Georgia & Florida Railway v. Swain

90 S.E. 44, 145 Ga. 817, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 495
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 14, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 90 S.E. 44 (Georgia & Florida Railway v. Swain) 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
Georgia & Florida Railway v. Swain, 90 S.E. 44, 145 Ga. 817, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 495 (Ga. 1916).

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

1. An action for land, brought by the administratrix of a deceased grantee in a deed, based the right of recovery of the premises described, from the grantor’s successors, on the following clause (after describing the land conveyed as being all of two given lots of land owned by the grantor, situate in a named county), to wit: “Said [grantor] reserving unto itself, its successors or assigns, in fee simple, a right of way one hundred feet in width, that is, fifty (50) feet on each side of its present tramroad through above lands, for tramroad [818]*818and railroad purposes, and as well one acre at the end of the present tramroad where it joins the right of way of the Southern Railroad, and ‘Y’ connections with said Southern Railroad on each side of said one acre, the said one acre to be computed as part of the land necessary to make said Y’ connections.” Eeld: Giving effect to the intention of the parties as shown from the instrument as a whole, properly construed, this clause reserves in the grantor merely an easement, and does not constitute an exception from the operation of the conveyance a described parcel of land owned by the grantor. The words “fee simple” are descriptive of the extent of duration of the enjoyment of such easement. See L. & N. R. Co. v. Maxey, 139 Ga. 541 (77 S. E. 801), and cases cited.

September 14, 1916. Complaint for land. Before Judge Higbsmith. Jeff Davis superior court. March 25, 1915. W. H. Barrett, J. W. Quincey, Dell & Wilcox, and J. E. Harper, for plaintiff in error. Gordon Knox and J. M. Swain Jr., contra.

2. The allegations of the petition and of the amendment as to the abandonment of the easement were sufficient to withstand the defendant’s general demurrer, and the court properly overruled the same.

Judgment affirmed.

By five Justices, all concurring.

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

Related

Albano v. United States
Federal Claims, 2022
Jackson v. Sorrells
92 S.E.2d 513 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)
Tompkins v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
79 S.E.2d 41 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Jackson v. Crutchfield
191 S.E. 468 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Rogers v. Pitchford
184 S.E. 623 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Johnson v. Valdosta, Moultrie & Western Railroad
150 S.E. 845 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Railway Co. v. County of Coffee
110 S.E. 214 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Mayor of Savannah v. Barnes
96 S.E. 625 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)
Frazier v. Swain
95 S.E. 211 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 S.E. 44, 145 Ga. 817, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-florida-railway-v-swain-ga-1916.