Howard v. Reedy
This text of 29 Ga. 152 (Howard v. Reedy) 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.
Opinion
By the Court.
delivering the opinion.
We are unwilling to award anew trial in this case. There is proof sufficient to support the verdict, and the Circuit Judge has refused to disturb it.
There is no proof of any actual agreement between the parties, that the line actually run should be the dividing line between them, irrespective of the true line. The line was ran under the idea, as we infer from the testimony, that it was the true line; and the occupation and claim of Howard was always based upon that ground. Plis possession, therefore, originated in, and continued under, a mistake or misapprehension as to the true boundary. Had he known the ¡truth, we are warranted in believing, that he never would have set up a claim to the four and a quarter acres of land in dispute. He never did claim title to but one-half of the tot. On the contrary, after he bought he recognized the paramount title of Reedy. He agreed, when ho reset his fence, to put it upon the true line, and ascribed to his overseer the fault of failing to do so.
Judgment affirmed,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
29 Ga. 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-reedy-ga-1859.