Haley v. Ray

Supreme Court of Georgia

Haley v. Ray

82 S.E. 1058, 142 Ga. 390, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 719

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 18, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 S.E. 1058 (Haley v. Ray) 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

Haley v. Ray, 82 S.E. 1058, 142 Ga. 390, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 719 (Ga. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. The description in a deed was as follows: “all of that tract or parcel of land lying and being in the town of Lavonia, G-a., one improved lot known as lot No. 1 of the Jones & Patrick survey, bounded as follows: on east by Red Hollow Road, on south by 25-foot alley, on the west by above-named survey, and on the north by Mrs. Rhoda Merritt, the said lot measuring one hundred feet front and running back three hundred feet.” Held, that such a deed conveyed only the land described as lot No. 1 of the survey named, and included within the boundaries named in it; and if this did not extend back three hundred feet, the distance would yield to the description by.the number of the lot and its boundaries.

2. If the lot so conveyed did not run back three hundred feet, although the grantor had purchased other adjacent land, one who held under his grantee would not be entitled to recover from him enough of the land adjacent to the lot thus described to make up the difference between the actual depth of such lot and three hundred feet.

3. Under the deed above stated it was competent to apply the description to the subject-matter.

4. Eor that purpose it was competent to show where the rear line of the lot under the survey named was actually located; and that at the time of the sale by the grantor who made the deed above mentioned there was. a fence line standing, which was pointed' out, recognized, and agreed upon as the west line of the lot.

5. Grounds of a motion for a new trial which complain of the admission of evidence, but which do not set out either exactly or substantially the evidence which was so admitted, can not be considered by this court.

S. Some of the charges complained of were not accurate, especially in reference to the subject of intent. But, under the description contained in ■ the deed and the evidence touching the actually located and recognized boundaries of the lot, there is nothing which requires a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Meadow. Franklin superior court. January 31, 1913.

W. R. Little and A. G. & Julian McCurry, for plaintiff. James H. & Parke Skelton, for defendant.

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

Lumpkin, J.

1. The description in a deed was as follows: “all of that tract or parcel of land lying and being in the town of Lavonia, G-a., one improved lot known as lot No. 1 of the Jones & Patrick survey, bounded as follows: on east by Red Hollow Road, on south by 25-foot alley, on the west by above-named survey, and on the north by Mrs. Rhoda Merritt, the said lot measuring one hundred feet front and running back three hundred feet.” Held, that such a deed conveyed only the land described as lot No. 1 of the survey named, and included within the boundaries named in it; and if this did not extend back three hundred feet, the distance would yield to the description by.the number of the lot and its boundaries.

2. If the lot so conveyed did not run back three hundred feet, although the grantor had purchased other adjacent land, one who held under his grantee would not be entitled to recover from him enough of the land adjacent to the lot thus described to make up the difference between the actual depth of such lot and three hundred feet.

3. Under the deed above stated it was competent to apply the description to the subject-matter.

4. Eor that purpose it was competent to show where the rear line of the lot under the survey named was actually located; and that at the time of the sale by the grantor who made the deed above mentioned there was. a fence line standing, which was pointed' out, recognized, and agreed upon as the west line of the lot.

5. Grounds of a motion for a new trial which complain of the admission of evidence, but which do not set out either exactly or substantially the evidence which was so admitted, can not be considered by this court.

S. Some of the charges complained of were not accurate, especially in reference to the subject of intent. But, under the description contained in ■ the deed and the evidence touching the actually located and recognized boundaries of the lot, there is nothing which requires a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Meadow. Franklin superior court. January 31, 1913.

W. R. Little and A. G. & Julian McCurry, for plaintiff. James H. & Parke Skelton, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 1058, 142 Ga. 390, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haley-v-ray-ga-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack