Jackson v. Beameguard

Supreme Court of Georgia

Jackson v. Beameguard

69 S.E.2d 772, 208 Ga. 773, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 369

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 10, 1952

DocketNo. 17751

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 S.E.2d 772 (Jackson v. Beameguard) 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

Jackson v. Beameguard, 69 S.E.2d 772, 208 Ga. 773, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 369 (Ga. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. This was a suit to enjoin a trespass by opening a street on lands of the petitioner by two coterminous owners. The special ground contends that the court erred in failing to charge the law concerning the establishment of a dividing line by agreement. The evidence did not authorize a charge on that subject, the only evidence on that matter being that one of the defendants aided a surveyor who was paid by the plaintiff in running and marking a line, without any evidence showing any agreement of the owners that the line thus marked was the true dividing line or that each party thereupon took possession to the line. This ground is without merit. Code, § 85-1602; Warwick v. Ocean Pond Fishing Club, 206 Ga. 680 (58 S. E. 2d, 383).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict in favor of the petitioner. There was evidence to show that the road complained of was being opened by [774]*774the defendants, and that it was on lands belonging to the plaintiff. Accordingly, none of the grounds of the amended motion is meritorious, and the court did not err in overruling the motion.

No. 17751. Submitted February 11, 1952 Decided March 10, 1952. McCall & Griffis, for plaintiffs in error. H. Z. & Edward Parrish, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. This was a suit to enjoin a trespass by opening a street on lands of the petitioner by two coterminous owners. The special ground contends that the court erred in failing to charge the law concerning the establishment of a dividing line by agreement. The evidence did not authorize a charge on that subject, the only evidence on that matter being that one of the defendants aided a surveyor who was paid by the plaintiff in running and marking a line, without any evidence showing any agreement of the owners that the line thus marked was the true dividing line or that each party thereupon took possession to the line. This ground is without merit. Code, § 85-1602; Warwick v. Ocean Pond Fishing Club, 206 Ga. 680 (58 S. E. 2d, 383).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict in favor of the petitioner. There was evidence to show that the road complained of was being opened by [774]*774the defendants, and that it was on lands belonging to the plaintiff. Accordingly, none of the grounds of the amended motion is meritorious, and the court did not err in overruling the motion.

No. 17751. Submitted February 11, 1952 Decided March 10, 1952. McCall & Griffis, for plaintiffs in error. H. Z. & Edward Parrish, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 S.E.2d 772, 208 Ga. 773, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-beameguard-ga-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack