Lexplug logoLexplug

Edwards v. Lee

Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
19 S.W.2d 992, 1929 Ky. LEXIS 88, 230 Ky. 375 (1929)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A court order that does not definitively settle the rights of the parties or terminate the controversy, but instead serves as an intermediate step to gather evidence for a future determination, is an interlocutory order, not a final judgment, and is therefore not immediately appealable.


Facts:

  • A plaintiff owned an 86-acre tract of land in Edmonson County, Kentucky.
  • This land adjoined a tract possessed by L. P. Edwards, on which the entrance to the Great Onyx Cave was located.
  • The plaintiff alleged that the Great Onyx Cave extended underground for approximately 5,000 feet beneath his property.
  • Edwards operated the cave as a commercial tourist attraction, charging admission fees to visitors.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff sued L. P. Edwards in the Edmonson circuit court, seeking damages for trespass, an accounting of profits, and an injunction.
  • The plaintiff moved the trial court for an order to survey the Great Onyx Cave.
  • The Edmonson circuit court, a trial court, granted the plaintiff's motion and entered an order of survey.
  • Edwards, the defendant and appellant, objected to the order and appealed it to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the state's highest court at the time.
  • The plaintiff, as appellee, filed a motion in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a trial court's order directing a survey of a cave to determine its location relative to a plaintiff's land a final, appealable judgment?


Opinions:

Majority - Commissioner Tinsley

No. A trial court's order directing a survey of a cave to determine its location is not a final, appealable judgment but is instead a non-appealable interlocutory order. A final judgment is one that definitively settles the rights of the parties and puts an end to the controversy. An interlocutory order, by contrast, is an intermediate step that does not dispose of the case. The order compelling the survey does not decide any contested matter, divest Edwards of any right, or terminate the action. It is merely a procedural step to gather evidence to aid the court in its future determination of the underlying trespass claim, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the fundamental principle of finality in appellate jurisdiction, which promotes judicial efficiency by preventing piecemeal litigation. By classifying a discovery-related survey order as interlocutory, the court prevents parties from using appeals of procedural rulings as a delay tactic. This ensures that a case proceeds to a complete resolution on the merits at the trial level before any part of it is subjected to appellate review, thereby conserving judicial resources and streamlining the litigation process.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Edwards v. Lee (1929) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Edwards v. Lee