the Ohio river. This intention we think sufficiently evinced'by the calls for the corner at the mouth of a gut, and to run from thence down the river, by the contiguity of the haarked corner to the river, and by the plat annexed to the certificate of survey, ^presenting the land as bounded by the river.

We adjudge, therefore, that the plaintiffs have such an interest as to entitle them to maintain the writ of error.

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

The Chief Justice

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion that the plaintiffs in error have shevvn themselves entitled to the land where the ferry in question is established. The marked line, extending from the beginning corner of the plaintiffs’ survey, down the river, which is contended by the defendant, to be their boundary, does not annear to be of as ancient date as their survey. On the contrary, it is highly probable, from the evidence jn the cause, that it was marked at a more recent period. Assume the fact to be, that there was no artificial marked boundary, we cannot hesitate to say, that it was intended that the survey should be abutted by the Ohio river. This intention we think sufficiently evinced'by the calls for the corner at the mouth of a gut, and to run from thence down the river, by the contiguity of the haarked corner to the river, and by the plat annexed to the certificate of survey, ^presenting the land as bounded by the river.

We adjudge, therefore, that the plaintiffs have such an interest as to entitle them to maintain the writ of error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Ky. 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trustees-of-the-jefferson-seminary-v-wagnon-kyctapp-1818.