Baldwin v. McLendon

138 S.E. 775, 164 Ga. 387, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 198
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 23, 1927
DocketNo. 5578
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 138 S.E. 775 (Baldwin v. McLendon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baldwin v. McLendon, 138 S.E. 775, 164 Ga. 387, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 198 (Ga. 1927).

Opinions

Bussell, C. J.

Baldwin brought his petition against McLendon, alleging that he was the owner of a described tract of land in Terrell County, known as the “S. W. Cozart place,” containing 333 acres, more or less, under deed from Mrs. S. Y. Cannon of date November 1, 1906, conveying the premises to petitioner; that since receiving the’deed he had been in open, notorious, exclusive, quiet, and peaceable possession of said tract of land; that recently the defendant McLendon undertook to negotiate with petitioner for [388]*388the timber which is on a portion of said land, bnt petitioner notified him he did not care to sell the timber, and declined to enter into any contract with him; but that nevertheless McLendon was about to enter possession of the premises and to cut certain described timber thereon. He prayed that McLendon be enjoined from cutting the timber. The case has hitherto appeared in this court, and all material facts are stated in Baldwin v. McLendon, 161 Ga. 636 (131 S. E. 361). When the case was here before, the judge of the lower court had charged, just as in the trial now under review, that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff:. This court then held: “The defendant’s claim of title under the lease executed by plaintiff was an admission of plaintiff’s title, which, in connection with the further admission of an intention to cut and remove the timber, admitted a prima facie case: It was therefore erroneous to charge the jury that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff.” Upon this single ground the case was sent back for another trial. We think the principle ruled was sound; but even if it can be conceded that such is not the ease, it is nevertheless the law of this case.

The second and third headnotes do not require elaboration. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

United States v. Allen
536 F. Supp. 222 (M.D. Georgia, 1982)
Lansdale Clothes, Inc. v. Wright
125 S.E.2d 502 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1962)
Burnam v. Wilkerson
124 S.E.2d 389 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1962)
Shivers v. Shivers
111 S.E.2d 376 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1959)
Jolly v. Jones
40 S.E.2d 558 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Durham v. Crawford
26 S.E.2d 778 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Baldwin v. McLendon
153 S.E. 18 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 S.E. 775, 164 Ga. 387, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-mclendon-ga-1927.