Anthony v. Wright

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Anthony v. Wright

46 S.E.2d 194, 76 Ga. App. 425, 1948 Ga. App. LEXIS 383

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 28, 1948

Docket31844.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 46 S.E.2d 194 (Anthony v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anthony v. Wright, 46 S.E.2d 194, 76 Ga. App. 425, 1948 Ga. App. LEXIS 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinions

Eelton, J.

Processioners only have jurisdiction and authority to ascertain and mark anew old lines which have previously been designated on the surface of the earth. They cannot set up a line otherwise. They cannot set up a line merely shown in a deed or plat, or a compromise line not designated on the earth’s surface. Accordingly, a line sought to be set up by processioners either from deeds or plats, or both, or partially from a deed or plat or both, and partially by arbitrary selection of arbitrary and unmarked lines, corners and termini, was unauthorized. The verdict of the jury upholding the line set up by the processioners was without evidence to support it, and the court erred in overruling the Protestant’s motion for a new trial. See Smith v. Clemons, 71 Ga. App. 589 (31 S. E. 2d, 621), and cit. It is not'necessary to pass on the other questions raised.

Judgment reversed.

Parker, J., concurs. Sutton, C. J., concurs specially:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Eelton, J.

Processioners only have jurisdiction and authority to ascertain and mark anew old lines which have previously been designated on the surface of the earth. They cannot set up a line otherwise. They cannot set up a line merely shown in a deed or plat, or a compromise line not designated on the earth’s surface. Accordingly, a line sought to be set up by processioners either from deeds or plats, or both, or partially from a deed or plat or both, and partially by arbitrary selection of arbitrary and unmarked lines, corners and termini, was unauthorized. The verdict of the jury upholding the line set up by the processioners was without evidence to support it, and the court erred in overruling the Protestant’s motion for a new trial. See Smith v. Clemons, 71 Ga. App. 589 (31 S. E. 2d, 621), and cit. It is not'necessary to pass on the other questions raised.

Judgment reversed.

Parker, J., concurs. Sutton, C. J., concurs specially:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 S.E.2d 194, 76 Ga. App. 425, 1948 Ga. App. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-v-wright-gactapp-1948.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack