Boynton v. Brown

Supreme Court of Georgia

Boynton v. Brown

67 Ga. 396

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 15, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 67 Ga. 396 (Boynton v. Brown) 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

Boynton v. Brown, 67 Ga. 396 (Ga. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Crawford, Justice.

An action of ejectment was brought by the heirs at law of James F. Brown, deceased, against J. L. Boynton, upon the trial of which the jury found for the plaintiffs. The defendant moved for a new trial, which the court overruled, and that ruling is alleged as error.

The testimony introduced by the plaintiffs shows that Brown, the deceased, was in possession of the premises in dispute during his lifetime; that he and his family lived there; that he died in possession of them; that the plaintiffs [397]*397were his heirs at law; and that defendant had lived there three or four years since Brown’s death. No testimony was offered by the defendant; he, however, had been introduced as a witness by the plaintiffs, and testified that he claimed title to the premises in dispute from the estate of James F. Brown, deceased. Nothing further was offered on either side.

The grounds upon whicti the defendant claims a new trial are, substantially, that the case should have been non-suited for the want of sufficient evidence to have sent it to the jury; and because the court misconceived the law upon which the rights of the parties turned, and therefore his charges were erroneous. Whether either of these grounds are sufficient to reverse the judgment, depends upon the legal effect of the plaintiffs’ evidence.

A plaintiff in ejectment may recover the premises in dispute upon his prior possession alone, against one who subsequently acquires possession of the land by mere entry, and without any lawful right whatever. Code, §3366.

In this case, the heirs of James F. Brown sue for the recovery of this land; they show that their ancestor lived upon it, and was in possession of it when he died; that the defendant went in after Brown, showing nothing but a mere entry, without any lawful right whatever. Under this proof the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, and it is immaterial whether the instructions given the jury by the court were in strict conformity to law or not, the evidence demanded the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Crawford, Justice.

An action of ejectment was brought by the heirs at law of James F. Brown, deceased, against J. L. Boynton, upon the trial of which the jury found for the plaintiffs. The defendant moved for a new trial, which the court overruled, and that ruling is alleged as error.

The testimony introduced by the plaintiffs shows that Brown, the deceased, was in possession of the premises in dispute during his lifetime; that he and his family lived there; that he died in possession of them; that the plaintiffs [397]*397were his heirs at law; and that defendant had lived there three or four years since Brown’s death. No testimony was offered by the defendant; he, however, had been introduced as a witness by the plaintiffs, and testified that he claimed title to the premises in dispute from the estate of James F. Brown, deceased. Nothing further was offered on either side.

The grounds upon whicti the defendant claims a new trial are, substantially, that the case should have been non-suited for the want of sufficient evidence to have sent it to the jury; and because the court misconceived the law upon which the rights of the parties turned, and therefore his charges were erroneous. Whether either of these grounds are sufficient to reverse the judgment, depends upon the legal effect of the plaintiffs’ evidence.

A plaintiff in ejectment may recover the premises in dispute upon his prior possession alone, against one who subsequently acquires possession of the land by mere entry, and without any lawful right whatever. Code, §3366.

In this case, the heirs of James F. Brown sue for the recovery of this land; they show that their ancestor lived upon it, and was in possession of it when he died; that the defendant went in after Brown, showing nothing but a mere entry, without any lawful right whatever. Under this proof the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, and it is immaterial whether the instructions given the jury by the court were in strict conformity to law or not, the evidence demanded the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 Ga. 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boynton-v-brown-ga-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack