Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 56
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 56.190 (2026)

What lands may be appropriated -- Effect of previous entry, survey or

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

patent.

(1) Only vacant lands may be appropriated under KRS 56.200 to 56.240. Land that has escheated to the state, or has been forfeited for failure to list it for taxation or for nonpayment of taxes, or has been legally and validly patented before, is not vacant land.

(2) Every entry, survey, or patent is void insofar as it embraces land previously entered, surveyed, or patented, unless the previous entry, survey, or patent itself is void; in which case the first subsequent lawful entry, survey, or patent, whether issued before, on, or after June 13, 1944, shall be valid and be accorded the same force and effect it would have been entitled to have been accorded, had the void entry, survey, or patent never been issued. History: Amended 1944 Ky. Acts ch. 94, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4704.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1943–1963 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Henderson Cnty., 371 S.W.2d 27 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Henderson Cnty., 371 S.W.2d 27 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963). · cites it 3× “Regardless of their respective origins, each was re-enacted in 1942 when the Kentucky Revised Statutes were adopted, and each is currently effective unless we find that a repeal or modification by implication has occurred.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Potter, 330 S.W.2d 934 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959). · cites it 3× “45741 and was issued by the Commonwealth on September 30, 1871, as the result of an appropriation by survey made January 5, 1871, on a warrant from the Clay County Court issued to Justine Ev-ersole and assigned by her to her son, Jesse Eversole, who was the patentee.”
Fletcher Lumber Co. v. Fordson Coal Co., 223 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “KRS 56.190. A tedious recitation of the various calls in the three patents in respect to “Tract Number 1” would mean little or nothing to one who does not have before him the entire record of the testimony, patents, and surveys.”
Gatliff Coal Co. v. Lawson, 247 S.W.2d 375 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952). “” Appellees base their claim to title upon (a) nonpossessory interest obtained by the Isham Lawson patent, and (b) a posses-sory interest because of affinity with the land.”
Walker v. Felmont Oil Co., 136 F. Supp. 584 (W.D. Ky. 1955). · cites it 2× “Is that part of the bed of the Ohio River lying between the thread of the stream and the northern low water line capable of appropriation under the patent procedure as outlined in KRS 56.190 to 56.320? 2. Does Henderson County, Kentucky, a county adjacent to the Ohio River, have…”
Bringardner Lumber Co. v. Bingham, 251 S.W.2d 273 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952). “Aside from being junior in age and void, KRS 56.190(2) it would appear that when the surveyors ran out the lines, although they were described as the Clay-Bell Couuty line, the boundary actually took in a part of Clay County, which, of course, would of itself render the grant…”
Day v. Knuckles, 179 S.W.2d 20 (Ky. Ct. App. 1944). · cites it 2× “This contention is countered by the argument that, under the provisions of KRS 56.190, the Lockhart patent is void, even though it be determined that the.”
Helton v. Day, 291 S.W.2d 535 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 7× “Day, had acquired vested rights in lands which were impaired by* the 1944 amendment to KRS 56.190, thereby making the amendment unconstitutional insofar as it was retroactive.”
Frazier v. Banks, 170 S.W.2d 900 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). “KRS 56.190, Sec. 4704, Ky. Stats. And it is not denied that the possession by Banks and his successors of the land which he .”
Speed v. Turner, 256 S.W.2d 383 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). “KRS 56.190. The dates of entry are not in evidence here, but we do have the dates of survey.”
Hellier Coal & Coke Co. v. Bowling, 272 S.W.2d 651 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “In 1903 what is known as the Bowling patent encompassing this land was issued.”
Virginia Iron, Coal & Coke Co. v. Martin, 341 S.W.2d 589 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). “The Company’s position is that this was a junior patent covering part of the same land patented to John Wigglesworth in 1787.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 56.190(2) — 3 cases
Bringardner Lumber Co. v. Bingham, 251 S.W.2d 273 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952). “Aside from being junior in age and void, KRS 56.190(2) it would appear that when the surveyors ran out the lines, although they were described as the Clay-Bell Couuty line, the boundary actually took in a part of Clay County, which, of course, would of itself render the grant…”
Helton v. Day, 291 S.W.2d 535 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956). “Day, had acquired vested rights in lands which were impaired by* the 1944 amendment to KRS 56.190, thereby making the amendment unconstitutional insofar as it was retroactive.”
Hellier Coal & Coke Co. v. Bowling, 272 S.W.2d 651 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “In 1903 what is known as the Bowling patent encompassing this land was issued.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.