Cartledge v. Seago

Supreme Court of Georgia

Cartledge v. Seago

80 S.E. 290, 141 Ga. 113, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 341

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 11, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 80 S.E. 290 (Cartledge v. Seago) 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

Cartledge v. Seago, 80 S.E. 290, 141 Ga. 113, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 341 (Ga. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

Where processioners were appointed to trace and mark anew the lines around a certain tract of land, which they and the county surveyor proceeded to do, and upon trial of the issue made by a protest to their return the undisputed evidence of the county surveyor was, “What I intended to do was to locate these old lines under the old plat [made by a former surveyor]; I did not pay any attention to who was in possession of the respective tracts, nor anything of that kind; didn’t know anything about that. . . I don’t know if that old plat is correct;” and the undisputed evidence for the protestant was that she and her tenant in common (her husband) had been “living there for 24 years” under color of title and under claim of right, cultivating the greater part of the land in controversy for more than seven years, the return of the processioners under such conditions was not according to the statute. A verdict in favor of the applicants was contrary to law and evidence, and, on motion for hew trial, should be set aside. Civil Code, § 3822; Robson v. Shelnutt, 122 Ga. 322 (50 S. E. 91); Bowen v. Jackson, 101 Ga. 817 (29 S. E. 40) ; Boyce v. Cook, 140 Ga. 360 (78 S. E. 1057). The foregoing ruling being controlling of the case, it is unnecessary to deal specifically with other questions made by the record.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur,

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

Hill, J.

Where processioners were appointed to trace and mark anew the lines around a certain tract of land, which they and the county surveyor proceeded to do, and upon trial of the issue made by a protest to their return the undisputed evidence of the county surveyor was, “What I intended to do was to locate these old lines under the old plat [made by a former surveyor]; I did not pay any attention to who was in possession of the respective tracts, nor anything of that kind; didn’t know anything about that. . . I don’t know if that old plat is correct;” and the undisputed evidence for the protestant was that she and her tenant in common (her husband) had been “living there for 24 years” under color of title and under claim of right, cultivating the greater part of the land in controversy for more than seven years, the return of the processioners under such conditions was not according to the statute. A verdict in favor of the applicants was contrary to law and evidence, and, on motion for hew trial, should be set aside. Civil Code, § 3822; Robson v. Shelnutt, 122 Ga. 322 (50 S. E. 91); Bowen v. Jackson, 101 Ga. 817 (29 S. E. 40) ; Boyce v. Cook, 140 Ga. 360 (78 S. E. 1057). The foregoing ruling being controlling of the case, it is unnecessary to deal specifically with other questions made by the record.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.E. 290, 141 Ga. 113, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cartledge-v-seago-ga-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack