Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesinjunction
plaintiffdefendantdamagesappealwillappellant

Related Cases

Tharalson v. Pfizer Genetics, Inc., 728 F.2d 1108, 38 UCC Rep.Serv. 153
View Case »
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30
View Case »
Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 31 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 327
View Case »
Payne v. Consolidation Coal Co., 607 F.Supp. 378
View Case »
Burnette v. Eubanks, 308 Kan. 838, 425 P.3d 343
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Edwards v. Lee’s Adm’r, 265 Ky. 418, 96 S.W.2d 1028

Facts

L. P. Edwards discovered the Great Onyx Cave on his property and developed it into a tourist attraction. F. P. Lee, an adjoining landowner, claimed that part of the cave extended under his land and sought damages, an accounting of profits, and an injunction against further trespass. The court previously determined the boundary between the lands of Edwards and Lee, and extensive evidence was presented regarding the cave's usage and profits. The chancellor found that Lee was entitled to a share of the profits based on the footage of the cave under his land.

About twenty years ago L. P. Edwards discovered a cave under land belonging to him and his wife, Sally Edwards.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the court applied the correct measure of damages and whether the amount of damages was accurately computed.

Appellants argue but two points in this court: (1) That the court below applied an improper measure of damages; and (2) even if the measure of damages was correct, the amount was erroneously computed.

Rule

The court ruled that the measure of recovery for trespass to land should be based on the net profits received by the trespasser from the use of the property, rather than merely the rental value.

The Court finds as a matter of law the plaintiff is entitled to recover of defendants the proportionate part of the net proceeds defendants received from exhibiting Great Onyx Cave from the years 1923 to 1930, inclusive, as the footage of said cave under Lee's land bears to the entire footage of the cave exhibited to the public for fees during the years 1923 to 1930, inclusive, with 6% interest on plaintiff's proportionate part of said fund for each year from the first day of the following year as set out in the memorandum opinion.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the profits derived from the operation of the cave were directly linked to the portion of the cave that extended under Lee's land. The chancellor assessed the damages based on the net profits from the cave's operation, taking into account the footage of the cave under Lee's property and the profits generated during the years in question.

The proof likewise clearly indicates that the trespasses were willful, and not innocent.

Conclusion

The court concluded that Lee was entitled to one-third of the net profits from the cave's operation for the years 1925 to 1930, with interest, affirming the chancellor's findings on the measure of damages.

The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part on the original appeal and affirmed on the cross-appeal.

Who won?

F. P. Lee prevailed in the case because the court recognized his legal rights to a share of the profits from the cave based on the footage under his land.

The Court finds as a matter of fact there was 6,449.88 feet of said cave exhibited to the public during 1923 to 1930, inclusive, and that 2,048.60 feet of said footage was under Lee's lands making plaintiff entitled to 2048.60,/ 6449.88 or 1/3 of the proceeds.

You must be