Hendrix v. Pirkle

76 S.E.2d 769, 209 Ga. 882, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 439
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hendrix v. Pirkle. Read the opinion of the Court — 208 Ga. 751
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 14, 1953·No. No. 18236·Published

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

Where, as here, the evidence as to the location of the dividing line between the properties of the parties was conflicting, this court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court in overruling a motion for new trial on only the general grounds where there was sufficient evidence to .show the establishment of a dividing line which had been acquiesced in by acts or declarations of the owners for more than thirty years, although there was other evidence to the contrary. Code, § 85-1602; Veal v. Barber, 971 Ga. 555 (30 S. E. 2d, 252), and cases cited therein. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and the general grounds are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P. J., not participating. Wood & Tallant, for plaintiff in error. Leon Boling, contra.

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

Hendrix v. Pirkle, 76 S.E.2d 769, 209 Ga. 882, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 439 (Ga. 1953).

76 S.E.2d 769 (Hendrix v. Pirkle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Veal v. Barber
30 S.E.2d 252 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)