Deal v. George

91 S.E. 407, 146 Ga. 439, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 332
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 14, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 407 (Deal v. George) 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
Deal v. George, 91 S.E. 407, 146 Ga. 439, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 332 (Ga. 1917).

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

1. The facts of this case showed prescriptive title in the plaintiff. The defendants failed to show that any of the land in dispute was covered by the deeds introduced by them. The defendants failed to show possession by any of. the grantors of the land in dispute. Such being the case, it was error to instruct the jury in regard to the law applicable- to - disputed land-lines between coterminous owners.

2. Certain deeds were admitted over objection. On another trial these deeds, or either of them, should be admitted when shown to cover any part of the land in controversy; or they should be rejected if such materiality is not shown.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. Ejectment. Before Judge Worrill. Early superior court. January 8, 1916. Glessner & Collins, for plaintiff. Walter G. Park, for defendant.

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

Related

Boyd v. Hill
96 S.E.2d 222 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Drury v. Drury
60 S.E.2d 375 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 S.E. 407, 146 Ga. 439, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deal-v-george-ga-1917.