Case Name: Lex. & Big Sandy R. R. Co. (Eastern Division) v. Willis Fain
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1867-06-01
Citations: 1 Ky. Op. 618
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lex. & Big Sandy R. R. Co. (Eastern Division) v. Willis Fain.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Opinions, containing the unreported opinions of the Court of Appeals
Volume: 1
Pages: 618–618

Head Matter:
Lex. & Big Sandy R. R. Co. (Eastern Division) v. Willis Fain.
Railroads — Right of Way — Use — Liability of New Corporation — Lien.
Appellee sold a right of way over his land to the railroad corporation for $200, payable in two installments. He failed to collect the amount so due, and the company’s property, bonds, etc., were sold by order of court, and purchased by appellants, a new corporation, organized under a new charter or act of the Legislature. Held, that the new organization cannot be made liable for the debts of the first organization, never having assumed any of its obligations.
Same — Vendor’s Lien — Easement.
The vendor having sold only an easement, the legal title to the land being still vested in himself, he cannot subject the land to a vendor’s lien.
APPEAL EROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT.
Dulin, for Appellant.
D. K. Weis, for Appellee.
June 1, 1867.

Opinion:
Opinion oe the Court by
Judge Williams :
Appellee sold the right of way over his land to the original company chartered as the Lexington & Big Sandy Railroad Company, for $200, to be paid in two equal installments; having failed to collect this before the company failed and its bonds, property, and purchases were sold to appellants, by virtue of a decree of the chancellor, who organized as a new company under another charter or act of the Legislature, he cannot hold this new company responsible for his debts because he did not sell the right to the land but only a right to use the land for the purpose of a railway; therefore he has no vendor's lien and having no lien on the land, because it still legally belonged to himself subject only to the uses as contracted for, he can have no claim against the new company who never in any manner assumed to' pay their debts. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed with directions to dismiss plaintiff's petition against appellants.