Hendrix v. Pirkle

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hendrix v. Pirkle

76 S.E.2d 769, 209 Ga. 882, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 439

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1953

DocketNo. 18236

StatusPublished

This text of 76 S.E.2d 769 (Hendrix v. Pirkle) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E.2d 769, 209 Ga. 882, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendrix-v-pirkle-ga-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack