Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Gardner

39 S.E. 299, 113 Ga. 897, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 410
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 19, 1901·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Lewis, J.

1. The verdict was sustained by the testimony. The defendant in error, having gone into possession of the land in dispute under a deed, enclosed it by a fence, and held the undisturbed possession of it for more than twenty years, had a complete prescriptive title and, therefore, the right to resist the trespass of the employees of the railroad company upon the land thus held and occupied.

2. A defendant may amend an answer by withdrawing an admission therein [898]*898made, and after so doing may introduce testimony tending to support the alle.gations of such answer as it stands after the amendment has been allowed.

Argued June 10, Decided July 19, 1901. Equitable petition. Before Judge Brinson. Bichmond. superior court. October 15, 1900. Joseph B. & Bryan Gumming, for plaintiff. William R. Fleming, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Gardner, 39 S.E. 299, 113 Ga. 897, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 410 (Ga. 1901).

39 S.E. 299 (Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Gardner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Richardson v. Hairried
44 S.E.2d 237 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Clarke
2 S.E.2d 608 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Hart v. Kanawha Oil Co.
90 S.E. 604 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1916)
Dulin v. Ohio River Railroad
80 S.E. 145 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1913)
Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Gardner
45 S.E. 600 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Alabama Midland Railway Co. v. Guilford
40 S.E. 794 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)