Cagle v. Brady

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cagle v. Brady

24 S.E.2d 865, 69 Ga. App. 162, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 35

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 19, 1943

Docket29986.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 24 S.E.2d 865 (Cagle v. Brady) 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

Cagle v. Brady, 24 S.E.2d 865, 69 Ga. App. 162, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 35 (Ga. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

1. An unascertained or disputed boundary line between two coterminous proprietors may be established by oral agreement if accompanied by actual possession up to the line, or when the agreement is otherwise executed, such as by the marking of the line by monuments, stakes, or blazes, by both parties to the agreement; or it may be established by acquiescence by acts and declarations for seven years. Tietjen v. Dobson, 170 Ga. 123 (152 S. E. 222, 69 A. L. R. 1408), and cit.; Swinson v. Jones, 66 Ga. App. 598 (18 S. E. 2d, 646). However, such a line may not be established by an oral agreement that a line which is not the true line, and which is already marked, shall constitute the line between the parties, for the reason that it violates the statute of frauds, and because it is not by such agreement alone executed by the overt acts of the parties. Miller v. McGlaun, 63 Ga. 435.

2. In this case, while there was evidence that the parties orally agreed on a line that was already marked, there was no evidence that the parties remarked the lines in any way, or that either went into possession up to the line, or that the line so agreed on was established by acquiescence for seven years, evidenced by acts and declarations, or that the agreement was otherwise executed. The judge did not err in charging the jury that there was no evidence that the agreement as to a line was executed, and that the principle of law that a line could be established by agreement was not applicable to this case.

3. The jury was authorized to find that the line as marked and set up by the proeessioners and surveyor was the correct line, and to find in favor of the applicant against the protestant.

4. The court did not err in overruling the protestante motion for new trial. Judgment affii'med.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

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

Felton, J.

1. An unascertained or disputed boundary line between two coterminous proprietors may be established by oral agreement if accompanied by actual possession up to the line, or when the agreement is otherwise executed, such as by the marking of the line by monuments, stakes, or blazes, by both parties to the agreement; or it may be established by acquiescence by acts and declarations for seven years. Tietjen v. Dobson, 170 Ga. 123 (152 S. E. 222, 69 A. L. R. 1408), and cit.; Swinson v. Jones, 66 Ga. App. 598 (18 S. E. 2d, 646). However, such a line may not be established by an oral agreement that a line which is not the true line, and which is already marked, shall constitute the line between the parties, for the reason that it violates the statute of frauds, and because it is not by such agreement alone executed by the overt acts of the parties. Miller v. McGlaun, 63 Ga. 435.

2. In this case, while there was evidence that the parties orally agreed on a line that was already marked, there was no evidence that the parties remarked the lines in any way, or that either went into possession up to the line, or that the line so agreed on was established by acquiescence for seven years, evidenced by acts and declarations, or that the agreement was otherwise executed. The judge did not err in charging the jury that there was no evidence that the agreement as to a line was executed, and that the principle of law that a line could be established by agreement was not applicable to this case.

3. The jury was authorized to find that the line as marked and set up by the proeessioners and surveyor was the correct line, and to find in favor of the applicant against the protestant.

4. The court did not err in overruling the protestante motion for new trial. Judgment affii'med.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 S.E.2d 865, 69 Ga. App. 162, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cagle-v-brady-gactapp-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack