Hicks v. Cherry

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hicks v. Cherry

17 S.E.2d 60, 193 Ga. 4, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 568

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 14, 1941

Docket13898.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 17 S.E.2d 60 (Hicks v. Cherry) 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

Hicks v. Cherry, 17 S.E.2d 60, 193 Ga. 4, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 568 (Ga. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Beix, Justice.

1. “Acquiescence for seven years, by acts or declarations of adjoining landowners, shall establish a dividing line.” Code, § 85-1602. “Where actual possession has been had, under a claim of right, for more than seven years, such claim shall be respected.” Code, § 85-1603. In the instant case, involving the location of a land line, the evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to authorize the verdict for the plaintiff under either or both of the foregoing rules.

2. The first two special grounds of the motion for new trial, complaining only in general terms that the judge failed to submit the issues involved under the pleadings, or to instruct the jury as to the principles of law applicable thereto, were too indefinite to raise any question for determination. Car ter v. Dixon, 69 Ga. 82 (3) ; Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Randolph, 136 Ga. 505 (5) (71 S. E. 887).

3. A ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself. Accordingly, ground 3 of the amendment, while complaining that the court failed to submit a specific contention of the defendant, was incomplete, and insufficient to show error, in that it was not made to appear therein whether such contention was supported by any evidence. Birmingham & Atlantic Air-Line Railroad &c. Co. v. Walker, 101 Ga. 183 (3) (28 S. E. 534); Prescott v. Fletcher, 133 Ga. 404 (2) (65 S. E. 877); Flake v. Bowman, 28 Ga. App. 443 (3) (111 S. E. 747).

4. The court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beix, Justice.

1. “Acquiescence for seven years, by acts or declarations of adjoining landowners, shall establish a dividing line.” Code, § 85-1602. “Where actual possession has been had, under a claim of right, for more than seven years, such claim shall be respected.” Code, § 85-1603. In the instant case, involving the location of a land line, the evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to authorize the verdict for the plaintiff under either or both of the foregoing rules.

2. The first two special grounds of the motion for new trial, complaining only in general terms that the judge failed to submit the issues involved under the pleadings, or to instruct the jury as to the principles of law applicable thereto, were too indefinite to raise any question for determination. Car ter v. Dixon, 69 Ga. 82 (3) ; Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Randolph, 136 Ga. 505 (5) (71 S. E. 887).

3. A ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself. Accordingly, ground 3 of the amendment, while complaining that the court failed to submit a specific contention of the defendant, was incomplete, and insufficient to show error, in that it was not made to appear therein whether such contention was supported by any evidence. Birmingham & Atlantic Air-Line Railroad &c. Co. v. Walker, 101 Ga. 183 (3) (28 S. E. 534); Prescott v. Fletcher, 133 Ga. 404 (2) (65 S. E. 877); Flake v. Bowman, 28 Ga. App. 443 (3) (111 S. E. 747).

4. The court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.E.2d 60, 193 Ga. 4, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-cherry-ga-1941.

Opinion

4. The court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack