Henrietta Egleston Memorial Hospital v. Groover

Supreme Court of Georgia

Henrietta Egleston Memorial Hospital v. Groover

43 S.E.2d 246, 202 Ga. 327, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 435

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 10, 1947

Docket15825.

StatusPublished

This text of 43 S.E.2d 246 (Henrietta Egleston Memorial Hospital v. Groover) 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

Henrietta Egleston Memorial Hospital v. Groover, 43 S.E.2d 246, 202 Ga. 327, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 435 (Ga. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Wyatt, Justice.

1. The plaintiff in error raises only two questions in this court. It is contended (1) that a certain plat was not admissible in evidence; (2) that, since the findings of the examiner were based upon this plat, the evidence did not authorize the findings.

Was the plat admissible in evidence? The man who made the plat testified to its correctness. True it is he testified that in making the plat he examined the deeds of record and numerous other plats, some of which were not in evidence. It is also true that the plat did not show on its face the angles at which the lines were run. We think that the examination of deeds and other plats of the property to be platted by the author of the plat in question was not objectionable; on the contrary, it was proper. Moreover, two other witnesses, who testified that they were familiar with the property in question and had been for a number of years, testified that the lines as they appeared on the plat in question were correct. We do not think that the mere fact that the degrees at which the lines were run did not appear on the plat made it inadmissible in evidence. There was no error in admitting the plat in evidence.

2. The other contention presented is that the report of the examiner was without evidence to support it. It is contended that the findings were based entirely on the plat referred to in division one of this opinion; that the plat was not admissible in evidence, hence the findings were entirely without evidence to support them. In the first place, we have ruled that the plat was admissible in evidence. The correctness of the line in dispute, as it appeared from the plat, was testified to by two witnesses other than the surveyor who made the plat. Moreover, the examiner testified *329 that he made a personal inspection oí the property and an investigation of his own as to the location oí the line in dispute, as he had a right to do. See 6a. L. 1917, p. 116, sec. 20. There was evidence to support the findings of the examiner.

It follows from what has been said above that there was no error in the judgment complained of.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Wyatt, Justice.

1. The plaintiff in error raises only two questions in this court. It is contended (1) that a certain plat was not admissible in evidence; (2) that, since the findings of the examiner were based upon this plat, the evidence did not authorize the findings.

Was the plat admissible in evidence? The man who made the plat testified to its correctness. True it is he testified that in making the plat he examined the deeds of record and numerous other plats, some of which were not in evidence. It is also true that the plat did not show on its face the angles at which the lines were run. We think that the examination of deeds and other plats of the property to be platted by the author of the plat in question was not objectionable; on the contrary, it was proper. Moreover, two other witnesses, who testified that they were familiar with the property in question and had been for a number of years, testified that the lines as they appeared on the plat in question were correct. We do not think that the mere fact that the degrees at which the lines were run did not appear on the plat made it inadmissible in evidence. There was no error in admitting the plat in evidence.

2. The other contention presented is that the report of the examiner was without evidence to support it. It is contended that the findings were based entirely on the plat referred to in division one of this opinion; that the plat was not admissible in evidence, hence the findings were entirely without evidence to support them. In the first place, we have ruled that the plat was admissible in evidence. The correctness of the line in dispute, as it appeared from the plat, was testified to by two witnesses other than the surveyor who made the plat. Moreover, the examiner testified *329 that he made a personal inspection oí the property and an investigation of his own as to the location oí the line in dispute, as he had a right to do. See 6a. L. 1917, p. 116, sec. 20. There was evidence to support the findings of the examiner.

It follows from what has been said above that there was no error in the judgment complained of.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 S.E.2d 246, 202 Ga. 327, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henrietta-egleston-memorial-hospital-v-groover-ga-1947.