Hart v. Taylor

61 Ga. 156
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 61 Ga. 156 (Hart v. Taylor) 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
Hart v. Taylor, 61 Ga. 156 (Ga. 1878).

Opinion

Jackson, Justice.

The sole question made by this record is, did the justices of the peace, with a jury of twelve men, have jurisdiction to abate the stopping of a way that certain parties claimed as an easement of theirs, by piling up dirt and manure and building fences thereon, as a nuisance ?

The road is described as a neighborhood road, and an effort was made to take it out of the principle ruled in 55 Ga., 310, in the case of Salter vs. Taylor, by arguing that such a road was public, not private.

Without considering the question what difference it would make if it were a public road, it is enough to say that in our view, and under our statutes, such a road is private and not public. See Code, §597 et seq.; also §721 to §741 inclusive. It is so used, too, in common parlance.

So that this case is covered by the case in 55 Ga., above cited, and the principle there ruled rules the case here. That case was deliberately considered and determined by this court, and we are content that it stand as law until • the legislature see fit to change it. No harm that we can see can result from it. If the justices erred, the remedy is by certiorari to the superior court, and thence to this court by bill of exception. So that all the courts are open to the contestants, and the nuisance had as well be tried and determined in that as in any other manner. '

Whether the petition be demurrable or not, and whether the petitioners be entitled to their easement which they claim, or not, we do not now determine. The justices will do right with their j ury upon these questions, and if they do not, parties have their remedy. All that we rule now is, that [158]*158the writ of prohibition, which ought never to be granted except upon a strong case clearly made out, of want of jurisdiction in the court sought to be prohibited, should not have been granted in this case.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Blanchard
173 S.E.2d 103 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
DeLong v. Kent
69 S.E.2d 649 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Jones v. City of Atlanta
149 S.E. 305 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Whiteside v. Croker
142 S.E. 139 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Phinizy v. Gardner
125 S.E. 195 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Jackson v. Calhoun
120 S.E. 114 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
City of Macon v. Anderson
117 S.E. 753 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Simmons v. Lindsay
88 S.E. 199 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Adair v. Spellman Seminary
79 S.E. 589 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)
McCoy v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
62 S.E. 297 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)
Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Co. v. Gill
45 S.E. 623 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Seymour v. Almond
75 Ga. 112 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 Ga. 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-taylor-ga-1878.