xt70zp3vt865_302 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70zp3vt865/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70zp3vt865/data/63m46.dao.xml unknown 14 Cubic Feet 31 boxes archival material 63m46 English University of Kentucky Copyright has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Harkins Family papers Mineral rights -- Kentucky -- Floyd County -- History. Law reports, digests, etc. -- Kentucky. Mining leases -- Kentucky -- Floyd County -- History. Practice of law -- Kentucky. Bankers -- Kentucky. Banks and banking -- Kentucky -- Prestonsburg. Coal trade -- Kentucky -- Floyd County -- History. Lawyers -- Kentucky. Slone, H.S. et al. v. Elkhorn Coal Corporation text Slone, H.S. et al. v. Elkhorn Coal Corporation 2016 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70zp3vt865/data/63m46/Box_27/Folder_12/8308.pdf 1923-1925 1925 1923-1925 section false xt70zp3vt865_302 xt70zp3vt865 i \

”l . . Cs
, l ,1
g l

- C 0 P Y — 4
9restonsburg, Kentucky,
August 13”, 1924. v
Hon. 3d C. O'Rear,
Erankfort, Ry.
Jear Judgez. Slope gpnys. Elk Horn Coal Qprporation:
Pursuant to my promise in the above matter
I will give you the actual facts in it as I under-
stand them from the record.
In September, 1870, Joshua Tackett was
the owner of a large boundary of land on the head
of Clear Creek including the boundary described in
the petition in this case. The tract described
in the petition being approximately half of it.
Tackett sold this land to Jright dlone by deed of
conveyance erecuted on September :7”, 1870, and
recorded in Deed Book "I", page 62, bloyd County.
Tackett did not have a deed for it, but had a Title
Bond from the previous owners. Later alone pro-
cured the legal title from the persons who had
executed the Title Bond. This is unimgortant,
however, except as a part of the history of the
t I'f-lC t Q
Jright alone had a brother, 1{arvey Slone,
who died sometime after this deed to Wright Llone
leaving three children, a daughter, Louanna and two
sons, h. F. alone and Hiram Slone.
Harvey Slone seems to have lived on this land.
On hovember 25”, 1887, Jright Elone executed
a deed to Kenas Blone and Hiram Slone for all the cow.,
minerals, oil and gas and the customary mining privil-
eges in this entire boundary of land. This deed was
recorded in used Book ”U", page 558, Floyd County
Records.
On December a”, 1887, by deed recorded in
Leed Book "N“, page 529, Jright Slone executed a deedto
K. F. Slone for the fee simple title in the upper half
of the large tract. This is substantially the land
otned by the Blue Beaver Elkhorn Euel Company at the
present time, although a little of it is on the
boundary now owned by the 51k Horn Coal Corporation.
It has a 9250.00 vendor's lien reserved in the deed.
On the 9th day of lebruary, 1889, Wright
alone conveyed to Hiram Slone approximately the lower
' half of this large tract by deed recorded in peed
Book "T", page 511, Floyd County decords, reserving
a lien of p250.00 for purchase money. This is the
tract that is in controversy in your case, the minerals
now being owned by the Elk horn Goal Corporation.

 8-12—24
Judge E. C. O'Rear, —p-2

On the 27th day of August, 189k, Louanna Slone
filed a suit in the Floyd Circuit Court against h. F.
Slone, Hiram Slone and wright Slone in which she setip
ownership in connection with the defendants, h; E. Slone
and Hiram Slone in the entire boundary of land con—
taining 944 acres as charged. It was charged in the ‘
petition that K. F. Slone and Hiram Slone failed to ufite

, with her in the suit and for that reason was made
defiendants. She asked that the lands be divided be-
tween her, K. F. and Hiram Slone. She asked that thir

- title be quieted as against Wright Slone. It further
on appeared in the pleadings and depositions taken
that her claim of title under Harvey Slone was based
upon the theory that it was he who really bought and
paid for the property.

On the 50th day of October, 1891, K. F. Slone
by his answer denied that Harvey Slone died the owner
of the property, or any part of it and set up that
Hiram Slone and K. F. Slone had purchased the propery
from him. He set up in his answer that Hiram Slone
and Kenas Slone ;owed him $500.00, but asked no re-
lief against them. He later by amended answer and
cross petition filed on February 2s", 1895, asked
for a Judgment in the sum of ssso.oo against Hiram
Slone and for p250.00, against K. F. Slone with
a lien on each of their above tracts for their re-
spective debts he had conveyed to them as above set
out.

W. S. Harkins represented Wright Slone, h. I.
Slone and Hiram Slone and strange to say that he at no

, time set up his ownership of the minerals under his
above mentioned deed from K. F. Slone and Wright Slone.
wuite a number of depositions were taken and the case
prepared generally and on August 15", 1896, a Judgmem;
was rendered in which the court dismissed the petitim
of Louanna Slone and adjudged that Wright Slone re—
cover of K. F. Slone and Hiram Slone the $500.00 with

interest from the 5th day of April, l885, The Coum
further adjudged to wright Slone a lien on the two
tracts of land conveyed by him to h. F. Slone and
Hiram Slone above noted to the extent of @850.00 on
each tract. The Master Commissioner was directed
to sell the property. It is again to be noted
that in the Judgment drawn by Mr. Harkins and in
his hand writing no mention whatever is made of

the minerals that were conveyed to him by Hiram
Slone and K. F. Slone. It Was probably taken for
granted that inasmuch as the title to the mineral
had been severed from that of the surface, and the
surface holders only were sued, the Judgment only
affected the surface.

As'a general proposition this proceeding
would not have effected Mr. Harhins' title to the
mineral, but for the fact that he acted as an attorng
in this case. This might not even effect his title,
but there is room to question it, of course, espe—
cially as against a purchaser of it.

 ‘ 8—13-24
Judge 3. C. O'rear, -p-5
The Master Commissioner of the Court
advertised the property for sale and sold it on
August 5", 1896, and Hright Slone became the pur-
chaser of it all - both tracts. Nothing was done
by fright Slone by virtue of his purchase. Hiram
Slone and K. I. Slone continued to live on the land.
fright Slone never did procure a COmmissioner's
Deed. In fact, it seems that he never intended to,
and his purchase was really for the benefit of the ‘
two men, Hiram and K. 3. Slone and to defeat
Louanna Slone.
Just a few days after the Judgment in

the above mentioned suit and before the property was
sold on Jright Slone's judgment Louanna Slone filed
another suit in the Floyd Circuit Court on July 22”, .
1896, setting up substantially the same facts, but
rather suing for money, the value of the property
in the sum of $750.00, asking a lien on it. The
other suit was set up in bar by the defendants.
The suit pended on the docket for several years.
K. F. Slone undertook in this suit to assist
his sister, Louanna Slone. Some depositions were
taken and on January 10”, 1902, she procured a .
judgment against the estate of Wright Slone in
the sum of t250.00, and a lien on the two tracts
Conveyed by Jright Slone to K. F. Slone and Hiram
Slone to secure it. The Easter Commissioner was
directed to sell the property. In the last part ,
of this judgment which is recorded in Order Book 13,
page 81, there is this recital:

"It appearing that the defendants, K. F.

and Hiram Slone with the apprOVal of Wright

Slone sold and conveyed to Walter S. Harkins

the coal, iron, oil and gas and minerals

and etc., in, under and upon said land

as conveyed by deed dated May 50" 1895,

' recorded in heed Book '3", page 557, Floyd
County Records, and the same was made and
sold and conveyed before the commencement
of plaintiff's suit. This judgment is
not to effect same and it is subject to
the interest so aciuired by Harkins."

This is the only mention made of the
Harkins' title to the mineral in this suit, although
he represented the defendants in the litigation.

On the 24th day of February, 1902, the
Master Commissioner sold the property pursuant to
this judgment. William Hamilton became the pur-
chaser of the upper tract now owned substantially
by the Blue Beaver Elkhorn Euel Company. Hiram
Slone became the purchaser of the second tract on
the lower end which is substantially the lands in
which the mineral is now owned by the defendant,
Elk Horn Coal Corporation.

 l
:I'
8—12-24 ,
Judge OIRear, ~4-

Hiram Slone conveyed this lower tract to
some of his children and they, or those claiming under
them have filed this suit.

Upon analysis of the situation I can not see
how plaintiff can recover for two reasons:

In the first place, the title to the mineral
was severed from that of the surface before the suit
was filed and the mineral holders was not made a party.
As above stated, however, question might be raised as to
this on account of the fact that Mr. Harkins was an

’ attorney in the suit.

In the second place, the Judgment under which
Slone purchased this prope21y expressly excepted the
minerals from the operation of it for the benefit of Mr.
Harkins and although no exception was made in the
Commissioner's fieport as to the minerals, yet it could
hardly be said that the Commissioners deport made pur-,
suant to this judgment could include anything not
included in the judgment. The Commissioner made no
deed to Hiram Slone as he was already the title holder
of the surface and in the possession.

In the third place any title that he might
have gotten in the mineral by virtue of this purchase in-
urod to the benefit of his vendee, Kr. Harkins.

I think that this suit is the result of a
misunderstanding of the facts by plaintiffs' attorneyel
They have never seen the papers and files of the case.
They have only seen the Order Books. They are no doubt
ignorant of the fact that this second suit by Louanna

‘ Slone. Both of the suits have the same style.m They
no doubt think that the Commissioners‘ Sale to Hiram
Slone was made under the judgment rendered in the first
suit. They have probably never pursued the orders on
down to the Judgment in the second suit and do not know
that the judgment in that suit under which Hiram Slone
purchased contained an exception of the mineral for
Harkins.

Of course. they can not get anywhere as to
the excess acreage. That is a matter of money between
them and Mr. Harkins' Estate.

The old files in this suit have been in this
office for several years. I probably had them at one

’ time, but did not know that they were here until a few
days ago. I believe that you should have the entire
proceeding copied. Of course, you will know as to ’
what is necessary.

Mr. Salisbury will come to Catlettsburg with
the original file when you try the case and whether the
files are copied or not you will doubtless want a cer-
tified copy of all the orders.

. Yours truly, .
BFC:B

 (7
, I :7‘
f n
i J. .
IN TE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EAiTERN SISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SITTING AT CATLETTSBURG, KENTUCKY.
H. S. SLOHfl, et al., PLAINTIEPS.
MOTION TO DISHIHS PLAINTIFFS' BILL AS
VS’ /yynhENDED BY SECOHD AhENDMENT.
ELKHORN COAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.
Comes the defendant, Elk Horn Coal Corporation,
and moves the court to dismiss plaintiffs' amended bill
herein as amended by their second amendment filed herein
for the following reasons, to-wit:
(1) Same does not state facts sufficient to
constitute a Valid cause of action in equity against this
defendant.
(2) In the original petition, to which a
motion to dismiss was sustained, the plaintiffs alleged
that there had been conveyed to the defendant's remote I
vendor mineral rights in the Clear Creek land which in
fact contained 882 acres of land, but which was thru
mistake described in the deed of aforesaid conveyance
as containing 665.48 acres for which defendant's remote
vendor paid 50 cents per acre or a total price of
$352.75, that defendant had had conveyed to it through
mesne conveyances the mineral rights in one-half of said

 property, or in fact 441 acres altho it was described
as only half of 665.48 or 552.74 acres; and plaintiffs
asked to be adjudged owners of 108.26 acres of said
mineral properties, that being the difference between
441 acres and 352.74 acres. In this original petition
the plaintiffs also allege title to the mineral rights
to be in them by virtue of adverse possession by them
of the surface of saidpland for the statutory period.
first

In their/amendment of their original
petition the plaintiffs alleged fraud upon the part of
this defendant's remote and intermediate grantors inr-
representing, in Various conveyances of the mineral
rights in said property, that same contained a fewerrium-
ber of acres and paid for a fewer number than it in fact
contained, when, as alleged, this defendant and its
predecessors had knowledge of the erroneous survey and
by collusion and fraud against the plaintiffs concealed
the true facts for the purpose of defrauding plaintiffs.
The court overruled the defendant's motion to dismiss
the petition as thus first amended.

the

Egg/plaintiffs have filed a second amnded
petition in which, as we read it, they in effect and:m
fact abandon the grounds upon which they relied to re-
cover as alleged in their original and first amended
petition and now in this second amended petition allege
entirely new and different facts upon which they seek to
recover - and facts which we submit are inconsistent with
those alleged in plaintiffs' original petition as first
amended.

~29

 The second amended petition in fact sets
up an entirely new and different cause of action, asks
for different relief, and Seeks to recover different
property. In the first amended petition plaintiffs
sought to recover only 108.25 acres. In this second

V amended petition they are seeking to be adjudged the
owners of all the mineral properties, in all of the
Clear Creek land, conveyed from Harkins through means
conveyances to this defendant- that is to say, the min-
eral properties in all of the southern half of 665.48
acres described by metes and bounds in deed to Harkins.

In this 2nd amended petition it is alleged
that Wright Elone was the grantor to Hiram and Kenas Slone
of "the whole of the Clear Creek land: and that in can-
sideration of legal services rendered to them by Hare
kins they executed to him and he accepted a deed "forall
the minerals, oil and gas on said tract of land - re—
ferring to "the whole of the Clear Creek land." {-9.1
of 2nd Amended Petition). It will thus be seen that
plaintiffs now in this last amended petition state a
consideration from Harkins for the mineral property
entirely different from the fifty cents per acre whiCh
was alleged in petition as first amended, and state that
it was the minerals in all of the land for which deed
was executed to Harkins instead of in only a portion ‘

of same as stated in their former pleadings.

After executing this ”about face” in
their pleadings, the plaintiffs then claim that the

..3..

 deed to Earkins was void (1) because of failure of
consideration - they claiming that services of Harkins
as attorney was not adequate as a consideration; (2)
because of the alleged sale by Hiram Blone to plaintiffs
of his bid at the alleged Judicial sale; and (4) be-
cause conveyance to Harkins in consideration of his
services as attorney was champertous.

As to the first of aforesaid grounds
ugon which they rely to avoid the deed to Harkins,
we wish to submit that services of attorneys are very
often and, in fact, are usually paid for even though
the clients whom they represent may not win. Effort
and time given and Services rendered by Harkins were,
we think we are warranted in saying, worth something.
Just how much we, of course, cannot say. However, we
presume that as far back as 1895 it was entirely specu-
lative as to whether or not there were any minerals
underlying this property on Clear Greek, or if there
were, whether it would ever be possible to obtain
dcveloPment for same. It was also extremely problemat—
ical as to what the quantity, quality, or Value of the
minerals would be if it should be discovered that the
actually existed there and development should be had.
who Court will take Judicial notice of conditions at
that time and all of said circumstances and questions
existing at the time the deed was made in determing
whether the consideration was adequate; and we submit
that the alleged consideration was under all the cir—
cumstances amply sufficient. Bevins vs. Lowe, 159
Ky. 459; Dotson vs. horman, 159 Ly. 786.

As to the second ground upon which
plaintiff rely to avoid the deed to Harkins we submit

-4-

 that it is expressly shown on the face of plaintiffs'
pleadings that deed of conveyance was actually executed
and delivered to Hiram Slone and menas alone from
Jright Slone for the whole of the Clear Creek land and
that title to the minerals underlying same was never
conveyed by them or either of them to any one, but to
Harkins under his deed of 1893. The indebtedness of
Hiram Slone to dright Slone for the purchase money
and which the latter attempted to collect from Hiram
in the suit instituted by Louanna Slone in 1891 was
at most nothing more than a lien or incumbrance against
the property. Harkins took subject to that incum-
brance, but the fact of the existence of same against
the property did not render void his deed. Nothingjn
plaintiffs' pleading shows that when he received his
deed in 1695, Harkins had any knowledge of the pur- .
chase money and had not been paid by Hiram and henas
dlone to Jright Slone. The mere fact that Louanne
Slone instituted suit against Hiram, Kenas and
Wright for debt and tried to subject their lands to
the payment of same in 1&91 was not notice to Harkins
that the purchase money had not been paid to Wright;
and plaintiffs' pleading does not show whether it
was prior tr subsequent to the date of Harkins' deed
that Wright Slone in that suit by cross-petition
claimed or sued for any purchase money owing to him
from Hires or Kenas. Harkins was not, in so far as .
the pleadings show, ever made a party to the proceeding
by Wright Slone to enforce in that action of Louanne
Slone his lien for purchase money against the land.
When the property was sold in that action it was,
according to plaintiffs' pleading, bid in by Hiram

-5-

 Slone to whom, however, no deed was ever executed

by the Commissioner. Neither was his bid ever trans— '
ferred to anyone, nor any deed eVer executed to anyone

by the Commissioner. Title remained in Harkins in

so far as the mineral rights were concerned, still

subject perhaps to a purchase money lien in favor of

Wright Slone; and he was in no Way divested of that

title either by said legal proceeding to which he

was never a party, or by any sale or transfer by

Hiram Slone to the plaintiffs.

Nor was the title of harkins or his
remote vendees to the minerals divergggg by any
possession of Hiram Slone or any of the plaintiffs.
Sect. 2366a Ky. Statutes. There are no allega—
tions showing that plaintiffs did anything to bring
notice to defendant or any of its vendors that
plaintiffs were holding adversely to them. In
fact, plaintiffs admit on page 4 of their 2nd amended .
petition that they have no title by adverse possession,
for they say "That the plaintiffs‘ title was not
complete until they had complied with the agreement
made conditioned upon the payment by them to Wright
Slone of the unpaid purchase money altho’ they had
possession of the land until about the year l919 when
complete payment was made."

As to the third of aforesaid grounds
upon which plaintiffs rely to avoid the deed to
Harkins, we submit that it nowhere alleged that Harkins
employment by the Slones was to prosecute any suit
for the recovery of any lands in the adverse possession
of another. The suit mentioned by plaintiffs as
being begun by Louanne Slone in 1891 which seems to

.,6-

 have continued in some form or another until up into '
the year 1896, and in which Harkins was employed, was
not in any of its stages, as we gather it from the
pleading, in any manner a suit to recover possession
of land aQVcrsely held by another. The adverse poss
ession mentioned in the Statute against chumperty, to-
wit;, Sect. all, Ky. Statutes has the same elements
as an adverse possession, which, if continued long
enough, will create title under the statutes of
limitation. Travis vs. Bruce, 172 Ky. 590. No such
adverse possession was questioned or involved in the
suit of the Slones in which it was alleged Harkins W$
employed. There was, therefore, ho champerty in the
conveyance from Slones to Harkins of the mineral I
rights in payment for his services as attorney in
that case. ‘ '
(3) It is attempted by the plain-
tiffs in the third paragraph of their 2nd amendment
to make their first amended petition a part of or -
incorporate some in their and amended petition. They
_ have failed in this their second amendment to meet tm
rules governing amendments, and for that reason
cannot in their second amendment obtain the benefits
of allegations alleged in their proceeding pleadings.
31 Cyc. 558, 389; l Incy. Fed. of Pleading and Prac-
tice, 645. is said in Bourland vs. Sickles, 26 Ill.
; 498: "The party meet present his Case and not leave
it to the court to put his pleadings together, or de—
termine where his amendments should or should not be
inserted.“ ’
-7..

 1 Furthermore, the allegations of this
2nd amended petition are so entirely antagonistic and .
different from the allegations in the pleadings which
proceeded it that the latter are by it nullified and
the plaintiffs are left to their second amended bill
for a complete statement of their cause of action.
The allegations contained in the and amended bill
proceeding the third paragraph thereof are incon-
sistent with and contrary to the allegations of
fraud upon the part of Harkins and the defendant
herein mentioned in the third paragraph of the 2nd
amended bill or mentioned in the_third paragraph of
-the find amenggggbill or mentioned in the proceeding
pleadings to which reference is made in said
third paragraph for the reason that in this 2nd
amended bill it is specifically alleged that all of
the minerals in the whole of the Clear Creek land wem
conveyed by Hiram and Renae Slone to Harkins and no
question or allegation is made of Harkins having mis-
represented the number of acres contained in said
tract of land. It is simply stated that there was
conveyed to him all of the minerals in that tract of
land as a whole in consideration of his services render—
ed as attorney without any allegation that any certain
number of acres of mineral rights for any certain price
per acre was ever conveyed to him. The plaintiffs‘
pleading must be construed according to the rule most
strongly against them as the pleaders; and, therefore,
in View of the allegations first made in the second
amended bill it should be assumed that they rely upon
‘ urea, and they being inconsistent with the allegations
~8-

 1
of the first amended bill which is referred to by the
plaintiffs in the third paragraph of their 2nd amended
the allegations of fraud set up in the first amended bill
bill/which are thus referred to must be disregarded
and considered as not true.
And upon this motion to dismiss the
defendant heregn prays the judgment of the court.
May 51st, 1924.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
' EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY,
CATEETTSBURG.
Slone, et al,
vs. ::: ORDER.
Elkhorn COaI Corporation.
- On motion of the plaintiff, consented
to by the defendant, this cause is set for trial at the
session of this court held at Catlettsburg, on July 10th,
1924.
A. M. J. CCCHRAE, JUDGE.
JUNE 24th, 1924.
-9-

 “ ,M . ‘4
‘ ‘
1. x
C 3
)\
\ .
Prestonsburg, hentucky,
May 22”, 1925.
Jos. D. Harkine,
To
maude Salisbury, Dr.
To oogying record in the case of
H. 3. Slone and others vs. Elk
Horn Coal Corporation,
g10.50
Rendered:
{ C 241 . . ""
m \ 4w“ .
;”W <$ w~ I Q ‘ff
Van-VI: {FL-wqufl> a Eh {I} ,49' i a Wok"?
a}
V ,\ f
flw‘ \ 1‘; ., “‘ V! '.”;m ‘ - V
g" ;; Mex“ {$.21}! “whiz W?flfi*?é
‘ (3

 <2?
New“
IN '12?va [Hill-31) STATES IJISTRICT
COURT SBA-’13 {CL} 311 1318 TH IC T OF KEIT-
TUCKY SITTING- AT CATZETTESBURG,
V ZENTUCKY.
H. s. SLOIIE,
LITT ALONE,
WILL SLOIZBi},
ISABELM Billion/11',
LLBPHA 1.3/£1le All)
B. 17‘. ELLIOTT, Guardian for
i’iOXABELLE ELLIOTT, an Infant
Under 21 years and over 14 years of age,
All heirs at law of
HIRfll Alli!) SUSAN {310131}, 3330313333), PLAINTIFFS.
vs. ,/// BILL IN Eij'JITY FOR PfilTITIi’fl or
l'IIllBPn-XLS .
EEG-CORN COAL CORPORA (£710le , DEFEMAN TS.
, I -
The plaintiffs, H. S. Slone, Litt Slone,
Will Slone, Isabelle Brown, Martha Farley and B. Elliott
C‘rur~>.rdian for Roxabelle Elliott, an infant over fourteen
year of age and under :31 years of age, state that they
are all and the only heirs at law of Hiram Slone and
.iSusan Slone both deceased. They say that they are
‘ all residents of Floyd and Pike Counties in the fiastern
District of Kentucky and nor; residing within the
Jurisdiction of this Court. They say that Hiram Slone
departed this life, domiciled at the time of his death
on Clear Creek in Floyd County, Kentucky, about the year
1917, and that Susan Slone, wife of the said Hiram Slone
and mother of the plaintiffs herein died about the year
1891, and left surviving them these plaintiffs as their
only heirs at law. That their cause of action against ,

 the defendants is concerning certain minerals situated
upon the lands of the said Hiram Slone on Left Beaver A
Greek and upon Clear Creek Fork of same in Floyd
County, Kentucky. The plaintiffs further state that
Sarah Clone a daughter of Hiram Slone, deceased, marn.ed
one B. F. Elliott and from this marriage one child was
born, who is Rosabelle Elliott. That the said B. F.
Elliott is her Guardian, having been duly appointed and
qualified as such as the law requires, certified copies
of the order of the Floyd County Court is filed herewith
as a part of this petition. ,

II

The plaintiffs say that the defendants, I

the Elkhorn Coal Corporation, is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of'Jest Virginia, \
and as such corporation are producers of coal in the
State of hentucky and authorized to contract and be con—
tracted with to sue and be sued in its corporate name
Ehhfiofifi COAL CORPORATION. That the said defendants are
now and have been for more than two years last past oper-
ating a coal mine situated upon the tract of land on
Clear Creek of Left BeaVer Creek in Floyd County, Ken-
tucky, which tract of land is the property of these
plaintiffs by inheritance as heirs at law of Hiram Slone
deceased.

III

The plaintiffs say that in September,

1870, in deed hook "I", at page 62 Floyd County Court
Records, Joshua Tackett and wife sold to Wright Clone

..2- ,

 three tracts of land on Clear Creek of Left Beaver Creek
containing nine hundred and twenty acres according to said
deed and that thereafter and on the 35th day of Noveflber,
1887, Wright Slone sold and conveyed by general warranty
deed as shown by the records in deed Book ”U", page 558
Floyd County Records, all the coal, oil and gas and min-
erals on three tracts.of land on Clear Creek of Left
Beaver in Floyd County, Kentucky, at the consideration
of One Dollar and other Valuable considerations in hand
paid and that thereafter on the 9th day of February,
1889, in Deed Book ”P”, page Ell, Floyd County records,
Wright Slone sold and conveyed unto Hiram Slone for
the consideration of Seven Hundred Dollars theunui-
vided one half of hine Hundred and Forty four acres of
land situaoed on Clear Creek of Left Beaver Creek in
Floyd County, Kentucky, a certified coyy of this deed is
filed herewith and made a part of this record. The
plaintiffs further state that on the 8th day of December,
1387, the said Wright Slone sold to K. F. Slone 450 acres
on Clear Creek of Left Beaver it being the upper one
half of the three tracts owned by the said Wright Slone
purchased of Joshua Tackett in 1870.

The plaintiffs say that Hiram Slone and
K. s. Slone immediately took possession of all three of
the tracts of land situated on the Clear Creek Fork of
Left BeaVer Creek and that they and those under whom
they claim have had the open, actual and adverse and
peaceable possession of the surface of said land and
all the unsold minerals thereon since the year 1890 to
the present time.

-5-

 IV
‘ The-plaintiffs further state that Hinim
Slone deceased and K. T. Slone deceased were the Joint.
owners of all the minerals in all three of the tracts of
land described as containing iin one tract as 60 acres,
i in another tract as 60 acres and in the large tract as
‘ containing 800 acres. That by reason of the deeds for .
the surface from Jright Slone to the said h. F. Slone
for the upper one half of said tract and by deed to
Hiram Slone for the undivided one half of the whole
tract described as 944 acres, the said Hiram alone and
Q. E. Slone thereafter made a parol division of the
lands between themselves the said Hiram Slone entering
'upon the lower one half of the entire boundary and we
, said I. F. Slone entering the upper one half of the whole
‘ boundary and that the said Hiram Slone entered and had the
open, peaceable and adverse possession of said lowertalf
of said boundary until his death aforesaid and that
according to the parol division of the whole tract there
has 441 acres in the loner tract and 441 acres in the
upper tract and that the whole tract containéd by a
survey made after the death of Hiram Slone and K. F.
Slone 882 acres of land.
V
. The plaintiffs say that on the 30th
day of May,la93, Hiram filone and Susan Slone, his wife, ,
and h. F. Slone and Polly Slone, his wife, sold to
Walter S. Harkins, all the coal,,minerals, oils and gases
-4-

 at the purchase price of Fifty Cents per acre and that
on said day the said Slones conveyed to the said Walter
S. Harkins by deed all of the pinerals on a tract of
land situated on Clear Creek of Left Beaver in hloyd

“7 County congaining by a survey made by the said Jalter
3. Harkins, (Row deceased) of 665.48 acres for which'me
said Walter S. Harkins paid to the grantors the sum of
«332.75 for the minerals aforesaid. A certified copy
of said mineral deed is'filed herewith and made a part
of this Bill. V

The plaintiffs say that at the time
of the sale of said minerals to the said Jalter S.
Harkins that he, the said Harhins, had a survey made
of the whole tract owned by Hiram and K. F. Slone.
That the deed so executed described the whole of the
tract of land owned by the said Hiram Slone and K. F. .
Slone by courses and distances made by a surveyor em-
ployed by the said Jalter S. Harkins as containing ex-
actly 665.48 acres and that the said Harkins paid the
said Hiram and K. F. Slone for exactly 665.48 acres and
no more at the price of fifty cents per acre for said
minerals aforesaid. That the said Hiram and K. F. '
Slone relied upon said survey as being true and accepted
the purchase price accordingly. The plaintiffs now
state that they have discovered with the last three years
that the Harkins deed, which has been surveyed out covers
and contains 882 acres instead of 665.48 acres as hereto-
fore stated and that in truth there is in the Hiram
alone lower half of said farm 441 acres and in the upper
K. T. Slone half 441 acres of land and minerals as
aforesaid, in the whole of said tract of land purchased
of fright Slone.
-5-

 at the purchase yrice of Fifty Cents per acre and that
on said day the said Slones conveyed to the said Jalter
S. Harkins by deed all of the minerals on a tract of
land situated on Clear Creek of Left Beaver in hloyd

‘7 County congaining by a survey made by the said Jalter
3. Harkins, (Row deceased) of 665.48 acres for which‘he
said Walter S. Harkins paid to the grantors the sum of
$552.75 for the minerals aforesaid. A certified copy
of said mineral deed is‘filed herewith and made a part
of this Bill.

The plaintiffs say that at the time
of the sale of said minerals to the said Jalter S.
Harkins that he, the said Harhins, had a survey made
of the whole tract owned by Hiram and h. F. Slone.
That the deed so executed described the whole of the
tract of land owned by the said Hiram Slone and K. E. .
Slone by courses and distances made by a surveyor em—
ployed by the said Jalter S. Harkins as containing ex-
actly 665.48 acres and that the said Harkins paid the
said Hiram and K. F. Slone for exactly 665.48 acres and
no more at the price of fifty cents per acre for said
minerals aforesaid. That the said Hiram and h. F. '
Slone relied upon said survey as being true and accep