From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cole v. Frazier

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Oct 5, 1956
294 S.W.2d 82 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956)

Opinion

October 5, 1956.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Knox County, W.L. Rose, J.

Charles G. Cole, Jr., Earl L. Cole, Barbourville, for appellant.

Carlos B. Pope, Barbourville, for appellee.


In Cole v. Frazier, Ky., 280 S.W.2d 531, we held there should be a proportionate division of certain rentals between the parties. On the return of the case upon what seems to have been a justifiable consideration of an added factor, the Court made a division which is not strictly in accord with the directions of the opinion. The difference in the computations is not in excess of $810.

This appeal, which is upon notice without a motion in this court, does not bring the case within the jurisdiction of this Court. KRS 21.060, 21.080; Davis v. Underwood, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 851; Johnson v. McCoy's Adm.'r, Ky., 284 S.W.2d 676. The fact that the original appeal also involved the location of a boundary line as well as the rentals does not make any difference. Nor does the case come within the class in which it is held that this Court will enforce its mandate as the appellant contends it does for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction.

Wherefore, the appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

The appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Cole v. Frazier

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Oct 5, 1956
294 S.W.2d 82 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956)
Case details for

Cole v. Frazier

Case Details

Full title:Mattie H. COLE, Appellant, v. W. B. FRAZIER, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Date published: Oct 5, 1956

Citations

294 S.W.2d 82 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956)

Citing Cases

Pennyrile Rural Electric Coop. v. Lyon County

The motion was made too late. Timely making of the motion is jurisdictional. The failure to make a timely…

Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Barker

To the extent that Greenwade v. Williams, supra, is in conflict with the views here expressed, it is…